|
Post by flearider on Jun 9, 2012 17:59:05 GMT
but unless people are there every year how do we know i'ts not happened befor ? just like the cat in the sealed box is it dead or alive ..you just don't know till you open it .
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 9, 2012 18:23:53 GMT
Especially if you do not even know there is a box. It is pure conjecture that a cat ever existed. But we know AGW caused it.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 10, 2012 2:55:57 GMT
but unless people are there every year how do we know i'ts not happened befor ? just like the cat in the sealed box is it dead or alive ..you just don't know till you open it . flearider, I read that the key point here was, "Things are happening on this planet that we never knew existed." This is the nature of science and discovery. (This observation, by the way, is not limited to 'things on this planet'.)
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 10, 2012 3:13:13 GMT
but unless people are there every year how do we know i'ts not happened befor ? just like the cat in the sealed box is it dead or alive ..you just don't know till you open it . flearider, Your comment raises a useful point about understanding the Arctic Sea Ice which is frequently raised on this forum. For example we read that certain instrument readings are limited to the satellite observation era, with the implication that nothing is known before 1979. This this a fallacy. There are many ways to understand physical events that do not require direct, simultaneous observation. (Plus, there are many direct simultaneuos observations before there were satellites.) The understanding of the recent history of the Arctic Sea Ice (where 'recent' refers to the most recent 10,000 years) is an area of longstanding scientific investigation. Obviously, referring to your comment above, noone was there to watch and measure the ice throughout this period of interest. That does not mean that we can't figure out what occurred.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 10, 2012 3:20:31 GMT
Thermostat: Precisely stated sir. WE do know that the Arctic was virtually ice free during the summer approx 5,000 YBP. And we know that during the MWP, the ice extent had to be much less because of the bow head whale fossils.
Confirmation of this is shown in the Greenland Ice Core records and the settlements/growth etc of the Vikings on Greenland circa this time period.
What the AGW folks have to understand is that climate has been warm in the recent past without serious disruption, and in fact, potential benifits for mankind as a whole.
There is yet a lot to learn/absorb about our climate and its drivers.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 10, 2012 3:32:13 GMT
Thermostat: Precisely stated sir. WE do know that the Arctic was virtually ice free during the summer approx 5,000 YBP. And we know that during the MWP, the ice extent had to be much less because of the bow head whale fossils. Confirmation of this is shown in the Greenland Ice Core records and the settlements/growth etc of the Vikings on Greenland circa this time period. What the AGW folks have to understand is that climate has been warm in the recent past without serious disruption, and in fact, potential benifits for mankind as a whole. There is yet a lot to learn/absorb about our climate and its drivers. Sigurdur, Regarding the holocene thermal maximum, it is doubtful that the Arctic was virtually ice free in the summer 5000 years ago, unless you have some new data on that to present. But regardless the point we can agree on is that climate is not fixed, but is changable. Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 10, 2012 4:55:14 GMT
Thermostat: Precisely stated sir. WE do know that the Arctic was virtually ice free during the summer approx 5,000 YBP. And we know that during the MWP, the ice extent had to be much less because of the bow head whale fossils. Confirmation of this is shown in the Greenland Ice Core records and the settlements/growth etc of the Vikings on Greenland circa this time period. What the AGW folks have to understand is that climate has been warm in the recent past without serious disruption, and in fact, potential benifits for mankind as a whole. There is yet a lot to learn/absorb about our climate and its drivers. Sigurdur, Regarding the holocene thermal maximum, it is doubtful that the Arctic was virtually ice free in the summer 5000 years ago, unless you have some new data on that to present. But regardless the point we can agree on is that climate is not fixed, but is changable. Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. You don't read much do you? Unfortunately the original Arctic thread got deleted, so now we will be blessed with your constant gaffs and unsupported ramblings. Yawn. Northern Siberia was lush with forests. Wake us when they begin growing again. Oh, where is this "consensus" located? Do they meet secretly in Brussels every few years? Maybe this is what you mean by "consensus"? www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.phpDoes everyone really want to go tit for tat with Dr. Thermostat, who has special access to all the science journals we don't? co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 10, 2012 5:08:55 GMT
Sigurdur, Regarding the holocene thermal maximum, it is doubtful that the Arctic was virtually ice free in the summer 5000 years ago, unless you have some new data on that to present. But regardless the point we can agree on is that climate is not fixed, but is changable. Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. You don't read much do you? Yawn. Northern Siberia was lush with forests. Wake us when they begin growing again. Magellan, Got some new data, or just old biases? How is that obscure Russian "Fish Productivity" paper you previously touted as explaining the unknown natural cycle behind recent climate events holding up? 3,000 posts plus from you and counting and still waiting for a logical, intelligent comment... It must be summer again and the Arctic Sea Ice is melting.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 10, 2012 5:19:54 GMT
Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. You don't read much do you? Yawn. Northern Siberia was lush with forests. Wake us when they begin growing again. Magellan, Got some new data, or just old biases? How is that obscure Russian "Fish Productivity" paper you previously touted as explaining the unknown natural cycle behind recent climate events holding up? 3,000 posts plus from you and counting and still waiting for a logical, intelligent comment... It must be summer again and the Arctic Sea Ice is melting. The obscure paper was a science research project. See links above. Do you know how to read charts? I've yet to see you make one after all this time. No access to Excel? A Doctor of your stature surely knows how to use the very basic tools in Excel. See Thermostat others may be more polite now days, but maybe they forget what a braggadocios full-of-yourself little punk you've been in the past.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 10, 2012 5:43:43 GMT
Magellan, Got some new data, or just old biases? How is that obscure Russian "Fish Productivity" paper you previously touted as explaining the unknown natural cycle behind recent climate events holding up? 3,000 posts plus from you and counting and still waiting for a logical, intelligent comment... It must be summer again and the Arctic Sea Ice is melting. The obscure paper was a science research project. See links above. Do you know how to read charts? I've yet to see you make one after all this time. No access to Excel? A Doctor of your stature surely knows how to use the very basic tools in Excel. See Thermostat others may be more polite now days, but maybe they forget what a braggadocios full-of-yourself little punk you've been in the past. I take that as a no, you don't have any relevant data to support your position. Understood. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 10, 2012 5:57:59 GMT
The obscure paper was a science research project. See links above. Do you know how to read charts? I've yet to see you make one after all this time. No access to Excel? A Doctor of your stature surely knows how to use the very basic tools in Excel. See Thermostat others may be more polite now days, but maybe they forget what a braggadocios full-of-yourself little punk you've been in the past. I take that as a no, you don't have any relevant data to support your position. Understood. Fair enough. You said: Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. which is patently false. There is no "consensus" the MWP wasn't worldwide. In fact it was just the opposite until the Mann hockeystick fraud in 1998, which has since been thoroughly trashed, along with it's illegitimate children. Even the earlier IPCC reports acknowledged the MWP as being global. I gave you a link. Read it. I have dozens more available. Since you claimed the "consensus" (whatever that means) is the MWP was a local event, then pony up and first tell us who the consensus is, then back it up with data. You don't own this board, and this is not a lecture session, so you don't get to say anything you want unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 10, 2012 6:14:26 GMT
I take that as a no, you don't have any relevant data to support your position. Understood. Fair enough. You said: Regarding the medieval warm period, the concensus data shows that the warming around Greenland at that time was a regional phenomenon, not a global one; unless again, you have some new data on this to show. which is patently false. There is no "consensus" the MWP wasn't worldwide. In fact it was just the opposite until the Mann hockeystick fraud in 1998, which has since been thoroughly trashed, along with it's illegitimate children. Even the earlier IPCC reports acknowledged the MWP as being global. I gave you a link. Read it. I have dozens more available. Since you claimed the "consensus" (whatever that means) is the MWP was a local event, then pony up and first tell us who the consensus is, then back it up with data. You don't own this board, and this is not a lecture session, so you don't get to say anything you want unchallenged. Magellan, Regarding the medieval warm period, it appears you want to quible about semantics. My fundamental point was that this event was a regional phenomenon. Do you have data that says this was a global event? or not?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 10, 2012 13:32:00 GMT
Thermostat: At times you show you have read and are well informed.
Then you deminish yourself, such as the MWP. The MWP was shown in Antarctica, Australia, China....etc......etc. Take it as a given that the MWP was global, the research shows this.
The errosion and fossil record of the North Greenland beaches show that during the Holocene Optimum, the Arctic was ice free during the summer months.
Some things are just not worth arguing about when the evidence is so prevelant. These are two things that fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 12, 2012 1:13:00 GMT
Thermostat: At times you show you have read and are well informed. Then you deminish yourself, such as the MWP. The MWP was shown in Antarctica, Australia, China....etc......etc. Take it as a given that the MWP was global, the research shows this. The errosion and fossil record of the North Greenland beaches show that during the Holocene Optimum, the Arctic was ice free during the summer months. Some things are just not worth arguing about when the evidence is so prevelant. These are two things that fall into that category. Sigurdur, You make an interesting assertion. The MWP is well documented in Northwestern Europe. Various alternative reports of transient warming in other regions are commonly used to support the notion that the Northwestern European phenomenon was a global event, but upon inspection it becomes clear that multiple alternative regional warming events do not correspond temporally with the Northwestern European event. eg. see the multiple examples posted here, "The Medieval Warm Period - A global Phenomenon" pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.htmlIn addition, various cool events occur in different regions at the same time that warming in Northewestern Europe was occurring. The global pattern of during the MWP was distinctly different from the present global warming event, indicating that it resulted from distinct climatic drivers. Regarding the Arctic Sea during the Holocene, it is not at all clear from the published science that this region was seasonally ice free during the Holocene. In contrast, regional warming events appear to have occured in different parts of the Arctic at different times.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 12, 2012 2:13:02 GMT
Thermostat: I know you missed being present on this board for awhile. Do a scholar search for the recent paper confirming Antarctica was warmer as well during the MWP.
And the hydrological studies from South America, as well as the stalagnite studies from China....etc....etc.
The evidence is more than ample.
As far as Arctic Ice during the Holocene optimum, there are now at least two papers establishing that it was ice free. One was written by a Sweedish scientist if memory serves me.
As far as SS being a reliabe read, nope it isn't. There are papers that I posted on that very thread that never saw the light of day. In fact, it became quit contrarian......and I was/am banned from that site. That is ok tho, the few that go there can continue to be delusional. Someone has to be.
|
|