|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 5, 2009 12:18:06 GMT
Glc Please explain to me and many others what is dangerous with temperatures withing normal variances. Ask the Vikings whose Greenland colony failed  The Vikings had a colony on Greenland??? When was that Steve? And when and why did it fail?  |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 12:31:11 GMT
GLC:
You are using regional data rather than global data. As I have said before, even during warm period there are going to be cold pockets or "normal" pockets.
I'm not using anything. Northspinx posted the link with a comment which asked "Clear enough?" I simply responded and made the point that the study does not appear to show the LIA. Perhaps there wasn't one.
I posted the link for the Chinese study,
Did you and what did that say?
we all know the European studies,
No "we" don't . The Fennoscandia tree ring study is a eurpoean study and that contradicts maunder minimum cooling.
NA studies. The data shows a worldwide warming during the MWP.
When was the MWP? Tell us when it was and then we can check the studies to find out whether or not warming did, in fact, occur simultaneously around the world. I found out the other day that the Thames froze for 14 consecutive weeks in 1063 - slap bang in the middle of the MWP - or perhaps it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 5, 2009 12:39:49 GMT
The new scientist in action:
Evidence it was very cold a few hundred years ago in Turkey gets used to tell us there was no cold period a few hundred years ago.No - evidence it was cold in Turkey when other places were supposedly warm and evidence it was warm when other places were cold suggests that the 'cold' and 'warm' periods were not simultaneous global events. You seem to struggle with this, why is that? Mind I accept it is a problem because we can't get any agreement on beginning and end dates for the MWP and LIA, so it can be difficult. There's also the knotty problem of trying to tie everything in with solar activity as well so I can see the dilemna. Keeping things as vague as possible is probably the best bet. More bullshit from the new scientists: Apparently it is warm when there is ice in the Gulf of mexico and ice on the missisippi at New orleans. And warm when boats are unable to leave Hudson bay and have to overwinter in James Bay But no matter because people cant agree the dates it never happened. And importantly you are going to keep hearing the bullshit from the new scientists because that is the truth you are expected to believe. Honesty and integrity have left the building The crooks are back in town According to the crooks this graph does not show an unusual cold period lasting from 1800 to about 1920 and does not show two colder periods than any other period in the last 1500 years. people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Fennoscandian%20summers%20500-2004.pdf According to the crooks this graph does not show a cooling trend from about 950 until at least about 1920. According to the crooks there is no warm period about 1000 years ago shown by this graph. Even if it is shown the crooks want you to believe it is only Turkey and California and North America and Scandanavia and Greenland and Scotland and other places which are not all over the world. According to the crooks the Franklin expedidition that was locked solid in ice for many seasons did not all freeze to death in an unusual cold period According to the crooks cold periods in 1063 in london invalidate a warm period lasting hundreds of years. According to the crooks the warmest time in 650 years invalidates the coldest period in a thousand years. According to the crooks the warmest collection of periods as a group in the last 1000 years in the coldest overall period for 1500 years invalidates the coldest period in 1500 years According to the crooks climate does not vary. The crooks need your doubt. They want your fear. No matter what we are going to write the crooks will keep on filling up our conversations with their lies and bullshit Or maybe they just cannot read a graph? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 5, 2009 14:19:35 GMT
GLC:
You are using regional data rather than global data. As I have said before, even during warm period there are going to be cold pockets or "normal" pockets. I'm not using anything. Northspinx posted the link with a comment which asked "Clear enough?" I simply responded and made the point that the study does not appear to show the LIA. Perhaps there wasn't one. I posted the link for the Chinese study,Did you and what did that say? we all know the European studies, No "we" don't . The Fennoscandia tree ring study is a eurpoean study and that contradicts maunder minimum cooling. NA studies. The data shows a worldwide warming during the MWP. When was the MWP? Tell us when it was and then we can check the studies to find out whether or not warming did, in fact, occur simultaneously around the world. I found out the other day that the Thames froze for 14 consecutive weeks in 1063 - slap bang in the middle of the MWP - or perhaps it wasn't. No "we" don't . The Fennoscandia tree ring study is a eurpoean study and that contradicts maunder minimum cooling. We'll note that once again you do not cite any references to support anything, so someone else must do it for you. Juckes and the Divergence Problemwww.climateaudit.org/?p=899Tornaetrask or Fennoscandia - which are the same site, just different names. My highlight: What critics have observed and Juckes doesn't discuss is that the average of 387 "temperature-sensitive" sites goes down in the last half of the 20th century (the Divergence Problem). But within the population of 387 sites, you can find some that go up. And surprise, surprise, the Team chooses them over and over. Tornetrask is used in every study. Juckes has taken cherry picking to a new height by even using it twice (Tornetrask and Fennoscandia, well disguised by the use of different lat/longs.) |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2009 15:19:57 GMT
Magellan,
glc's citation was the plot submitted by northsphinx, which northsphinx submitted (I assume) in support of the MWP being warmer than now.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 16:00:45 GMT
Magellan,
Quote:We'll note that once again you do not cite any references to support anything, so someone else must do it for you.
glc's citation was the plot submitted by northsphinx, which northsphinx submitted (I assume) in support of the MWP being warmer than now.
Even allowing for the fact thay he's got the wrong end of the stick again, I can't actually see what his point is.
What is your point, Magellan?
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 16:22:39 GMT
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your superior intelligence to talk us thru how this graph does not support the thesis it was warmer in the past than it is today?
Can you read?
I didn't say anything about the MWP apart from the fact that the graph does seem to show it existed. The problem is it doesn't show the LIA - or to be more precise - it doesn't show the LIA when it is commonly thought to have occurred.
The Maunder Minimum, a period of very low solar activity, occurred between 1645 and 1715. The graph show temperatures increasing during that time. There are also other periods in the graph which don't make sense. Apart from that ....
The graph uses tree-rings. Tree-ring widths cannot be used as a measure for temperature. This was one of the complaints against MBH hockey stick. Lots of things contribute to tree growth, e.g. sunshine, precipitation, CO2 etc.
Or are you here just to confuse and mislead and further t bullshit agenda?
I made it clear what the problems with the graph were. You jumped to conclusions presumably without reading what I'd wrote.
What was the purpose of putting '(I assume)' other than it being a dishonest device to imply there was nothing of merit shown in that graph?
If the graph is correct then there wasn't a LIA in that region. I'm not bothered - take your pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2009 16:50:19 GMT
Magellan, glc's citation was the plot submitted by northsphinx, which northsphinx submitted (I assume) in support of the MWP being warmer than now. Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your superior intelligence to talk us thru how this graph does not support the thesis it was warmer in the past than it is today? Or are you here just to confuse and mislead and further the bullshit agenda? What is up with you today radiant? Northsphinx did not say why he'd linked to the graph. In what way does my assumption about northsphinx's intention say anything about my feeling of whether the graph has any meaning. Now I have pointed out your error in comprehension I look forward to an apology for your implication of dishonesty. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 5, 2009 16:50:28 GMT
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your superior intelligence to talk us thru how this graph does not support the thesis it was warmer in the past than it is today?Can you read? I didn't say anything about the MWP apart from the fact that the graph does seem to show it existed. The problem is it doesn't show the LIA - or to be more precise - it doesn't show the LIA when it is commonly thought to have occurred. The Maunder Minimum, a period of very low solar activity, occurred between 1645 and 1715. The graph show temperatures increasing during that time. There are also other periods in the graph which don't make sense. Apart from that .... The graph uses tree-rings. Tree-ring widths cannot be used as a measure for temperature. This was one of the complaints against MBH hockey stick. Lots of things contribute to tree growth, e.g. sunshine, precipitation, CO2 etc. Or are you here just to confuse and mislead and further t bullshit agenda?I made it clear what the problems with the graph were. You jumped to conclusions presumablty withput reading what I'd wrote. What was the purpose of putting '(I assume)' other than it being a dishonest device to imply there was nothing of merit shown in that graph?If the graph is correct then there wasn't a LIA in that region. I'm not bothered - take your pick. The bullshit from the new scientists continues: The coldest period of the last 1500 years as recorded in that graph is denied A cooling period from about 950 to 1920 as recorded by that graph is denied. Endless denial and bullshit The Maunder Minimum, a period of very low solar activity, occurred between 1645 and 1715. The graph show temperatures increasing during that time. There are also other periods in the graph which don't make sense. And it just so happens the warm period of 400 years at instabul prior to 1700 when severe winters returned to the present day fits that maunder minimum nicely |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 5, 2009 16:56:15 GMT
Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your superior intelligence to talk us thru how this graph does not support the thesis it was warmer in the past than it is today? Or are you here just to confuse and mislead and further the bullshit agenda? What is up with you today radiant? Northsphinx did not say why he'd linked to the graph. In what way does my assumption about northsphinx's intention say anything about my feeling of whether the graph has any meaning. Now I have pointed out your error in comprehension I look forward to an apology for your implication of dishonesty. Weasel words to get out of explaining why you chose to imply the graph did not support a warm period Weasel words to shift responsibility from your own dishonesty |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2009 17:06:07 GMT
What is up with you today radiant? Northsphinx did not say why he'd linked to the graph. In what way does my assumption about northsphinx's intention say anything about my feeling of whether the graph has any meaning. Now I have pointed out your error in comprehension I look forward to an apology for your implication of dishonesty. Weasel words to get out of explaining why you chose to imply the graph did not support a warm period Weasel words to shift responsibility from your own dishonesty Are you sure your dad's alcohol supplies are going to survive the winter? I don't think you are competent to engage in any sort of debate, civil or otherwise. So I won't be responding with you any further and I'd appreciate you not responding to my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 5, 2009 17:33:01 GMT
Weasel words to get out of explaining why you chose to imply the graph did not support a warm period Weasel words to shift responsibility from your own dishonesty Are you sure your dad's alcohol supplies are going to survive the winter? I don't think you are competent to engage in any sort of debate, civil or otherwise. So I won't be responding with you any further and I'd appreciate you not responding to my posts. The funny thing about my mum and dad is that their enormous number of atoms and molecules are now spread around the entire world and are probably part of every living thing on earth. My dad and his alcohol and his cream cakes will be with you all this winter as much as they will be with me. Do you really think i am incompetent? You dont really do you. It is just another lie. Just a lie to create some desired result. |
|
|
|
Post by thingychambers69 on Oct 6, 2009 0:30:35 GMT
Now. Now. Be nice everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Oct 8, 2009 1:11:49 GMT
If you are denying that it ihas been colder and warmer (at different times of couse) in the recent past (2000 years), isn't that putting your neck out to get it chopped off? Maybe ice ages never happened either. Maybe the last ice that ended 10,000 never happened either. What the heck are you guys talking about? Of course there are cycles in the weather. You can see a cycle every year. There are longer cycles of both cold and warmth. and Then there are really long cycles that would during that time period look normal. Not being able to see this, or even think about it, are you sure you are a scientist?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 8, 2009 2:45:02 GMT
If you are denying that it ihas been colder and warmer (at different times of couse) in the recent past (2000 years), isn't that putting your neck out to get it chopped off? Maybe ice ages never happened either. Maybe the last ice that ended 10,000 never happened either. What the heck are you guys talking about? Of course there are cycles in the weather. You can see a cycle every year. There are longer cycles of both cold and warmth. and Then there are really long cycles that would during that time period look normal. Not being able to see this, or even think about it, are you sure you are a scientist? No no. You don't understand. Cycles went out the door years ago. Now it's all about "trends". Warming = anthropogenic Cooling = temporary unexplained interruption of the long term monotonic long term warming trend. True, the PDO wasn't known when all this GW hype gained steam, but it doesn't matter anyway and since all the correct physics are embedded in the climate models, don't question why they can't predict ENSO either. |
|
