|
Post by glc on Mar 31, 2010 8:40:41 GMT
Nice chart, Steam. There is more work there than most will appreciate. And doubters aside, human history not only goes far beyond 20KY BCE, it takes some very strange twists and turns. People managed to eke out a living in places and at times where no life is thought to have existed.
Would that be the doubters who raise inconvenient facts. This chart is far too simplistic and simply involves the selection of certain events and periods in order to satisfy a pre-conceived notion. It would be possible to select events and periods which show the exact opposite of what the chart shows, e.g. the Thames froze over several times during the MWP - on one occasion for a 14 week period. Also the chart includes the phrase "Solar Activity >> Energy transport to Earth". Could we know a bit more about this?
There is a strange concept of scepticism on this blog. It seems that the same people who proudly announce their scepticism about the very plausible theory of AGW (catastrophic or otherwise) are prepared to embrace any old claptrap providing it counters the AGW argument.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 31, 2010 11:15:12 GMT
Indeed, if you're going to call yourself a skeptic...it should be universal. After seeing how crappy some of the "science" that supposedly supports substantial AGW really is...I view everything with a lot more skepticism. I've also reassessed some older and less contested "scientific conclusions" and found reason to be more skeptical of them as well.
Of course, I still see no reason to give any credit to the triple conjecture of substantial, dangerous AGW. Much of this past warming was most likely natural. Feedbacks are almost certainly weak, if not negative. And finally...there is little evidence to support the notion that warming is damaging overall.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 31, 2010 14:05:30 GMT
It would be possible to select events and periods which show the exact opposite of what the chart shows, e.g. the Thames froze over several times during the MWP - on one occasion for a 14 week period. Could you provide a source on that? Wikipedia shows the two long Thames freezing events to be 923 (Middle of the Norman Oort Minimum) for 13 weeks and then in 1410 for fourteen weeks. Perhaps Wiki as it often does needs some editing but then again so does your stuff, like your blaming the Dalton Minimum on an anticipated volcanic eruption. Several anthropogenic changes to the Thames river would make a freezing of the river rather unusual. Narrowing of the channel and removal of obstructions mid channel along with UHI all conspire against a repeat of the LIA Frost Fairs even if we have another period of cold. Finally one should note you specified no inaccuracies with the chart but merely made an unsupported statement that the chart could be filled with event of presumed significant proportion to show just the opposite. One would like to think you have a handful in mind that you could actually document. It may well be that some of the events depicted on the chart are perhaps not so unusual and its fine to show that to be true if you can. But bluster is hardly a substitute for support of your accusation that the chart is bogus as you imply without a shred of evidence to back up your claims. There is a strange concept of scepticism on this blog. It seems that the same people who proudly announce their scepticism about the very plausible theory of AGW (catastrophic or otherwise) are prepared to embrace any old claptrap providing it counters the AGW argument. I think one should expect support for alternative theories as a rebuttal to the central argument for AGW in the absence of empirical evidence, namely that there is no other explanation. It should be expected that skeptics will offer alternatives when AGW proponents advance the lack of them as proof of AGW. It seems just sour grapes to complain about it when somebody does.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 31, 2010 15:53:57 GMT
Could you provide a source on that?Try the London online link www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/See the bit where it says " In 1063 it is recorded that it was frozen over for fourteen weeks, and again in 1076." I think one should expect support for alternative theories as a rebuttal to the central argument for AGW in the absence of empirical evidence, namely that there is no other explanation.Fine - if those alternative theories have substance or a plausible mechanism, at least.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 31, 2010 18:11:52 GMT
Could you provide a source on that?Try the London online link www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/See the bit where it says " In 1063 it is recorded that it was frozen over for fourteen weeks, and again in 1076." I think one should expect support for alternative theories as a rebuttal to the central argument for AGW in the absence of empirical evidence, namely that there is no other explanation.Fine - if those alternative theories have substance or a plausible mechanism, at least. Your historical reference is interesting- it shows what I an a lot of other skeptics have been pointing out for a long time- nothing is happening now that is outside of historical variability. It is not the simple question of if CO2 is a primary forcing. It is the more important question of 'to what effect?' I would suggest that the effect is not significant enough at all to warrant the hysteria and money tossed at AGW.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 31, 2010 20:39:25 GMT
glc says: Thereis a strange concept of scepticism on this blog. It seems that the same people who proudly announce their scepticism about the very plausible theory of AGW (catastrophic or otherwise) are prepared to embrace any old claptrap providing it counters the AGW argument.
No, not at all. I agree that all the weird & wonderful use sites such as this to push their crackpot theories. But most of us are here to examine the scientific distortion of AGW, not every other crackpot idea. We don't attack the crackpots, in the same way we don't attack the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. After all, these crackpots are not after our tax dollars with their quaint beliefs.
Ignoring irrelevant nonsense is not the same as agreeing with it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 31, 2010 23:01:15 GMT
Very well put Kiwi.
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on May 1, 2010 20:49:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 1, 2010 23:57:03 GMT
Do you know if Archibald was asked to submit?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on May 2, 2010 7:13:46 GMT
If I am a crackpot because I question the validity of CO2 as a significant forcer of climate and the miniscual amount of human produced CO2 as having any discernable impact, then so be it. I find some of the "crackpot" theories to be more interesting and worthy of study. Should I in turn ask the AGW proponents to denounce the many BS claims made by the UN report on climate?
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 2, 2010 21:24:42 GMT
Perhaps it's because the paper is by David Archibald who clearly has no idea what he's talking about. For example this is from the Archibald 'paper' (your link) where he discusses North American temperatures: The temperature profile over the period shows three distinct trends: a relatively stable period from 1905 to 1953 averaging 16.3°C, a relatively steep decline of 1.4°C over the 15 years to 1968 due to a weak solar cycle 20, and then a slight rise to the current day with an average of 15.8°C to 2003.The "weak" solar cycle 20 did not begin until 1964. In 1953 we were just one year away from the start of the most intense solar cycle ever recorded which lasted from 1954 until 1964. The majority of Archibald's "1.4 deg decline" took place during this cycle (SC 19). Solar cycle 20 began in 1964 and ran until 1976 - around the time that temperatures began to rise. Archibald's solar-climate relationships are all over the place. He claims that the length of SC 23 means that a temperature decline should be seen over the period of the next cycle (SC 24) - yet in the case of SC 20 the decline appears to take place before the cycle's even started. It's complete and utter nonsense from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by gahooduk on May 2, 2010 23:44:39 GMT
well, uk treasury thought it important enough to locg it on their web site...perhaps they are hedging their bets against AGW
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 2, 2010 23:52:28 GMT
well, uk treasury thought it important enough to locg it on their web site...perhaps they are hedging their bets against AGW
Perhaps the UK treasury's time might be better spent figuring out how the UK are going to manage their estimated £1.4 trillion debt which is expected to accumulate by 2014.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on May 3, 2010 1:45:04 GMT
I see the astrophysicists are starting to talk about a possibility (publicly) or a "probability" (less than publicly) of an upcoming Maunder Event. Which is essentially what I have been saying these, hmm, 28 years. Based, of course, on other things than the cycles of stars other than our own.
The public discussion is pretty well covered in Astronomy magazine. Pick up a copy the next time you pass a magazine stand. The color cover of the Sun stands out.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 3, 2010 2:22:31 GMT
The public discussion is pretty well covered in Astronomy magazine. Pick up a copy the next time you pass a magazine stand. The color cover of the Sun stands out. Stranger Yep, yet another example of cooler heads. Jumping up and down exclaiming the coming of an ice age would be . . . .uh. . . .so yesterday!
|
|