15 Nov 2013, 5:30 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Nobody's denying that it's increasing, but it has never been stable.
Yeah, that's called metastable. There are fluctuations, but the overall pattern remained the same for a long, long time.
Kurgan wrote:
What you'll never hear of in the media, is that continental activity (and thus CO2 levels) have also increased rapidly between 1800 and 2000.
Does not hearing it in the media mean there is no data on that and you just made it up?
Quote:
It actually fluctuates significantly, based on many factors.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... r_2002.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... r_2002.gif
Your chart doesn't show fluctuations, it shows a gradual increase over time, which mirrors global temperature rise.
Quote:
It's the same basic chemical reaction (and that goes for smog as well). This is high school chemistry, and anyone who can balance a chemical equation knows this. Ocean accidification is mainly a problem near the coastal lines. The ocean absorbs a lot of CO2, but it also releases a lot of CO2.
It's also a chemical reaction, but you cited the wrong chemical reaction! The fact remains that the acidity of the oceans is increasing. But you acknowledge increasing CO2, you just wish it wasn't us that did it, I'm guessing for political reasons.
Quote:
Most people, nor most internet vendors and hospitals did nothing whatsoever to secure themselves against it, despite the fact that pretty much any major electronic device had a CPU in 2000. Few people noticed anything; the worst thing that happened was that DOS based versions of Windows messed with the date stamps on files.
It could have been a bigger problem, but it nevertheless was a real problem. Critical infrastructure was rewritten to address this.
Quote:
The ice levels were significantly lower in the medieval warm period, and the vikings even had farms on Greenland.
That is a common myth, but it is not a fact.
Quote:
In other words, the exact same thing as the medieval warm period repeats itself.
Except that was regional, not global.
Quote:
It affected all the continents and was global.
Saying that doesn't make it true. I cited the Newscientist article that explained this.
15 Nov 2013, 5:36 pm
15 Nov 2013, 5:57 pm
15 Nov 2013, 6:02 pm
15 Nov 2013, 6:50 pm
15 Nov 2013, 10:22 pm
15 Nov 2013, 10:42 pm
15 Nov 2013, 10:52 pm
15 Nov 2013, 10:56 pm
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
16 Nov 2013, 7:46 am
eric76 wrote:
About the Medieval Warm Period from http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/news575.htm:
It looks to me like Dr Stott has it exactly correct.
Quote:
From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
...
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating."
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
...
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
It looks to me like Dr Stott has it exactly correct.
A graphic that refute such claims.
Notice that the temperatures today are higher that the medieval warm period and that it rise really fast. Also the famines of 14th century is from overpopulation, which take it's origin from the prosperity the centuries before, which itself take it's origin from technological and agricultural progress.
16 Nov 2013, 8:13 am
16 Nov 2013, 11:01 am
16 Nov 2013, 12:48 pm
16 Nov 2013, 1:12 pm
16 Nov 2013, 1:13 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Please have a look at this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The "Hockey Stick" is busted.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The "Hockey Stick" is busted.
mikassyna wrote:
Tree ring analysis is not a reliable method to support the global warming alarmism.
The Hockey Stick is *not* busted, and it is *not* solely based on the analysis of tree rings... From the very same link that ruveyn posted:
skepticalscience wrote:
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
My annoyed emphasis added.
The original Hockey Stick study from 1999 demonstrated that the second half of the 20th century had the highest temperature in the last millenium despite a cooling trend due to the Milankovitch cycles.
Now look at the most recent study on the subject, published in Science in 2013:
http://shpud.com/Science-2013-Marcott-1198-201.pdf (page 5/1201)
"Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P."
My emphasis added.
In other words, we - with the latest data on the Hockey Stick (based on *multiple* sources) - have to go back at least five millenia to see a higher temperature than we are currently experiencing.
16 Nov 2013, 1:26 pm
