|
Post by andrewuwe on Sept 4, 2009 13:13:24 GMT
Reading through news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8236797.stmThe article says: On average, the region cooled at a rate of 0.2C per millennium until about 1900. Since then, it has warmed by about 1.2C. Then you look at THEIR graph and what do you see? Yes, the warming started in about 1800 not about 1900.
|
|
|
Post by andrewuwe on Sept 4, 2009 13:18:15 GMT
I know its a bit off topic but it does mention solar input effect on arctic temperature in the article and sort of shows that the maunder minimum lower temp than now.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Sept 4, 2009 13:23:30 GMT
I can't understand why Greenland is not being developed as a major new farming area.
After all, the Vikings managed to farm there for 300 years in the Mediaeval Warm Period and we are reliably informed that the Arctic is warmer now.
|
|
|
Post by andrewuwe on Sept 4, 2009 15:06:16 GMT
It could be more cloudy now due to cosmic rays. That would make it warmer "like a blanket" TM. On another note I just found that ANTarctic sea ice is increasing: nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html easier to find if you go to the bottom and page up two times. This too must be due to the solar cycle 24 "solar blanket" If you take all the current bits and pieces it starts to look like cycle 21-23 was an oddity and 24 is the overshoot on return to normal. That is slow onset of ice-age countered in the north by global warming amplified by some strong solar cycles.
|
|
|
Post by rbateman on Sept 4, 2009 17:48:21 GMT
Reading through news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8236797.stmThe article says: On average, the region cooled at a rate of 0.2C per millennium until about 1900. Since then, it has warmed by about 1.2C. Then you look at THEIR graph and what do you see? Yes, the warming started in about 1800 not about 1900. The assumption of the writer(s) of the article is that nobody is going to bother to examine the graph.
|
|
|
Post by rbateman on Sept 4, 2009 17:54:26 GMT
I can't understand why Greenland is not being developed as a major new farming area. After all, the Vikings managed to farm there for 300 years in the Mediaeval Warm Period and we are reliably informed that the Arctic is warmer now. That's a problem for the allegedly reliable informers, is it not? Now I ask you, when these things appear on the Internet News, is anyone able to move fast enough to get a comment in, pose a question?
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Sept 5, 2009 6:51:53 GMT
I find that UK BBC report somewhat inane as it only seems to repeat IPCC AR4 - 2007 - and the IPCC section spoke only of likelihoods, whatever those are.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 11:22:34 GMT
I find that UK BBC report somewhat inane as it only seems to repeat IPCC AR4 - 2007 - and the IPCC section spoke only of likelihoods, whatever those are. Likelihoods are what people talk in when they don't want anyone testing their reports. 'We only said it was LIKELY we didn't say it would DEFINITELY happen' . But at the same time the report will be flagged by tabloids in a way that makes the forecast certain. "Climate Scientists have reported that ....". This is then picked up by the politicians as a firm expectation and you find yourself with Cap and Trade legislation or a new Copenhagen protocol at the end of this year. That is what these reports are all about you do not have to be correct you just have to influence events.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 5, 2009 11:25:34 GMT
I can't understand why Greenland is not being developed as a major new farming area. After all, the Vikings managed to farm there for 300 years in the Mediaeval Warm Period and we are reliably informed that the Arctic is warmer now. I don't see any indication that it's not possible to grow crops on greenland, i think they are. www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 11:52:03 GMT
I can't understand why Greenland is not being developed as a major new farming area. After all, the Vikings managed to farm there for 300 years in the Mediaeval Warm Period and we are reliably informed that the Arctic is warmer now. I don't see any indication that it's not possible to grow crops on greenland, i think they are. www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html But not to quite the extent that they used to, as the North of Greenland was settled too. "From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[8] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. The settlements, such as Brattahlið, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[9] It is debated[who?] whether data from ice cores indicate that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenlandNote also that the Thule culture 'arrived from the North' an interesting aside if you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 5, 2009 12:02:24 GMT
If we score posts out of 10 for "correcting" previous claims then I think mine scored an 8 and yours scored a 0
I don't see anything in that excerpt that can be used to determine if temperature today were colder than before.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 5, 2009 12:24:25 GMT
One advantage of the BBC report is that it quotes Eystein Jansen who says the study confirms the existance of the medieval warm period. You can then search for Eystein Jansens work where he refers to the medieval warm period to get more information bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/385/2/2001PA000654.pdfSurface ocean conditions warmer than present were common during the past 3000 years. During the so-called Medieval Warm Period, surface conditions were highly variable with marked changes in sea surface temperature. 5. Conclusions [36] 2. Significant cooling events, during which sea surface temperatures were lower than present, occurred at about 2750, 1550, 400 and 100 years BP. The decrease in SSTs around 2750 years BP was especially marked and suggests that climate at this time was at least as cold as the cooling during the Little Ice Age. [37] 3. Surface ocean conditions during the so-called Medieval Warm Period were highly variable with notable changes in sea surface temperatures. The period 800–550 years BP was characterized by relatively warm conditions at the Vøring Plateau. [38] 4. A cooling trend leading to the LIA began around 700–600 years BP.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 19:01:19 GMT
If we score posts out of 10 for "correcting" previous claims then I think mine scored an 8 and yours scored a 0 I don't see anything in that excerpt that can be used to determine if temperature today were colder than before. I was unaware that the idea of this forum was to 'score points' I looked at the article involved and it was about a settlement on a promontory on the southern tip of Greenland. I had read about the Thule people settling the North of Greenland and found that there were Vikings and other tribes on the East of Greenland. And according to the quote these were farming. I find this interesting as that is NOT what happens on the East of Greenland at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 6, 2009 2:44:49 GMT
If we score posts out of 10 for "correcting" previous claims then I think mine scored an 8 and yours scored a 0 I don't see anything in that excerpt that can be used to determine if temperature today were colder than before. I was unaware that the idea of this forum was to 'score points' I looked at the article involved and it was about a settlement on a promontory on the southern tip of Greenland. I had read about the Thule people settling the North of Greenland and found that there were Vikings and other tribes on the East of Greenland. And according to the quote these were farming. I find this interesting as that is NOT what happens on the East of Greenland at the moment. Archaeological evidence is not permissible in the discussion of GW. Those bodies and artifacts buried in the permafrost in Greenland were placed there by denialists to confuse the public and promote faulty science. Then there are the Incas www.clim-past.net/5/375/2009/cp-5-375-2009.pdfThe tide is turning as reality is catching up with fantasy and the propaganda machines are malfunctioning. Even NewScientist, a repository extraordinaire for AGW published the following: World's climate could cool first, warm later www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news Note the need for a disclaimer "I'm not of the them" in order to keep his RSVP in good standing. "I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it." ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 6, 2009 7:05:03 GMT
I can't understand why Greenland is not being developed as a major new farming area. After all, the Vikings managed to farm there for 300 years in the Mediaeval Warm Period and we are reliably informed that the Arctic is warmer now. That's a problem for the allegedly reliable informers, is it not? Now I ask you, when these things appear on the Internet News, is anyone able to move fast enough to get a comment in, pose a question? I've managed it a couple of times. You have to remember that on the rare occasions that the BBC website allows comments, they only allow 10-20 and ignore the rest. If you're not right there to make a comment when the article is released your comments won't be included.
|
|