So the wrmers tryed too kill the The Medieval Warm Period facts

[wirebender]

Just saying something stupid, IMO. If there's any cultishness involved, I see it more in those who MUST prove AGW wrong, but usually use political arguments, because niether the science nor logic are on their side.

The onus lies upon you to prove your hypothesis correct and to date, you can't provide a single shred of observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activiites of man and the changing climate. Hell, you can't even show any evidence that the present climate is even slightly outside the natural variability.

 

[uscitizen]

Lets see the meterological data from the medieval period.

Proxy data?!?! The skeptics only believe in it when it supports their thesis.

tha skeptics of both sides have this problem.

 

[IanC]

Lets see the meterological data from the medieval period.

Proxy data?!?! The skeptics only believe in it when it supports their thesis.

hahaha. have you even looked at proxy data? or the climategate emails that showed the efforts of the Hockey Team to mitigate the evidence for the MWP? how much confidence do you have when Mann used a core series UPSIDEDOWN and continued to use it after his mistake was pointed out!?! hahaha, people are fooling themselves if they think proxies better than just educated guesses.

 

[Big Fitz]

Lets see the meterological data from the medieval period.

Proxy data?!?! The skeptics only believe in it when it supports their thesis.

Mister Pot, Mister Kettle. Mister Kettle, Mister Pot.

Oh! See you two know each other!

Pie Jesu domine. Donna ejus requiem. >thwak!<

 

[IanC]

Just saying something stupid, IMO. If there's any cultishness involved, I see it more in those who MUST prove AGW wrong, but usually use political arguments, because niether the science nor logic are on their side.

The onus lies upon you to prove your hypothesis correct and to date, you can't provide a single shred of observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activiites of man and the changing climate. Hell, you can't even show any evidence that the present climate is even slightly outside the natural variability.

while I disagree that there is no evidence to show that CO2 might cause some warming if the climate system remainded unchanged otherwise, I heartily agree that the present climate is easily within natural variability. Mother Nature is chockfull of mechanisms that return the system to stasis after disruptions. if CO2 slows escape of heat in one route another route takes up the excess. eg- volcanic eruptions are compensated much faster than the models predict, and in a different way than the models predict. there is overshoot in both directions until stasis returns, unlike the slow unidirectional return that can be seen in RollingThunder's graph that he considers proof that the models work.

 

[Trakar]

...while I disagree that there is no evidence to show that CO2 might cause some warming if the climate system remainded unchanged otherwise, I heartily agree that the present climate is easily within natural variability. Mother Nature is chockfull of mechanisms that return the system to stasis after disruptions. if CO2 slows escape of heat in one route another route takes up the excess. eg- volcanic eruptions are compensated much faster than the models predict, and in a different way than the models predict. there is overshoot in both directions until stasis returns, unlike the slow unidirectional return that can be seen in RollingThunder's graph that he considers proof that the models work.

Please clarify and support your contentions.

Specifically:

1) "Mother Nature is chockfull of mechanisms that return the system to stasis after disruptions."

2) "if CO2 slows escape of heat in one route another route takes up the excess. eg- volcanic eruptions are compensated much faster than the models predict, and in a different way than the models predict."

3) "there is overshoot in both directions until stasis returns, unlike the slow unidirectional return that can be seen in RollingThunder's graph that he considers proof that the models work."

I'm not challenging the statements, at this time, so much as I don't really understand what you are asserting and what scientific support you are relying upon to come to these conclusions.

 

[RollingThunder]

...while I disagree that there is no evidence to show that CO2 might cause some warming if the climate system remainded unchanged otherwise, I heartily agree that the present climate is easily within natural variability. Mother Nature is chockfull of mechanisms that return the system to stasis after disruptions. if CO2 slows escape of heat in one route another route takes up the excess. eg- volcanic eruptions are compensated much faster than the models predict, and in a different way than the models predict. there is overshoot in both directions until stasis returns, unlike the slow unidirectional return that can be seen in RollingThunder's graph that he considers proof that the models work.

Please clarify and support your contentions.

Specifically:

1) "Mother Nature is chockfull of mechanisms that return the system to stasis after disruptions."

2) "if CO2 slows escape of heat in one route another route takes up the excess. eg- volcanic eruptions are compensated much faster than the models predict, and in a different way than the models predict."

3) "there is overshoot in both directions until stasis returns, unlike the slow unidirectional return that can be seen in RollingThunder's graph that he considers proof that the models work."

I'm not challenging the statements, at this time, so much as I don't really understand what you are asserting and what scientific support you are relying upon to come to these conclusions.

LOL. You must be new here, Trakar, or you would have already realized that ian and the other denier cult dimwits who argue here are pretty much always incoherent, confused and they never have any scientific support for their nonsense and parroted misinformation and lies. They are very ignorant and mistrustful about science, possibly because so many of them grew up in fundamentalist households whose take on reality was "faith-based" and anti-science, with denial of 'evolution' and the science supporting it being a main article of faith. Don't hold your breath waiting for ian to explain or support his nonsense. Never going to happen!

 

[Toronado3800]

A valid point. Opening the system to space does bleed off some atmospheric heat.

Some atmospheric heat? Are you kidding?

Do you have any reason to believe greenhouse gasses do not hold heat in a "real" atmosphere?

The atmosphere in general slows the escape of heat absorbed by the earth. "Greenhouse" gasses have no capacity to trap and retain heat. No gas, other than water vapor has the ability to actually absorb and retain heat.

Then again that is what artificially increasing our greenhouse gas levels is doing....

The past has seen atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the thousands of ppm with no run away greenhouse effect and in fact, the earth has entered ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than the present. CO2 is not a driver of the climate.

Like I said, I am just a stick in the mud erroring on the side of caution. Folks who have their lives invested in pollution stocks or whatever are apparently trying to find some straw of hope to let them believe they aren't damaging their kid's planet.

I am al for a clean environment and preserving resources. In that matter, I am probably more green than 99 percent of self professed tree huggers. I own a working farm and have, via legal device, preserved a stand of over 100 acres of hardwoods in perpetuity after my death, I grow most of what I eat, I heat my barns with passive solar, I generate incidentental electricity (barns, outbuildings, electric fences, etc ) with a couple of windmills
and use solar to provide most of my hot water needs but suggesting that we hobble world economic systems because of a trace, beneficial gas being releas
ed into the atmosphere simply is not rational thinking.

Pressure is an amazing thing. Fool with it in Turbo's and cooling the air.

Thanks for the detailed replies before I get carried away. Neat project with the 100 acres. I visited Rowe Arboretum the other week. It and many others started off with a similar grants. Also, just because I believe in the effects of greenhouse gasses don't think I want to outlaw cars or my 68 Mustang. Generally I'd settle of tougher fuel economy standard type things.

The past concentrations of CO2....are we talking Triassic when the earth was busy producing coal and dinosaurs roamed? Or are we debating the readings of the last half million years?

Gases retaining heat....are we splitting hairs here? I go though some trouble to get them hot gasses out of that Mustang of mine at speed.

Atmospheric pressure on different bodies amazes me. You'd think Venus having 90ish percent the gravity of earth, a minimal magnetic field, and being closer to the sun would retain less atmosphere. Interesting that effect.

Think of my worries this way perhaps. We have all heard the example of "if the earth were 24 hours old humans would have only appeared..." So I get nervous each time I look at 20% increases in anything over the last 100 years. On a global time scale that is attention getting.

 

[Trakar]

LOL. You must be new here, Trakar, or you would have already realized that ian and the other denier cult dimwits who argue here are pretty much always incoherent, confused and they never have any scientific support for their nonsense and parroted misinformation and lies. They are very ignorant and mistrustful about science, possibly because so many of them grew up in fundamentalist households whose take on reality was "faith-based" and anti-science, with denial of 'evolution' and the science supporting it being a main article of faith. Don't hold your breath waiting for ian to explain or support his nonsense. Never going to happen!

I'm only able to participate on boards like this occassionally, due to business, family and personal priorities, but I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and treat others as I would prefer to be treated, regardless of the manner in which they choose to behave. I'm not here to change any minds, I'm just sampling opinions, considerations and the level of understandings expressed and sharing information and my understandings among those who read and participate here.

 

[wirebender]

. Neat project with the 100 acres.

My daughter loved Winnie the Pooh as a child and has more Pooh Tshirts, Sweat shirts, etc than she knows what to do with even now that she is married and has kids of her own. The hundred acres is a reference to the hundred acre wood of Pooh fame so that her kids and their kids and their kids, etc. will always have a hundred acre wood.

As to venus, there is no future in trying to compare it to earth.

One other thing, have you looked at the results of cafe standards with regard to mortality in auto crashes. Demand better fuel economy and weight and structural integrity are the first things to go in a car. Cafe standards have resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths on the roads because the cars resulting from demands of higher fuel economy simply aren't safe. It is easy to say "better fuel economy" in new cars when you are sitting in a 60's era Mustang but an entirely different matter if you are in one of those fuel efficient vehicles and get T-boned by a 68 Mustang. You are a dead man and the Mustang driver has to start looking for a new bumper and maybe a hood and a couple of quarter panels.

Millions upon millions upon millions have died as the result of the good intentions of people who percieve that the Earth needs saving from us. Actions have consequences and if your actions result in the deaths of those who don't have the financial means to avoid your actions, you become part of a more serious problem.

 

[skookerasbil]

Monckton is a fraud from the word go.

Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch

Monckton on Climate Change
Christopher Monckton has written many articles critical of current climate change science. In one article written for the Science and Public Policy Institute, Monckton criticized Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth", alleging that the film used very few facts, most of which were "substantially inaccurate".[4] Monckton's critique came on the heels of a British lawsuit in which a school official sued the British government for distributing the film in public schools.[5] A subsequent response from British scientists hit out at the judge for "misleading the public by ruling that Gore had made "errors"" when they considered the movie "presented an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy".[6]

Monckton admitted in an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, that he played a role in the court hearings by prompting a friend to fund the court case in order to "fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about".[7] Prior to this it had been revealed that a Scottish quarry magnate had bankrolled the legal action against An Inconvenient Truth via a fringe UK right-wing political party, the New Party.[8]

Lord Monckton is also funding the distribution in British schools of the film, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," as part of a "counter-campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change." [9] The broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has found that The Great Global Warming Swindle broke its guidelines on impartiality [10] Monckton also wrote a controversial article for the American Physical Society refuting the IPCC's conclusion that climate change is a largely human produced phenomenon. The APS, however, headlined the article with the disclaimer that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."[11]


Controversies

House Of Lords membership claim
Despite the passing of the 1999 House Of Lords Act (which stripped hereditary peers of instant admission to the House Of Lords) Christopher Monckton has claimed that he is "a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature"[12]. More recently he has claimed that he is a member "without the right to sit or vote"[13]. The House Of Lords themselves state that "Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a 'non-voting' or 'honorary' member."[14]


Nobel Laureate claim
Christopher Monckton claims on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute that:

His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA -SPPInstitute website[15]

When Christopher Monckton visited Australia in early 2010 he conceeded that it was "it was a joke, a joke" and "never meant to be taken seriously". The Sydney Morning Herald noted that despite this, he had made the same claim with a "straight face" on the Alan Jones show one day prior, and the claim remained on the SPPInstitute website[16] where it can still be found six months later.

He's a fraud only to the religion. Obviously, his message and the message of those who have proven data manipulation by the "real scientists" has done significant damage. The change in the public perception has changed DRAMATICALLY since even 2008. Its not even debatable!! There is zero doubt that there is a fraternity of alarmists that exist on the internet..........but overwhelmingly, the public has moved past the hysterical shit on climate. You can easily see it every day in this forum.......a pronounced level of anger and angst in the posts by the religion. Theyre pissed because they know they are losing the PR debate in an epic way!!! The debates will continue on the internet............but no place else. Indeed it took years to expose the myths perpetuated by the alarmist religion...........but I couldnt be any more giddy about how irrelevant this issue of global warming has become in the public consciousness.

 

[Oddball]

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't."

 

[konradv]

Just saying something stupid, IMO. If there's any cultishness involved, I see it more in those who MUST prove AGW wrong, but usually use political arguments, because niether the science nor logic are on their side.

The onus lies upon you to prove your hypothesis correct and to date, you can't provide a single shred of observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activiites of man and the changing climate. Hell, you can't even show any evidence that the present climate is even slightly outside the natural variability.

I only know that CO2 can re-emit IR toward earth slowing its escape back to space. I know CO2 and other GHGs have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. What ARE we supposed to make of those two FACTS and where are the extra gases coming from, if not from man?(Your cue to provide some actual facts.) Logically, the only conclusion one can draw seems to be that temps will rise, if the gases continue to rise.(Your cue to show how the logic is flawed.)

It's in your court, IMO. I think I've provided more than a shred of evidence. The fact that CO2 can absorb and then re-emit IR is UNEQUIVOCAL and, unless you can provide alternate evidence, the fact that man is the cause of the rise in gases is THE SAME.

 

[wirebender]

I only know that CO2 can re-emit IR toward earth slowing its escape back to space.

First, are you certain that a CO2 molecule emits absorbed in every direction?

Second, what percentage of a sphere positioned over the earth is pointing towards the earth?

Third, are you certain that IR emitted in the direction of the earth continues in an unimpeded straight line towards the earth?

I know CO2 and other GHGs have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

First, you don't KNOW that greenhouse gasses exist. You KNOW that greenhouse gasses are hypothesized and you probably don't KNOW that to date, no experimental evidence exists that proves the alleged properties of greenhouse gasses. You may have absolute faith in the claims made by warmists with regard to greenhouse gasses, but you most certainly don't KNOW anything of the sort.

RE we supposed to make of those two FACTS and where are the extra gases coming from, if not from man?(Your cue to provide some actual facts.) Logically, the only conclusion one can draw seems to be that temps will rise, if the gases continue to rise.(Your cue to show how the logic is flawed.)

First you must prove that the gasses can, in fact, raise the temperature in an open atmosphere. To date, no such proof has been provided. Claiming that you are logical when the basis of your claims lays in faith is not the working of a rational mind.

It's in your court, IMO. I think I've provided more than a shred of evidence.

To date, you have provided no proof at all that the greenhouse hypothesis is correct and certainly provided no proof that CO2 can be responsible for raising the temperature of the planet. The fact that you believe you have indicates that you either don't understand the concept of proof, or don't grasp the science well enough to know what constitutes proof of your claims and what does not.

that CO2 can absorb and then re-emit IR is UNEQUIVOCAL and, unless you can provide alternate evidence, the fact that man is the cause of the rise in gases is THE SAME.

Absorbing and re emitting IR does not alter anything at all. Absorbing X amount of IR and re emitting the same amount is a zero sum equation. The emitted radiation can not further warm its source of heat so what are you claiming?

 

[konradv]

I only know that CO2 can re-emit IR toward earth slowing its escape back to space.

First, are you certain that a CO2 molecule emits absorbed in every direction?

Second, what percentage of a sphere positioned over the earth is pointing towards the earth?

Third, are you certain that IR emitted in the direction of the earth continues in an unimpeded straight line towards the earth?

First, Sure they emit in every direction.

Second, Statistically 50% would go to earth.

Third, That's irrelevant. It may be picked up by another CO2 or other GHG but then re-emitted.

I know CO2 and other GHGs have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

First, you don't KNOW that greenhouse gasses exist. You KNOW that greenhouse gasses are hypothesized and you probably don't KNOW that to date, no experimental evidence exists that proves the alleged properties of greenhouse gasses. You may have absolute faith in the claims made by warmists with regard to greenhouse gasses, but you most certainly don't KNOW anything of the sort.

It seems you're the one that doesn't know if GHGs exist. I DO!!! I know that I can prove GHGs exist in my own lab, so you're 100% wrong about what I know and 100% wrong that there's no experimental evidence. It's actually quite easy to prove for anyone with a spectrophotomter.

First you must prove that the gasses can, in fact, raise the temperature in an open atmosphere. To date, no such proof has been provided. Claiming that you are logical when the basis of your claims lays in faith is not the working of a rational mind.

My claim is based on actual experimental evidence. The claim of what I don't know or "faith" is just bogus. You're the one that doesn't know and seem to have "faith" that no one's going to call you on your ignorance!

It's in your court, IMO. I think I've provided more than a shred of evidence.

To date, you have provided no proof at all that the greenhouse hypothesis is correct and certainly provided no proof that CO2 can be responsible for raising the temperature of the planet. The fact that you believe you have indicates that you either don't understand the concept of proof, or don't grasp the science well enough to know what constitutes proof of your claims and what does not.

that CO2 can absorb and then re-emit IR is UNEQUIVOCAL and, unless you can provide alternate evidence, the fact that man is the cause of the rise in gases is THE SAME.

Absorbing and re emitting IR does not alter anything at all. Absorbing X amount of IR and re emitting the same amount is a zero sum equation. The emitted radiation can not further warm its source of heat so what are you claiming?

It isn't a zero sum equation if the IR was headed out to space, but was intercepoted by a CO2 molecule and then re-emitted back towards earth.

You make quite a big deal about my presumed ignorance, but your analysis is so full of holes, it seems like you're just parroting what others have said, rather than basing your analysis on things you actually know.

 

[Big Fitz]

I only know that CO2 can re-emit IR toward earth slowing its escape back to space.

First, are you certain that a CO2 molecule emits absorbed in every direction?

Second, what percentage of a sphere positioned over the earth is pointing towards the earth?

Third, are you certain that IR emitted in the direction of the earth continues in an unimpeded straight line towards the earth?

First, Sure they emit in every direction.

Second, Statistically 50% would go to earth.

Third, That's irrelevant. It may be picked up by another CO2 or other GHG but then re-emitted.



It seems you're the one that doesn't know if GHGs exist. I DO!!! I know that I can prove GHGs exist in my own lab, so you're 100% wrong about what I know and 100% wrong that there's no experimental evidence. It's actually quite easy to prove for anyone with a spectrophotomter.





My claim is based on actual experimental evidence. The claim of what I don't know or "faith" is just bogus. You're the one that doesn't know and seem to have "faith" that no one's going to call you on your ignorance!



To date, you have provided no proof at all that the greenhouse hypothesis is correct and certainly provided no proof that CO2 can be responsible for raising the temperature of the planet. The fact that you believe you have indicates that you either don't understand the concept of proof, or don't grasp the science well enough to know what constitutes proof of your claims and what does not.

that CO2 can absorb and then re-emit IR is UNEQUIVOCAL and, unless you can provide alternate evidence, the fact that man is the cause of the rise in gases is THE SAME.

Absorbing and re emitting IR does not alter anything at all. Absorbing X amount of IR and re emitting the same amount is a zero sum equation. The emitted radiation can not further warm its source of heat so what are you claiming?

It isn't a zero sum equation if the IR was headed out to space, but was intercepoted by a CO2 molecule and then re-emitted back towards earth.

You make quite a big deal about my presumed ignorance, but your analysis is so full of holes, it seems like you're just parroting what others have said, rather than basing your analysis on things you actually know.

But does Konnie realize it? Oops, I guess not.

 

[konradv]

First, are you certain that a CO2 molecule emits absorbed in every direction?

Second, what percentage of a sphere positioned over the earth is pointing towards the earth?

Third, are you certain that IR emitted in the direction of the earth continues in an unimpeded straight line towards the earth?

First, Sure they emit in every direction.

Second, Statistically 50% would go to earth.

Third, That's irrelevant. It may be picked up by another CO2 or other GHG but then re-emitted.



It seems you're the one that doesn't know if GHGs exist. I DO!!! I know that I can prove GHGs exist in my own lab, so you're 100% wrong about what I know and 100% wrong that there's no experimental evidence. It's actually quite easy to prove for anyone with a spectrophotomter.





My claim is based on actual experimental evidence. The claim of what I don't know or "faith" is just bogus. You're the one that doesn't know and seem to have "faith" that no one's going to call you on your ignorance!



To date, you have provided no proof at all that the greenhouse hypothesis is correct and certainly provided no proof that CO2 can be responsible for raising the temperature of the planet. The fact that you believe you have indicates that you either don't understand the concept of proof, or don't grasp the science well enough to know what constitutes proof of your claims and what does not.

Absorbing and re emitting IR does not alter anything at all. Absorbing X amount of IR and re emitting the same amount is a zero sum equation. The emitted radiation can not further warm its source of heat so what are you claiming?

It isn't a zero sum equation if the IR was headed out to space, but was intercepoted by a CO2 molecule and then re-emitted back towards earth.

You make quite a big deal about my presumed ignorance, but your analysis is so full of holes, it seems like you're just parroting what others have said, rather than basing your analysis on things you actually know.

But does Konnie realize it? Oops, I guess not.

The real question is, "Should I even care?" So you included a cool little picture and a shot at me. WASSAMATTA? Can't really discuss the subject? I'm 100% certain you don't understand thermodynamics and are merely parroting what you've heard someone else say. You certainly don't add anything to the debate!!!

 

[uscitizen]

FRacts about Mideval warming?
What facts? Where is the scientific data?

Or just conclusions?

 

[Trakar]

...Think of my worries this way perhaps. We have all heard the example of "if the earth were 24 hours old humans would have only appeared..." So I get nervous each time I look at 20% increases in anything over the last 100 years. On a global time scale that is attention getting.

Indeed! Unfortunately, the more one delves into the actual science and geologic history, the more disconcerting such becomes.

 

[Trakar]

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't."

What lack of warming are you referring to?