http://news.mongabay.com/2010/1214-nasa_global_warming_map.html
They picked the ice age scare period as their baseline, because they are only interested in honest science.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
I wonder how they figured that one out.
However What difference does it make as that is a display of natural long term weather. Some decades will be warmer and some cooler.
Here’s the same sort of a selective start date in Australia:
Nothing could illustrate this point better than the recent pamphlet produced by our hitherto highly-respected and trustworthy CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology to emphasise this point and to alarm the public into supporting yet more government funding no doubt.
In the pamphlet we were told that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is causing Australia’s climate to get dryer, as demonstrated by a Bureau of Meteorology chart for the period 1960 – 2009 (Disaster!).
What was not shown was the identical chart for the period 1900 – 2009 (Ho-hum: nothing much has changed in a hundred years!).
Note the significant – and scientifically more relevant – time scale difference in the unpublished chart!
This is known colloquially as ‘cherry-picking’, and has much in common with the more recently revealed practice of ‘homogenising’ data. ‘Fudging’, if you prefer! ‘Making it up as you go along’ could also be an apt description!
The recent heavy, drought-breaking extensive rains have made a further mockery of this misinformation!
(U.S. Citizens: Please note the CORRECT spelling of several words! And perhaps I should reemphasise this point!)
I caught it Michael 😉
So there was ice age in the 70s in the northern hemisphere, much colder than current mini-ice age in the NH.
Brace yourself Minnesota:
Another big one coming across America.
http://www.weather.gov/sat_tab.php?image=ir
h/t Pamela Gray
it wasn’t much here in MT – light precip, then a squall line and pffftt
But it looks like a storm going all the way into the Pacific. Could take days to end.
“the 1977-78 cold wave was the coldest winter on record in the lower 48, with every state seeing well below average temperatures.”
and it snowed in South Florida……….
this is amusing
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/26130024/detail.html
And winter starts in 7 days!
Blind to anything that contradicts what you think you already know, as usual. You don’t recognise global warming when it’s staring you in the face – as in the pics you show.
The article you refer to also contains this: “The space agency reports that the average global temperature has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. About two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.”
So hey, if you choose 1880 as your benchmark, it also got warmer.
But never mind evidence, hey? If it doesn’t support your preconceived ideas, discard it as fabrications. Do remain stuck in your conspiracy theories.
S S:
You can find whatever you want by Carefully picking your dates and especially methods.
I know, I see that daily on this blog! That said, it often takes a lot of creative interpretation…
SO! S S:
How much warmer is it now than it was 8 thousand years ago?
Two Thousand years ago during the Roman Warm period?
How about 120 thousand years ago?
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years
Good point, Mike. Good map you got there, too. It shows a lot of interesting things.
1. It hasn’t been this warm for over 100 000 years.
2. CO2 is currently also very high. And the lastest is not even on the map: The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately 390 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of 2010 and rising by about 1.9 ppm/yr. 390 ppm – that’s off the scale in the figure you referred to.
3. In fact, CO2 and average temperature correlate very well.
4. The text adds: “These rapid changes suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks. ”
2+4 make it likely that things are going to heat up beyond anything seen in the past 400 000 years. And fast!
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 4:34 am
1. It hasn’t been this warm for over 100 000 years.
Wrong.
It was warmer in earth 1000 years ago when Viking lived in Greenland. There is evidence from all over the world for this. Your decimal place is off.
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 4:34 am
3. In fact, CO2 and average temperature correlate very well.
You meant warming causes co2 to rise. Cooling causes co2 to fall. Cp2 following temperature does have a correlation. But not vice versa. That is what the graphs show.
Global warming fantasies show the opposite—which is what you believe.
Oh dear, panic in the joint – things are getting out of hand – so enter Amino.
Yes Amino, that’s what I believe. Along with virtually all the scientists who studied the issue. But no matter.
That’s not to say that other half of the feedback loop that you describe isn’t equally true, for all I know.
And Amino, 1000 years ago isn’t even visible on the chart shown. We’re talking big picture here.
I wasn’t following your chart.
So let’s make it absolutely clear:
You are saying it was cooler on earth 1000 years ago than it is now?
No hints, make it clear, yes or no.
So, let’s not mince words:
you are saying that in the geologic record co2 rise came first before temperature rise, and co2 falling came before temperature falling?
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 4:53 am
And Amino, 1000 years ago isn’t even visible on the chart shown. We’re talking big picture here.
I just looked at your graph. Yes, it is visible. You can see the Holocene, Roman, and Medieval warm before present. There is a downturn in temps right after the Medieval. It is such a short time period from then until now in the graph that it shows up as a double think line.
“You are saying it was cooler on earth 1000 years ago than it is now? No hints, make it clear, yes or no.”
The available evidence suggests that yes, on average across the globe, it is now warmer than it was a thousand years ago.
Whereas it was warm in the northern Atlantic region, it was cooler elsewhere. But even in the N-Atlantic, it is now warmer than it was a 1000 years ago.
Furthermore, we know ,why it was relatively warm during that Medieval Warming Period: higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity.
You can read it all, with the references to the literature and an informative graph (also peer-reviewed), here.
Now, in contrast, solar activity is low and it is CO2 that is driving up the heat.
You can read it all, with the references to the literature
There is reference to one thing:
The Hockey Stick graph—yippie, what a new and exciting angle. You threw a curve at me. Who woulda ever thought you’d use the Hockey Stick graph? Gosh, you’re the man! Everything feels so fresh and new right now, like the smell in the morning after a snowfall. Sublime, that’s the word I’d use to describe this moment. Scintillating to talk to you. What a memorable day. Oh, that I’d meet a 1000 like you—because I just haven’t had the chance too. What the world needs is more of that trusty Hockey Stick graph—and the people who can’t stop talking about it. This night is really profound. And to think, it’s me experiencing it. Where’s the Kleenex? I’ve never won anything before. The cosmic tumblers fell in to place here and I’m the lucky one. Ohh, the color I am experiencing at this moment. It’s like those fireworks moments in the movies. Global warmers, they’re like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get, really, you can never know,it’s like you’ve never seen them before every time you meet another one. And I got the best tonight! I feel I am the luckiest man in the world! Thanks, just thanks, is all I can say for you revealing this thing to me, the Hockey Stick graph. Such a great surprise. I’m spoiled now for everything else. No thing ever in this world will match this……… I need a moment to collect myself from the overwhelming emotions I have now……
But wait, that’s not all—the festivities continue, the euphoria is just beginning—-you linked to John Cook’s web site! Yes, you did! Wow! He’s that 700 scientists guy, that became the 39, that became the 1, and he’s that 1! Let’s all stop and savor this delicious slice of time…. who would want to live at any other time in history than this one and miss what I see now…. all I can say is I pity all those not here with me right now to join in this rare feeling of blessedness……… no words can really describe it all……. what can one say but “Sense Seeker”…… and all the other CLONES JUST LIKE HIM
Anyway, back to the real world.
Mann’s work is your only proof. So what you are doing is shutting out 100’s of peer reviewed works about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so you can say the Hockey Stick is right. Congratulations for nothing.
Very long posting, Amino, but you’re again dodging the question. As usual. In your whole ridiculous rant there is not a shred of evidence, only a feeble dismissal of Cook and Mann.
However, the hockey-stick was by Moberg et al and published in Science. Mann isn’t on the list of authors.
Furthermore, many others, using different data and techniques, have confirmed the hockey stick pattern in global temperatures.
Meanwhile, still no evidence from you, Amino. But then again, you no longer need evidence, you already know, don’t you Amino?
Shame on you! Be quiet or you’ll upset the children!
Sorry. Just having fun…
No, you are pushing propaganda. Oh, I see, doing that is fun to you.
No Amino, you keep twisting things around. Propaganda is repeathing things irrespective of whether there’s evidence for them. That’s what you do.
Repeating your ‘propaganda’ mantra every time you can’t win a rational argument is a very poor strategy. But then, that’s all you can come up with, hey?
Repeating your ‘propaganda’ mantra every time you can’t win a rational argument is a very poor strategy
What argument have I lost?
Repeating your ‘propaganda’ mantra every time you can’t win a rational argument is a very poor strategy
I don’t have a ‘strategy’. This isn’t debate class.
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 4:57 am
No Amino, you keep twisting things around. Propaganda is repeathing things irrespective of whether there’s evidence for them. That’s what you do.
What have I said without evidence?
lol, Amino is being nice to you! The MWP wasn’t confined to the North Atlantic, and this is well known.
Peer’s repeating bloviations other peers have bloviated doesn’t mean its correct. If anything this debacle of science called climatology shows this to be true.
This is a typical warmist tactic. There is no written history, so you can say whatever you want about Oz, Africa, and South America….its just like extrapolating temperatures where there aren’t thermometers………..at least the ones we don’t read.
………….F’n archeologists/geologists!!!! If they’d just get on board!
Tired, and work comes early……..nite all!
LOL, Amino being nice? Do me a favour.
And “this is well known” is no evidence.
Sleep tight.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf
Thank you, Suyts, for that reference. At the end of the abstract, it says: “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ?1600 years.”
Hey, no prob, that’s what I’m here for!…lol.
True, it does say that, of course, we should remember, I provided this to show that the MWP wasn’t confined to North Atlantic. I’ve more, Indonesia and China even. I figured because this was peered reviewed, you’d find it a bit more palatable. Now, as to the proxies showing “unprecedented” warming……..
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/6695?confirm=63ebfddf
This is the most recent buzz on proxy reliability…..don’t blame me, Mann started it! Anyway, for some reason, there is a graphic on page 21 that seems to lock up every other adobe reader. You may have to skip those pictures. But they aren’t necessary to understanding the study.
Suyts, the study you send is interesting, but from what I understand it has only been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, not published. So it doesn’t really count (yet).
Second, the conclusion is: “Our model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered in this setting.” So they really find the same as everybody else (i.e., the famous hockey stick), except with more uncertainty. That hardly disproves the hockey stick – if that was what you were after.
It was published a few months ago, in fact, the journal did an interesting thing, they published it, and then invited interested parties to comment/critique the study, and then allowed M&W to respond to the critiques. WUWT has posted links to all comments/critiques and M&W’s response. Some of them, even though short in comparison to studies, are heavy statistical lifting (for me anyway), but some are clear, concise, and easy to follow. Some actually offer criticism that was answered in the study. (apparently, some only read what they want and disregard the rest.)
lol, no, I wasn’t getting at the hockey stick, that’s been beat down so much its hardly worth mentioning. We were discussing the MWP, this study specifically addresses the lack of the MWP in the hockey stick. In section 5.5, this is what the study states, ….
“This is disturbing: if a model cannot predict the occurrence of a sharp run-up in an out-of-sample block which is contiguous with the insample training set, then it seems highly unlikely that it has power to detect such levels or run-ups in the more distant past. It is even more discouraging when one recalls Figure 15: the model cannot capture the sharp run-up even in-sample. In sum, these results suggest that the ninety-three sequences that comprise the 1,000 year old proxy record simply lack power to detect sharp increase in temperature.”
In other words, the authors seem to think the proxies aren’t very good at determining specific temps and runs(up or down), but rather general trends. Note the tilt of their graph. Voila, MWP reoccurs using the proxy data, only not in the sine wave pattern, because the proxies can’t detect such sharp turns.
Of course, there’s been a great deal of criticism from the alarmist camp, but most of it has been asked and answered!
Naturally, though, since you brought it up, the hockey stick is self-deflating. Recall, the hockey stick came from Mann’s interpretation of the same proxies used in not just M&W, which you’ve just perused, but also, replicated in IPCC literature. If you aren’t clear, I’m referencing Jones’ infamous “Mike’s trick to hide the decline” e-mail. The “decline”, of course, was the divergence of proxy data from real temps. The proxy data declining. THE SAME EXACT PROXY DATA USED IN MM’S STUDIES!!
In the end, it wasn’t the skeptics that killed the hockey stick, it was the climatologists themselves that invalidated the hockey stick………But that’s for a book I think I’ll write!
Sorry for the length of the post, but I thought it worth mentioning. I would appreciate feedback. If there are any discrepancies anyone can find with this post, I would especially appreciate feedback.
Suyts,
Interesting that the journal put up a paper before peer-review. Call me conservative, but for me that paper therefore hasn’t got the credibility of peer-reviewed literature. I also think it is a dangerous move, because if you allow anything to be published with the journal’s name attached to it, that name is no longer a guarantee for quality. Also, you get lots of weak work, which can then be cited by other weak work, etc. So as a reader I’d have to go through the comments to each of the references to see if they are valid. That’s undoable, so this makes it harder to distinguish valid work from bogus claims.
It also gives vested interests an excellent opportunity to promote bogus articles as valid stuff – If this goes ahead, I am sure the fossil fuel industry (Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil, etc.) will pump lots of money into creating a whole body of quasi-science ‘proving’ that climate change either isn’t happening, isn’t due to CO2, or is altogether a great thing for humanity.
Furthermore, the fact that you seem to think Mann’s hockey stick graph has been proven erroneous gives me no confidence at all. It has been rejected in plenty of denialist blogs, sure, but in the real world it stands as never before.
And you have not proven that it was warmer 1000 years ago. At most you have shown that past temperature records are uncertain and debated.
Sense, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. However, I’d like to points some specific things out, and get your response, hopefully.
First, it isn’t correct to say the article wasn’t “peer reviewed”. The journal has a different process than climate science journals, but a peer review process nonetheless. The process is stated here by the editor. Its worth a read. Additionally, if you go here you’ll see an additional peer review process in terms of 15 separate reviews! Believe it or not, science has progressed before and after climatology. They don’t have the market on review processes and much can be, and has been, made of the failings of climatology’s review processes. It isn’t the only way, nor, has it ever been the most productive way to conduct science.
It isn’t “undoable” to check the references to the points one may find contentious. I did. You don’t have to check all footnotes and SI, just the assertions that you may find in question.
You stated, “I am sure the fossil fuel industry (Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil, etc.) will pump lots of money into creating a whole body of quasi-science ‘proving’ that climate change either isn’t happening, isn’t due to CO2, or is altogether a great thing for humanity.”
Sense, perhaps I misjudged. I thought by now it was generally a given that the fossil fuel industry was a major fund reservoir for the alarmist community. Most of the references are on my computer at work, but I can, if you wish provide links that show Shell, BP, Caterpillar, utilities of NE U.S. and even Exxon has funded much alarmist science and were principal investors in the carbon credit schemes. If one thinks about it, you’ll come to realize why, that’s a side issue, but one I’d be very happy to go into detail about.
You stated, “Furthermore, the fact that you seem to think Mann’s hockey stick graph has been proven erroneous gives me no confidence at all. It has been rejected in plenty of denialist blogs, sure, but in the real world it stands as never before.”
Either I was too subtle, or you’ve intentionally ignored my point. I’ll try to rephrase as plain as I can be.
Mike Mann, created the hockey stick graph from proxy data such as tree rings. This is known and given on both sides of the argument. Phil Jones offered the same graph using the same proxy data to (and was printed in) the IPCC report. Only, in the e-mails, Phil references “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. The decline referenced is the divergence of the proxy data from the real temps. The tree rings show a decline in global temperature in the last 50 years. So the proxy data is graphed up until the last 50 years, then thermometer data is (heh) grafted to the graph.
Those last 3 sentences are well known, documented and accepted, even in the alarmists camps.
Sense, it isn’t me that is asserting the hockey stick is wrong, it is Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and the rest of the team. How valid is a graph that uses 2 distinct different methods to measure the same thing? None of the above mentioned will try to argue that a tree ring is = to a thermometer. Its like equating a thermometer in a bucket off of the ships bow to a satellite reading.
What Phil did was combine two different data sets gathered by two different methods, measured by two different instruments, into one graph. Phil and the IPCC says this was shown. OK, but he still used “Mike’s trick” to make it occur. So, Mike, either did the same “trick”, or Phil and Gavin’s interpretation of the exact same data diverge so much from Mann’s that the stick is inverted. I don’t see any other explanation. It isn’t me or anyone else, but rather Mike, Gavin and Phil that has shown this.
No, I haven’t shown that it was warmer. One or two or 3 steps at a time! I have shown where there is reason to believe that 1) a MWP existed. 2) That there is reason to believe that it wasn’t confined to the north Atlantic. and 3) Mann’s interpretation of the proxy data either diverged from Jones or they used the same methodology to graph entirely different datum into one graph.
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
it’s staring you in the face
Graphs show natural variation, showing everything is normal. That’s what you mean? You don’t see natural variability? If you’d look at the whole picture and quit cherry picking what you look at you’d see natural variability is happening in climate.
oh come on. sure it warmer since 1880.. and colder..and warmer.
were in the middle of an ice age for crying out loud.
let’s see, it was warmer than now in the 30’s. it was warmer than the 30’s in the medieval optimum. it was warmer than the medeival optimum during roman optimum. we’ll skip a few… it was warmer than the roman optimum during the holocene optimum. the eemian was warmer than the holocene optimum.
we’re on the cold side of a cold interglacial, and you want us to worry about possibly adding a degree of insulation????
Sense Seeker says:
December 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
About two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975
…………….
You global warmers just love to pick out that date.
That time is commonly known as when the Great Pacific Climate Shift started. It was a natural variation in climate. That’s what it has always been known as. At least it was that until your ilk came along with your tabloid science and screamed bloody murder about global warming.
You are a clone, Sense Seeker. You say nothing original. You are repeating everything the global warming crowd has always said. Everything you have said the past few days are exactly the same things others like you have said, exactly. You guys are unimaginative, I can count on that, like the sunrise. At some point you are going to reach the end of the prerecorded rebuttals that are found on the internet and you will disappear, rarely, if ever, coming back to comment, just like all others like you have done.
You are a clone. You say nothing original.
I think I hear a broken record here. I’m not out to be original; I’d rather stick to the evidence.
But about rebuttals, see my direct answer to your direct question about medieval warming above.
The Hockey Stick graph. Figures.
Yes, the clone answer.
The list of rebuttals is now shorter. You’ll be gone soon.
That’s not an evidence based answer, Amino…! I am disappointed in you. First you accuse me of dodging direct questions, only to do it the next minute yourself.
So I’ll repeat the question for you: where is the evidence that it was warmer 1000 years ago?
Sense,
There are just as many references (if not more) that show MWP temps as warm or higher than today. Here’s a recent one showing temps could have been 1C higher than today during the MWP.
It also shows temps during the Minoan Warming period 1C higher & the previous interglacial period, approximately 130,000 years ago could have been up to 4C higher.
All with lower CO2 levels.
And I have to ask this question…As a “seeker of sense”, do you not find it odd that the people putting forth the AGW hypothesis routinely compare today’s temperature to “the 1800s” and “the 1970s”, two unusually cool periods in recent history?
IMHO, the more one looks for “sense” in AGW, the more skeptical one becomes.
Robb, your article is about weather patterns in Antarctica and I don’t see how it shows it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now. If it does, please show me exactly where.
Also ‘could have been’ in a single study mostly indicates low precision.
The fact that it has been warm in the past with lower or similar CO2 levels does not prove CO2 doesn’t cause warming – solar activity, volcanic activity and other factors also play a role.
SS,
“If it does, please show me exactly where”
Since you like to be spoon fed, please see the charts on page 151 for the temperature reconstructions.
“Also ‘could have been’ in a single study mostly indicates low precision”
Stop! You almost made coffe come out my nose with that one! Coming from a AGW supporter this statement is ridiculous. The whole of “peer reviewed” AGW promoting literature is filled with “could”s, “may” & “might”s. Its been a big complaint of the skeptic community.
“The fact that it has been warm in the past with lower or similar CO2 levels does not prove CO2 doesn’t cause warming”
You’re right ti doesn’t prove CO2 doesn’t cause warming. But nothing proves it does either. That’s the point! The AGW hypothesis (and that’s all it is) has not been proven. Heck it can’t even be reliably tested. And I hate to point this out (because its been done ad nauseum, but the burden of proof lies on the originator of the hypothesis, not the opponents.
So, “The fact that it has been warm in the past with lower or similar CO2 levels does not prove CO2 doesn’t cause warming” while true, does take away from the validity of the AGW hypothesis. As does the fact that there was no “runwaay warming” while CO2 levels were much higher than the present. As does the fact that there is no tropospheric hotspot that should be there if the AGW hypothesis was correct. As do many other facts and observations.
Where is your proof? You’re on the “side” where its required.
SS – here’s one of many papers which show the MWP was warmer than now (and not only confined to Europe):
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/274/5292/1503.abstract
And since you like curves how about this one:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
which clearly suggests the long term trend (for the last 6-7000 years) has been towards cooling, and the slight warming we saw in the late 20th century was just a blip. For a longer perspective see (GISP and Vostok ice core data):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded
and beyond the last 500,000 years:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
Enjoy the Holocene while it lasts! (But in the meantime please can you try to find something else to scare the children about – you’re CO2 alarmism is getting very tedious.
Sorry Lapogus, don’t have time for all your refs. Only checked the first.
The first is certainly valid but only about the Sargasso sea and rather dated (1996). A later overview article shows it is probably not representative of the globe.
If you can disprove that CO2 causes global warming, do publish that in peer reviewed literature.
Sorry for the error with you’re instead of your. Appalling. I will now go out and shoot myself.
Here’s a little something for ‘Sense Seeker’ to play with . Come back when you have gone through every single item.
And yes, John Cook gets a mention. And hockey sticks, and oh! so many exciting things ….
See you sometime in 2011 ….
No Michael, I showed you the evidence that it is now warmer than at any time in the past 1000 years, and that the famous hockey stick stands firm as ever since 1999. I showed you where the evidence is. Exactly. I didn’t ask you to trawl through hunderds of documents. And I certainly have no plans to do that myself.
If you are certain the evidence that shows me wrong is in the pile of what-ever-it-is you point to, you fish it out. Until such time, I will assume there is no such evidence and you are simply playing childish games.
So at this point in the discussion, all the evidence brought forward supports the notion that the global average temperature is now higher than 1000 years ago. Up to you to show me wrong.
No SS, you show Michael a link to a Pro-AGW site using charts and data from 1997-2005.
In a comment to another one of your ill-informed (and by ill-informed I mean from reading one-sided Pro-AGW blogs that post only the science they want you to see) I posted evidence refuting your outdated claim by linking to the actual paper. Not the “spin” put on the conclusions by a pro or anti AGW blog.
Oops! Try again: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44YBXUE
Do us all a favour Sense Seeker, and go and check this lot out rather than just waffle on with your tired rhetoric! You just might get a trifle of education ….
Then again it might all be a bit much to cope with!
Good luck then!
Speaking of tired rhetoric. Michael, see my reaction above. Spare me your load of excuses, just give me the evidence that it was warmer 1000 ago than it is now. And if you don’t have any, do us all a favour, be honest.
I fear that you, ‘Sense Seeker’, are not actually interested in seeking anything but trying to prove you are correct. Your reaction is typical of many who seem to adhere to this ‘we are all doomed unless we save the planet etc’ rhetoric!
You remind me of someone I confronted several days ago about checking out what I’ve asked you to check out after that person wrote a letter to the editor of one of our local papers moaning about the general ‘we are are doomed scenario’. “I don’t want to talk about it!” was the response.
Yours seems somewhat similar: “Give me the evidence, etc!”
I suspect that giving you any evidence whatsoever that does not agree with your contention will be a waste of time. Perhaps shades of the cleric refusing to look through Galileo’s telescope.
Once more I ask you to check out the vast information resource that I’ve provided for you. Should you do so, it will be up to you to demonstrate that I am presenting a “load of excuses”. If you can’t do that then we are all wasting our time. Enjoy your worry about warming then and ride panicking off into the sunset ….
“I fear that you, ‘Sense Seeker’, are not actually interested in seeking anything”
That’s right. You’re getting there. Why should I spend days searching for evidence that proves me wrong? If you can’t deliver it to me on a platter, I will assume it doesn’t exist.
But I can make you a counter proposal: I give you the entire internet to search for the evidence that proves global average temperature was higher 1000 years ago than it is now. Good luck.
You want more proof?
Another from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
And we all know what a band of “deniers” they are.
BTW… This sums up your attitude perfectly…
“Why should I spend days searching for evidence that proves me wrong? If you can’t deliver it to me on a platter, I will assume it doesn’t exist.”
Yes SS, why would someone who claims to be “seeking sense” actually do work to get a complete picture, when they can bee spoon fed propaganda on that silver platter you like so much.
Maybe you should change your name.
I am sure the name has changed many times.
Nice!
Hi Sense
Once again things seem to have been twisted round.
There is hard evidence that some parts of the world were much warmer in the MWP than now. You know this is indisputable.
It surely is upto you to prove that temps were cooler elsewhere and that global temps therefore were no higher, rather than expect us to prove the opposite.
If you cannot prove this, it is logical to assume that temps elsewhere were not any lower.