"The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature"
So it isn't ice-9 then?
More peer-reviewed science contradicting the "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica. The research involved the development of a new …
"The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature"
So it isn't ice-9 then?
'The oft-mentioned "scientific consensus", based in large part on the work of famous climate-alarmist scientists Michael Mann and Phil Jones'
No it's not. Idiot.
Mr Parker - I just had to comment as I thought you might like to know that you calling Lewis an idiot has entirely convinced me of the superior merits of your argument! Please accept a well-deserved upvote from me.
"Mr Parker - I just had to comment as I thought you might like to know that you calling Lewis an idiot has entirely convinced me of the superior merits of your argument"
Yeah, hardly a considered argument - i'm afraid I just sort of lost patience.
When the article starts with such obviously biased piffle as a sentence containing the words 'warming-alarmist "scientific consensus"', as if those basing conclusions on sound science are 'alarmist' and the scientific consensus requires quotes to suggest it is not.
What the new science actually shows is that there was localised warming in both europe and antarctica. What it DOESN'T show is anything global. The evidence for the medeival 'warm period' is absent in other places, such as North America, South America, Asia, Australia, etc. etc. You knwo, that little area we like to call 'most of the planet'.
That kinda suggests its worth looking at some of the other places that apparently did not warm again.
Two localised warnings might be coincidence if 3 or 4 emerge....
That's a reasonable reaction from reading another terrible article on climate change from a site that specialises in terrible articles on climate change. It reminded me why I almost never come here anymore. Luckily, it turns out there are other websites that enjoy a more intimate relationship with facts.
Downvote me if you like, I won't see them :)
I think you will find that is not correct.
There is considerable controversy about geologically recent timescale warming: there are no reliable proxies. We know about Europe because we have contemporary records. There were none of those in the USA or China.
And without the actual records there is precious little evidence apart from that..tree rings? don't make me laugh.
Tree rings and ice cores are not precise nor proven proxies of temperature.
Unlike North America or Asia we have actual records for the temperatures in those times.
Just because "everybody" is calling it a scientific consensus doesn't mean it's actually a consensus. The warming part of ACGW was conclusively proven only yesteryear for temperatures in range of 1-3°C, in line with what we did saw in medieval warm period. Go check your facts again, Register isn't at fault here for being sceptic about the whole global warming debate.
So how does that fit with:
1. Same period - increased rainfall in southern USA allowing for the existence of the Pueblo Indians civilisation.
2. Same period - draught in Mexico and Yukatan peninsula and the downfall of the Mayan civilsations.
3. Same period - multiple incidents of freezing of the mediteranean sea and black sea against a backrdop of hot summers and higher annual temperature average in Europe
4. Same period
If you take any model for _GLOBAL_ warming and look into the details you will see Europe with a more continental climate - cold winters and hot summers, wet Texas and Arisona, dry Mexico and so on. Just take the b*** f*** model and read the result before you spout rubbish please. Even the model produced by the "Not another old university in Cambridge" shows exactly that.
So in fact the evidence from Antarctica fits into a puzzle with a thousand other pieces already in place - from archaeological evidence from Viking and Pueblo settlements through historical records and down to pollen and tree ring records. I for one am not surprised with it and it _FITS_ the cross-disciplinary (historicans, archeoogists, geologists and climatologists) consensus about the climate in the last 2000 years. The only _NEW_ thing here is that it is from the Southern hemisphere. Before that the records were mostly from the northern (not just Europe - all of it).
Heat and temperature are not the same thing.
Start with large lump of ice floating in a bucket of cold water. Temperature approx 0 degrees.
Heat the bastard with a propane torch until 50% of the ice has melted (ie you've added a shitload of heat (aka warmed it)): temperature still approx 0 degrees.
Temperature means nothing.
Go look in the FOIA leak and you won't find mention of heat in the models - just temperature. Any model that is based on temperature, and not heat, is just broken bollocks - tweaked to fit an agenda.
So there is no global warming caused my humans and everything is just fine? Really?? I mean come on...I know The Reg uses the term tin foil hatter to describe tech lunies, I think it needs to introduce a new one - petrol hatter, or maybe just plain old 'idiot' would do
Of course we have had an impact on global warming, it's a sealed system and everything effects everything else.
What this shows is that temperatures have been far higher (and lower) in the past before we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale.
Also that the "MWP doesn't exist" crowd did cherry pick the data to hide their "inconveient truth".
I'm not a denier, I am a climate cynic.
I would be interested to know who financed this research. I will lay bets it was not "big oil" but a government and I will also lay bets that this is the last we hear of it as it does not suppor t more taxes!
i dont think there is doubt as to us having an effect on the climate, what is questionable is to what extent we do and how far that goes. after all, if we set off 2,000 nukes it would quite likely have an effect, so it is within our capability to effect it. we also dont know how the earth will adapt, if its adapting already and what would happen to the climate were humans not even here.
So all in all, we dont know for sure an awful lot really and what we do know isnt very consistant.
And calling people idiots is somewhat insulting and ironic given that you are on the opersite side of that same coin, People say man made global warming does happen, people say man made global warming doesnt happen, neither camp knows for sure and calling one group or another a bunch of idiots just highlights your own blinkered views on the matter.
Fact is this, lets not needlessly pollute the planet, lets not spend billions on trying to change something that might not need to change and ultimately costs us all a lot a lot, some of us so much that we cant afford to live!
No, lets instead spend billions working out what the hell is going on, and developing better sustainable energy systems like nuclear investment. If this carbon tax business went straight in to investment then that would be ok, but its not is it, companies are making a MINT out of this CO2 business much the same they did with the whole Y2K bug. Do you honestly think anyone is doing anything without any benifit to them selves?
all im saying is, lets be open minded about this, the real bad guys are those profiteering from it all, none of them can be trusted to say anything objectionable at all!
Just thought you'd like to know that the yanks have already exploded over 1,000 nukes. Globally, over 2,000 nukes have been exploded (US src = MIT (http://web.mit.edu/stgs/nuclearweapons.html), global figure source = wiki, but I seem to recall a cool video that did the rounds a while back illustrating all these explosions on a world map, you can see it here http://realityme.net/2010/07/05/53-years-of-nuclear-bombs/)
I think the implied context there was...
AT THE SAME TIME
rather than over 50 years or whatever
it's not just the nukes, it's that used in "warfare" they set fire to cities which burn ...
Nuclear winter is a real and present danger,
Nature, Vol. 473, No. 7347. (19 May 2011), pp. 275-276, doi:10.1038/473275a
Any one stupid enough to think that the solution to the issue wont be technological doesn't have much to say, the idea that the world community will reduce its output of green house gasses is mere fancy, unless something like fusion power comes into play but then only if the BRIC nations have access to that power.
No, carbon trees/storage technologies are required and will be the only solution to the warming issue. 3 billion new people are waking up to the wonders of the industrial world and you'd be bat shit crazy to think they'll opt for short life spans and living in caves as an alternative.
"what is questionable is to what extent we do and how far that goes"
Well it depends what error bound you're happy dealing with: Is there some element in the order of 10-20% not due to us - there's an argument there, Are we mainly responsible for climate change? That's clear.
Let's face it mankind has form on altering the atmosphere on a global scale, remember CFCs? The effect of (mostly) westerners using CFCs as the coolant gas for refrigeration caused the ozone layer to deplete drastically and only drastic action (the replacement of CFC with other substitutes) prevented disaster. With the emission of carbon it's not just the west but the whole world - but yeah who knows, could just be coincidence.
That is why the IPCC and it's Malthusian masters want to get rid of them.
When conspiracy theories start cropping up ("the koch brothers are trying to brainwash america!!11!" "The ipcc is trying to divert all research funding to it's self!!!11!") I'm always reminded of Hanlon's razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
ie, it's more likely that people are just making mistakes, rather than making a concerted attempt to hoodwink the public or whatever.
I do remember CFCs, yes. But I also know that relatively recent research showed that the ozone hole was caused by cosmic rays, not CFCs leaking out of your fridge, and is entirely natural in origin.
So should we bring back CFCs then?
It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that the owners of Koch Industries - refiners and distributors of petroleum products - have a huge self-interest in denying AGW and that that's exactly what they're doing.
You think these guys are just "making mistakes"? Jesus wept...
"relatively recent research showed that the ozone hole was caused by cosmic rays"
ah ha, just for poops and giggle please provide a link to that research.
Sealed system? I've not been out in days, but has the sun stopped shining altogether? Oh dear.
No citation to substantiate your assertion? Oh dear.
CFCs were indeed the prime cause. F Sherwood Roland received a Nobel for his work. He only died a couple of weeks back. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html
Assertions without citations, particularly those citing "cosmic rays" aren't serious.
If you treat the planet as as 'black box' sealed system with specified inputs and outputs, those inputs and outputs have to balance. There's pesky things called the laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy which kinda demand that. If the input (the sun) stays constant*, then the output (infrared radiation of heat) has to stay constant and has to balance it, or the planet gets hotter, until the ouptut does balance the input. (loss of heat through radiation being proportional to the temperature). Increasing the amount of gases in the atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation at the wavelengths they are emitted leads to heating of the atmosphere, as less of that heat energy escapes the 'sealed system'. That is what the poster was referring to, and to deliberately mis-represent it does your argument no favours.
*It is actually rising, as the hydrogen gets burned up and heavier elements serve as fuel instead, but over a MUCH longer timescale than we'll ever be around for
"For sure" is too high a hurdle. Most everything in physical science is a theory waiting to be disproved, not proved. Newtonian gravitation is still a theory - adn Einstein upset it. AGW has been remarkably accurate for over 30 years. Time to deal with it.
i dunno about that CFC research, cant say i have heard it, but my original point was that yes, we shouldnt use such things needlessly. its like saying, well, oil is natural and will degrade so lets jump it in the sea for the sake of it.
nope, im saying we should cut back what we are doing yes, dont pollute needlessly if we dont have too, but rather than try reverse something that we dont understand or infact even know how much is down to us, we should use the money spent to work out whats going on, and research more practicle energy sources.
AGW has been remarkably accurate for over 30 years.
Are you serious? Have their models EVER accurately matched the historical record let alone accurately forecast future trends that came true? Please include your citations to prove this assertion.
"AGW has been remarkably accurate for over 30 years"
Really? 30 years ago they were using the same climate data to say that the earth was cooling and that we were entering another ice age. I don't call 100% reversal "remarkably accurate".
Our sun's output is anything but constant. Please view the latest research from NASA:
yes, the most recent CME pumped enough energy into our upper atmosphere to power every home in New York for TWO YEARS! They also state that the CO2 acts as a thermostat!
Yes - remarkably well.
The solar output is pretty much constant, in the same way that the climate in any part of the world is 'constant'*. It is cyclical - the planet has seasons, the solar output has a roughly 13 year cycle. The mean output, which is what is important, stays the same, except over very long timescales (i.e. those to do with stellar eveolution), where, as I stated, it is rising.
*barring global warming of course
But isn't the implied context of AGW that it's happening 'over 50 years or whatever' rather than all in one go?
Are we saying that the impact of a nuclear bomb going off pales in comparison to amount of damage that people are doing in general for the specific time period that the explosion took place in?
Genuine question. Has the effect ever been measured globally? Is it possible to measure?
I disagree, the famous hockey stick graph has the uptick starting at around the year 1900 or thereabouts - we're not releasing all the CO2 at once, after all.
CFC's were phased out & replaced by HCFC's, which still deplete ozone (just not near as much). Now we are phasing those out for HFC's which have no reaction with ozone, but they are greenhouse gasses. All of these are heavier than air, which begs the question: how do they effect the upper atmosphere? BTW CFC's are much more efficient refrigerants, which would save electricity and material consumption if they were used again in modern equipment.
"I do remember CFCs, yes. But I also know that relatively recent research showed that the ozone hole was caused by cosmic rays, not CFCs leaking out of your fridge, and is entirely natural in origin."
That's an astonishing claim.
So list some references.
There are plenty of industries that make *alot* of money over selling equipment and technology for reducing carbon footprint, etc. I'm skeptical of both sides because both have huge sums of money involved.
Lewis (and Orlowski) are so completely biased on this it's untrue. It just comes dripping through anything they write on the subject, they are completely incapable of an objective argument.
Unfortunately this also means they are bad journalists. A shame.
IIRC the ozone holes are back with a vengeance, and nothing to do with human activity.
Mind you I do agree- as some wag put it 'the deserts of Mesopotamia and the Sahara are the result of 10,000 years of organic farming'
"AGW has been remarkably accurate for over 30 years" ... total nonsense. But, more importantly, MOST!=ALMOST. Again, MOST!=ALMOST. Different letters, different sounds, different words, different meanings.
I read your post and I'm going to fix it for you!
"It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that the Climate Unit of East Anglia University have, as shown by a huge number of emails, been systematically engaged in gaming the peer review process, refusing to adhere to scientific procedures and principles, hidden their data and refused to release it "so that it would not be misintrepreted", considered attempting to stifle criticism of their work by starting libel actions against journals that published work critical of their research....".
You think guys like Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are just "making mistakes"? Jesus wept..."
Ah yes, the rational approach. Let's call that plan F.
I suggest a virgin sacrifice.
This is just wrong. Models are essentially curve fitting against historical temperature. Every time they update the model with new temperatures, they make it "look" like their prediction was correct in the past. But if you look at their forecasts from 10 years ago, you'll see just how utterly wrong they are!
> It is cyclical - the planet has seasons, the solar output has a roughly 13 year cycle
err wrong, the sun has an 11 year cycle, a 22 year cycle and there is a proposition that it has an 87 year cycle, a 210 year cycle as well as longer period cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation (yes I know its Wackypedia but it has the best precis I could find)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017