ddoubleez

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Keep bring it up and I will knock it down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fmb

'Sup, deez?? I've never given much credence to the idea of a warmer period predating the little ice age; there is so much evidence (paintings, other works of art, literature) supporting the cooler period, the little ice age cannot be rebuffed.

For the most part, I generally believe NOAA!

Krasch

And of course because the NOAA says so, it must automatically be true...

/sarcasm off;

It's also worth mentioning that you're pretty selective with your quotes.

From the same page (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/glob...g/medieval.html):

"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

If there aren't records to reconstruct mean temperature prior to 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence, then ANY conclusion regarding said temperature and the possible existence of a Medieval Warm Period is simply put, equivocal.

It would be the same as taking a photograph for 1/60 of a second once every minute during a thunderstorm and saying that no lightning hit the ground simply because the photos don't show it on film. There's not enough data.

But what's the chance no lightning really hit the ground? Zero? I think not, not even close.

If there was no Medieval Warm Period...

• How did the Vikings take advantage of suddenly ice-free seas to colonize Greenland?
• Why do sediments from the Piermont Marsh in the lower Hudson Valley indicate one?
• What about the prolonged droughts in many parts of the Western United States during that period?
• What about the radiocarbon dated box core from the Sargasso Sea that shows sea temperatures 1 degree Celcius warmer than today? (and 1 degree cooler during the following Little Ice Age)
• Why were they able to grow wine grapes in Southern Britain at the time?

Granted, that's all mostly qualitative data not directly related to mean temperature, but it certainly paints a picture that points toward the existance of a MWP. But of course, you and the NOAA have spoken so it can't exist.

What it really means is that the NOAA doesn't have data to reconstruct mean temperature with a high degree of confidence, so they formed an opinion and stated a conclusion. Of course, people used to look at the Sun passing over the sky and concluded the Earth was the centre of the universe and they were right too.

Right?

That's REALLY the point.

Objectively, you might be right. And there's just as much chance you're dead wrong. And that possibly is something you just don't seem to want to admit

ddoubleez

The grow grapes there now.... And there are very simple answers to most of you questions....

Ocean currents.....

A change in ocean pattern can have HUGE influence on MICRO climates, as they do right now.....

Why don't you look at the lattitude of Europe and ask yourself why canada does not enjoy the same weather as europe.....

ddoubleez

ddoubleez

ddoubleez

ddoubleez

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change


The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy

George Monbiot
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian


Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline - Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein - took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today's crank has often proved to be tomorrow's visionary.

But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo.

The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.

The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots.

Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.

So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.

So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.

As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work," Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness that we have seen." None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.

The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.

Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."

Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers, shriek "censorship!". This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.

But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was "completely misrepresented" by the programme, and "totally misled" by the people who made it.

This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.

Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.

But for the film's commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited - such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.

Krasch

Whatever, bud.

You're going to believe the scientists you want, and I do the same. The fact that they don't agree is a minor quibble.

It still doesn't mean either one of us can't end up being wrong. But you'd never admit that.

ddoubleez

You are believing scientists that have a vested intrest in the continuous use of fossil fuels......

The points you bring up are a guideline to disagreeing with sound science.....

The logic these people are using is if hydrocarbons were not burned in the past and there was a warming, it could not be the reason it is happening now.... Cheese logic.....

I know that caltech is a second rate university that have the dumbest scientists in the world, but why don't you watch a lecture.... No Al Gore, no politics, just strait science.... 20 minustes into it will put things in perspective, but I recommed the entire thing....

http://today.caltech.edu/theater/19922_cable.ram

zpr

Are you saying that fossil fuel are the are the only cause of global climate changes?

BackdoorJesus

Not the only cause, but yes, the primary cause.

There are trillions of barrels of oil still underground, meaning that there's a hell of a lot of money yet to be made before we move on to another less harmful fuel source, and that is why so many well-funded (oil-funded) individuals & organizations are in the business of discrediting & downplaying the damaging effects of global climate change.

I want more nuclear power plants to power our houses & to charge our electric cars in our garages overnight. Wonder why we don't have that yet? We sure do have the technology. Fucking France gets like better than 60% of their energy from nuclear plants. How could we let those freakin' tools get ahead of us in that area??? Oh yeah that's right - they don't have dozens of huge oil companies lobbying their fucking uppity politicians.

___________________________________________

zpr

So it's the oil companies stopping us from using nuclear power? So it has been oil companies protesting the use of nuclear power? Its oil companies using the near critical meltdown of three mile island as fodder to shut down other power plants? All this time I thought is was environmentalists. So I'm guessing that there is no money to be made with alternative fuels? There are no politicians that stand to make a dime when we stop using fossil fuels? Will the use of bio-diesel help to stop the changing climate? Are batteries really safe enough to have that many in every car traveling down the road? What is the effect of a ruptured battery in an electric car? There is money to be made on both sides so you might as well quit saying that only scientists that are paid by oil companies are debunking global warming.

Krasch

I never identified which scientists I'm siding with, YOU are the one talking about vested interests.

A guideline for disagreeing with sound science. Well obviously it's unsound because you disag