Make up your minds!
Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate – NYTimes.com — More research that will be rejected in favor of the “man caused it” theories. The NY Times seems to have switched sides, though, so that could make a difference.
The scientists said their data showed that significantly warmer periods and significantly colder periods had occurred during the last interval between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago. They said they could not tell whether that meant similar changes were in store. Their findings were reported today in two papers in the journal Nature.
Previous studies had shown that there were abrupt changes in climate during glacial epochs, but the new results show that the same was true in the periods when glaciers had retreated. In one “catastrophic event” during the last interglacial period, the average temperature plunged 25 degrees Fahrenheit to ice-age levels for about 70 years, the scientists reported.
The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been “strangely stable.”
related link: Global Cooling predicted in the 1970’s
Ahhh, the plot thickens….
Read this Greenland ice shelf and sea bed core sample paper, or something similar, in the early 90’s. The results reflect data acquired by geophysicists pretty much everywhere. The last sentence of your pre-amble, “They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been “strangely stable”, is the most interesting. What we think is normal, is strange.
Listen, I don’t think your getting the point. Let me be clear because the science is in and everyone is in agreement: Gaia is angry with us and to stop her wrath we must tax you every time you take a breath. You can pay your carbon tax here: http://dvorak.org/na/
Atta boy, John, you go. Looks like this global warming war is heatin’ up!!
“The new studies found that the average global temperature can change as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a couple of decades during interglacial periods, Dr. White said. The current average global temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit.”
Any climate scientist who happens to be browsing by…. care comment?
This can’t be a good sign
Sincerely,
MediaMentions
From: Obamaforever
To: Dvorak
Dear Johnny:
For a minute there I thought you were going over to side of science with the NY Times article, but no! I look at the date and it says July 15, 1993!!!!! A bit behind the times are we, Dvorak. Let us see a more up-to-date article from you.
I have a more up-to-date article: Go to MSBNC find the title-
Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges
date: updated 9:18 a.m. PT, Sat., Dec 12, 2009
Note: 2009 not 1993!!!!!!!!!!!
The article says that the climate scientists have a disdain for skeptics-ME TOO!!!!!!!!
Re: #4, Well, ah, I haven’t read the report and I can’t comment on any research that hasn’t been screened by the IPCC or reviewed by my friends. But once this study is properly reprocessed, smoothed, sieved, purged, and the original data lost, I think you’ll find that those average global temperature findings will be in complete accordance with IPCC guidelines. So try not to pay any attention to it. It helps if you call Dr. White a moron and say bullshit a lot.
Holy cow! It is a 1993 article. Good eyes, Obamaforever.
Obviously Dvorak has a lot of time on his hands if he is looking at articles posted 16 years ago. What’s next, a article about the discovery of a vaccine for small pox?
Pathetic. 16 year old scientific data collected from glaciers is not scientifically valid anymore because… why? Because it doesn’t fit in with the GW game plan? What’s the cut-off point Obamaforver? 10 year?s 6 years? When are you planning to start trashing IPCC reports?
The latest study on global warming found that it was all the studies that caused it. The arctic tribes know all about this problem so they decided that they would allow themselves to be interviewed by scientists and press. They are requesting freezers to keep their food cold as the temperatures are no longer freezing in the winter anymore (ref #5 link) and they also want washers & dryers and flat screen TV’s and computers and microwave ovens and limousines to help them cope with global warming and be informed and be able to teach their tribes along with all the research funding they have asked for for their tribal scientist commission. The tribes have formed a new government branch called the United Inuits of World containing all of the following tribes that are scattered all through out the frigid northern climates that stretch for thousands of miles across the arctic:
Greenland Inuit
Nunatsiavut (Labrador Inuit)
Nunavik (Quebec Inuit)
Nunavut (Central Canadian Inuit)
Inuvialuit (Western Canadian Inuit)
Inupiat (Alaskan Inuit)
From: Obamaforever
To: Hypg3n, jccalhoun, GetSmart
To: Johnny (aka John C. Dvorak) I never look at the dates on articles.
Hypg3n and jccalhoun, thank you for your support.
GetSmart, your post is right on the money.
I was a bit amazed that Johnny had used a science article for one of his posts. Remember, this is the man that gave us the half-assed Harris/Mann chart. Anyway, I start to read the article and my eyes look up to upper left corner and I see the 1993 date. OMG, it almost makes one believe there is a god.
I think Johnny believes that everyone is like the anti-Climate Change Retards, that is, no reading just foaming at the mouth. Johnny, keep the out-of-date articles coming. We just “love” them. hee, hee, hee, hee, hee
News Flash. This just in. Dvorak posts article-
Title: Man discovers fire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Life is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JimR said “Pathetic. 16 year old scientific data collected from glaciers is not scientifically valid anymore because… why?”
The science may or may not still be valid. The claim that “the NY Times seems to have switched sides” because of this article is not.
Pretty good. Two non-sequiturs in only three sentences.
#15, this thread topic is about the scientific data collected, is is not?
Three non-sequiturs if you count the date of the article and posting it as current.
So I’m confused. Is John Dvorak in favor of or against an instant ice age?
RGB, amazing! Richard B. Alley managed to have all that data for 16 years and not lose it. I also find it very refreshing that he has made it publicly available for anyone to see. There also doesn’t seem to be anything missing… the transition through core samples doesn’t jump suddenly….
He could teach some current climatologists something about integrity…
Good post.
Yeah, RGB. Let’s talk about Richard B. Alley. I can not find that quote from him. What I do find is that he’s part of the IPCC that shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore.
And www.chicagocleanpower.org/alley.pdf" rel="nofollow">this article that he wrote, he states curbing carbon emissions will reduce future warming.
And with people willing to distort scientists work like this, do we wonder why they are grumpy.
From the original article as published in 1993:
“One reason for special concern is the link between temperature and the atmospheric content of the so-called greenhouse gases. Early this year French researchers noted that microscopic air bubbles extracted from ancient ice in both Greenland and Antarctica have shown “a remarkable correlation” between a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature.”
Also, some commentary in the article is done by Andrew Weaver. So he should be pretty familiar with it’s contents. Who is Andrew Weaver? Andrew Weaver is a professor in the School of Ocean and Earth Sciences at the University of Victoria. He was a lead author in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group that, with Al Gore, won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Another remark in the article:
“Adaptation — the peaceful shifting of food-growing areas, coastal populations and so on — seemed possible, if difficult, when abrupt change meant a few degrees in a century,” he wrote. “It now seems a much more formidable task, requiring global cooperation with swift recognition and response.”
I don’t think that there is a single person out there that denies that there are significant climactic changes that occur cyclically and naturally… the current debate is all about the severity and suddenness of the changes that we are seeing take place at this time, and just how far those changes will take the climate within the next 100 years or so.
Well, now that that’s solved, we can ignore the Andes glacial shrinking, the loss of trillions of cubic meters of ice from Antarctica, and the growing expanses of wide open ocean in the Arctic.
Good job!
The new Dvorak theme song.
Obsession
From: Obamaforever
To: RBG and JimR
You two need to do more research. Hyph3n is correct. Richard B. Alley is a PRO-CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTIST. If you had taken the time to google ‘Richard B. Alley’ you would find that he is not a Climate Change skeptic.
JimR, Dvorak’s article is O.K. as far as it goes, but he should have backed it up with a more up-to-date article. A lot has happen in 16 years.
I am thinking that Dvorak goes to a Climate Change skeptic site. He sees an interesting article and decides to put it on his blog. He does not take the time to look at the date. If he did he would not care. What is a measly 16 years? And of course he does not take the time to look for a more current article.
RBG and JimR, please do more research so you two do not make fools out of yourselves.
The article on the NYT website doesn’t ever mention
a) which article/journal they are talking about,
b) who the author of the original research was, or
c) the date (even vaguely) that it was published.
Without those items of information, I don’t see how one can possibly hold an honest conversation about their findings.
How am I supposed to know what their methodology was?
Yes, there are comments from other researchers, and from other teams, or from the “drilling” team. But nowhere do they mention anything other than a vague reference to the journal Nature on the second page.
And just to kick a man when he’s down… RBG’s quote is not from Richard B. Alley, but from a blogger named J. Storrs Hall.
I supposed RBG meant only the data was from Alley, not the quote. But considering the quote is uncredited, I would say he was than intentionally trying to mislead folks.
I got to say if this is the evidence against global warming, it’s weak.
During the early 1990s, I happened to have dinner with high level governmental environmental scientists from northern Europe (not climate researchers per se). I was a “kid” at the time.
I asked, “What do you think about global warmining?”. They looked annoyed and said the Earth was entering a cooling period! Silly me.
Obamaforever, where do I say that Richard B. Alley is not a Pro climate change scientist? Here’s a hint… I never did.
Here’s another tidbit for you that you would know if you could see more than black and white. I can agree that CO2 has an effect on climate change on our micro scale of 150 years, but not lose sight that natural global climate changes constantly with swings that dwarf our current CO2 blip. I also take exception to the scare mongering of anthropomorphic global warming pundits who IGNORE historical climate change events as recent a recent as 5.000 years, that clearly show that the transition we are experiencing is nothing compared to what will naturally happen should we do nothing, and in fact we may be averting a natural decline in temperatures that would be far more disastrous.
Add to that, data manipulation, collusion, and downright corruption throughout the IPCC net, I don’t see how you can defend anything they publish without feeling dirty.
@Obamaforever , chill , I don’t appreciate your aggressive tune, others are responding in a proper manner and you mock them as if you are better than them? , that is pathetic ?? the arrogance.
I am sure if Al-Gore comes up to you himself and says there is no such thing as Global warming , you will call him a denier too.
I don’t know if Global warming is true or not ,I used to think it was ,but after reading around the net it seems that is not as clear cut as you think ,
And I am quite frustrated with copenhagen treaty and the solution they came up with (Cap & trade that is the most obvious scam that makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty criminal , it should be stopped) instead of engaging in research for alternative fuel, they should not give that tax money to the banks and use it for research,
and the mere fact that Media (CNN,BBC) recently started to attack the skeptic verbally in subtle manner , tells me that these guys are up to something. (I was watching Amanpour show on CNN , she did 2 shows regarding this matter one with Maya Lin , and the other one was in regards to climate change and she had on a women who was representing some country in Africa)
I am not very qualified to pass judgement on this matter , but after following this subject for a few years there seems to be something fishy going on here.
I believe whatever the media is hyping about there is some other motive for it , than just just reporting the matter , so i tend to look opposite of what they are trying to prove.
Propaganda is easy to detect you just have to pay attention.
From: Obamaforever
To: Hyph3n per #27
To: Father per #28
Hyph3n, it is O.K. to kick RBG when he is down. You can do the same to JimR and Johnny. We have not heard from the terrible three for a while. I believe they have gone to ground, so kick away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Father, you are silly-BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!