Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,447
13,272
287
Hooterville, Vir.
No, it wasn't. There are some who believe solar cycles have little to no influence on temperatures here on Earth. This seems to be a recent phenomenon as growing up I had always understood that solar cycles were a strong driver of past climate changes when humans could not have possibly made a difference since we weren't around for most of it.

I wish all of this was about the science and not the politics, because it is actually a fascinating subject. Our world is a small refuge in a vast and hostile universe. Understanding our climate and the factors that contribute to it is an important endeavor to our future. Our arrogance belies the fact that our understanding is in its infancy and that there is still much to be learned. 100 years from now people will (hopefully) chuckle and be amazed at our ignorance and arrogance much like we are at the science of 1915. Think of all the advancements made since then, from medicine to astrophysics to travel to nuclear physics to meteorology and climate sciences and so on...
After 1250. there was a substantial die-off of humans. Much of that was caused by Bubonic plague, but how much of that was caused by crop-failure-driven poor nutrition making Europeans susceptible to communicable disease is now hard to determine. The English used to make their own wine in the Medieval Warm period. Other less dramatic changes after the end of the Medieval Warm period. By the 1600s, Englishmen used to set up markets on the ice at London, because the Thames would freeze over solid, very solid, in fact.
I have read a bit about the American Civil War, and, while admittedly anecdotal, the ground in Virginia was covered with snow from December through February, and into March during the war. That rarely happens now. The last time that happened in Virginia was 2009, but before that it was quite a while. Something is causing that change.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,284
5,963
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Interesting. So, a not-unprecedented drop in the amount of energy from the sun would be more than compensated for by one decade of human-caused climate change.
The numbers look right. If solar forcing drops 0.5Wm[SUP]-2[/SUP] (likely lower, if his update is correct) but anthropogenic forcing is rising at about 0.4Wm[SUP]-2 [/SUP]per decade, it'll just be a pothole in the road on the way up the hill.
 

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
My question was more specifically related to warfare. Is federal investment in oil exploration in our national interest so we are able to defend ourselves or otherwise wage war against a hostile country?

Regarding weaning, it may not be in our best interest to use our own sources of oil before first using the oil of other countries.

Edit: Regarding your modification to my original post, is the new F-35 solar powered?
It is wind powered. We should import more oil then?
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
After 1250. there was a substantial die-off of humans. Much of that was caused by Bubonic plague, but how much of that was caused by crop-failure-driven poor nutrition making Europeans susceptible to communicable disease is now hard to determine. The English used to make their own wine in the Medieval Warm period. Other less dramatic changes after the end of the Medieval Warm period. By the 1600s, Englishmen used to set up markets on the ice at London, because the Thames would freeze over solid, very solid, in fact.
I have read a bit about the American Civil War, and, while admittedly anecdotal, the ground in Virginia was covered with snow from December through February, and into March during the war. That rarely happens now. The last time that happened in Virginia was 2009, but before that it was quite a while. Something is causing that change.
I think we are on the same page here. The Medieval Warm Period, it should be noted, was not as warm as the Roman Warm Period. Both were substantially warmer than the Little Ice Age. The year 1814 - 2 years before the Year Without a Summer - was one of the coldest on record. We've had an overall warming trend over a few hundred years, but still haven't reached Medieval Warm Period temperatures.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,284
5,963
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
I think we are on the same page here. The Medieval Warm Period, it should be noted, was not as warm as the Roman Warm Period. Both were substantially warmer than the Little Ice Age. The year 1814 - 2 years before the Year Without a Summer - was one of the coldest on record. We've had an overall warming trend over a few hundred years, but still haven't reached Medieval Warm Period temperatures.
Actually, it seems we have. Proxy reconstructions dating to the period indicate that the MWP was a regional phenomenon. Global temperatures were lower than they are now.

Read at your leisure. ;)
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
Actually, it seems we have. Proxy reconstructions dating to the period indicate that the MWP was a regional phenomenon. Global temperatures were lower than they are now.

Read at your leisure. ;)
Newer information calls that conclusion into question even if Dr Mann's previous questionable behavior has not.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

ETA: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12003/abstract

That's to say nothing of numerous other studies that also do not correlate with Dr Mann's research in this area.
 
Last edited:

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,284
5,963
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Newer information calls that conclusion into question even if Dr Mann's previous questionable behavior has not.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
The paper's lead author disagrees. ;)

“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions.

We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
The paper's lead author disagrees. ;)

“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions.

We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
That is true, but as I stated, it does not correlate with Dr Mann's conclusions and calls them into doubt. Numerous other studies do the same. That leaves doubt. More research needs to be done. And when and if a new conclusion it reached then that needs to be verified as well. Research should never stop because "everyone knows" something to be "true".

So what other studies - not done by Dr Mann or based on his research - show that this is purely a regional temperature flux? And what datasets and studies call that conclusion into question? Do we have similar research from South America or Asia? If so, what were the results? If not, when do we expect those to come on line? Isn't it true that before Dr Mann's paper and after that some temperature proxies seem to contradict his conclusions?
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,284
5,963
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
That's not that odd. If you look at the same sort of study, tracking tree-lines over time, you’ll find that some regions have treelines that might (but not necessarily) indicate a very warm MW and others a cooler MW.
Since I'm not going to go study for study, and to attempt to simplify the issue, go here:

http://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period

"That's not that odd. If you look at the same sort of study, tracking tree-lines over time, you’ll find that some regions have treelines that might (but not necessarily) indicate a very warm MW and others a cooler MW."

Exactly!
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,284
5,963
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Since I'm not going to go study for study, and to attempt to simplify the issue, go here:

http://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period

"That's not that odd. If you look at the same sort of study, tracking tree-lines over time, you’ll find that some regions have treelines that might (but not necessarily) indicate a very warm MW and others a cooler MW."

Exactly!
Oh, come on. Let's go study for study! I want to see if you can find any that reject that it's warmer globally now. ;)

Here, I'll even get us started.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=2172076924879884437&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=11403551704177472895&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=13704344489155600474&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,820
35,116
362
Mountainous Northern California
You have way too much time on your hands. Bottom line: The science continues and the issue is still unsettled as to the causes and consequences of recent warming, as well as to the issue of previous warm and cold periods. There is conflicting data. There are conflicting conclusion. The call to action is a political call. We will just have to agree to disagree on the issue as I have not made up my mind yet and you have not only made up your mind but actively attempt to refute, downplay, or otherwise dismiss evidence to the contrary. That gives me little to no chance to succeed in causing the question to be open to you again. IOW, it's pointless. Not only do I not enjoy pointless endeavors, I also don't have the time you appear to have to spend on digging deeply into the subject like I did at one time. I simply have more important things to do. So if you want to argue with yourself, feel free.
 

AUDub

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2013
16,284
5,963
187
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
I guess that means you couldn't find one. :D

I wouldn't be so quick to reject the consensus opinion. Things like this move very slowly in science in this day and age. There has been a lot of time spent deliberating a lot of very compelling evidence for the vast majority of the scientists in the field to tell us that that we're seeing is exactly what we think it is.

I don't have as much free time as you think I do. I happen to be an excellent Google jockey and have had this debate more than once. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.