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
# 35 JimR
I’m a 48 yo expat living in Spain the last 24. In my life I’ve been from homeless, jobless, and carless to living FAT. It’s not soo scary to lose it all as long as material crap is all you lose. It seems apparent that you could give a crap about the ills of this world. As long as nobody comes asking for help. While babies are dying of starvation in your hometown you’ll be huddled over that little pile of material goods you put together with the sweat of your brow. You might inform yourself better as to the consequences of rapid climate change. That is if you wish to survive it.
It seems the consensus of this post, and one which I agree with, is:
Obamapologistforever is a troll.
An uneducated, sick troll.
Who cares? The debate is getting old. The believers are essentially saying “global warming is going to destroy our lives – – so we want to do it ourselves first.” Propose a solutions that doesn’t involve a smaller lifestyle or go away.
Good news is conservatives are switching from “there is no stinking global warming” to “there is global warming but it’s not our problem”.
Conservatives will eventually monkey pile to take credit once the issue is stupid obvious.
I’ve said all along that the focus on climate and temperature is stupid. We all know the crap that gets pumped out of cars, planes and power plants is poisonous. We need to focus on technologies that will reduce emissions and those that can cleanup what does get pumped out. Either this or get back to societal models of over 100 years ago and have everyone live on their own farms (live like the Amish for example). Much as I admire the Amish, I vote for smarter technology. Actually why can’t we do both? Either way, turning this problem into a debate is only going to make things worse, not better. If the world become a sewage dump, it’ll be Al Gore’s fault.
Sometimes I think scientists are trying to find a pattern to suit their beliefs. Has anybody thought that the climate might just be fairly random. Maybe their is not any real pattern besides having some extremes at random times.
#63 T/A
So what’s so special about your lifestyle that you’re so afraid to lose, like it or not lifestyles change and they don’t always get better, and sometimes there’s nothing you can do about it. If money’s the decisive factor in your lifestyle, you might want to reconsider your priorities. Time is short – even if the world isn’t coming to an end.
Last call, for alcohol…
one burbon,
one scotch,
one beer.
#57, Doill
Hannibal got his elephants across the Alps because it was late summer time. In case you were unaware, the Alps are not one big ice sheet. Hannibal also lost most of his force before he got to Trebia.
They still grow grapes in Briton. Any place they can grow grapes they can make wine. That doesn’t mean the wine is any good, the same as not all wine in France or Italy is any good.
Island is next to the Gulf Stream. Any ice pack is short lived but by no means uncommon. Winds often push ice into the North Atlantic.
Fluctuations in local weather means little. Anyone making that correlation doesn’t understand the difference between weather and climate.
If you want to know how much CO2 is natural and how much is man induced, lets look at some data. Although I did the work for you, it really is easy to find this out yourself if you know how to use a computer.
To “Obamaforever” My. my, my…. testy art’t we? Did I really hit a nerve? Or another attempt of a mastering technique?
Nope, just more rhetoric in the same old and predictable fashion. Your oratory is so predictable, once climate is mentioned. Noticed through a number of different posts here. The same defense and same reluctance to accept any other opinion what so ever. It actually becomes amusing, and as you put a lot of time into ‘killing everybody’ with a different opinion. There is f0r sure an agenda behind there. What is it? Why is that? And what are you scared of? The truth?
At least some objective discussion with an attempt of bringing academia on par on the Climategate situation: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
Like it or not, at least an effort. Maybe ‘Obamaforever’ could try to cool down a notch or two and argue in a non-emotional manner?
44. Obamaforever “Oh, yes! I am sure you can tell Dr.Alley a thing or two!!!!!!!!!!”
I certainly can tell Dr. Alley that his prediction for a warmer Earth is full of crap in view of a recent leveling and even lowering of temperatures.
I can tell him to not ignore his own graphed data and that of Antarctic ice cores that shows obvious cyclical temperatures going back tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years, and an obvious overall lowering trend of the temperatures over the last 8K years.
I can tell him in particular to note the warm temperature of coastal Greenland his data provides and ask why none of the great coastal cities of that time reported being under water.
I can tell him to stop letting his liberal politics interfere with programming his computers to give the results he is looking for as other famous climatologists have been caught doing red-handed.
Finally if I would tell Dr. Alley to allow his disciples to think for themselves else also slavishly follow other “expert opinion” that keeps us in wars.
Now recall the sage words: If it doesn’t fit, you must a-quit. I think the guy must have been Italian.
RBG
73 Mr. F
Ah yes, Science. Explaining the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions.
Predictions like the earth is warming when it is actually cooling.
But of course you are referring to Climategate.
Or is it:
“Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
“I assume that what is there is highly damaging,” Mr. Horner said. “These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.”
The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”
RBG
amodedoma, you certainly like to dramatize your posts hide your complete ignorance. It’s the poor who will suffer if the IPCC gets it’s way. All you have to do is look at BOTH sides of the consequences… what happens if the middle and lower class pays for global CO2 cleanup, and what happens if we simply proceed with developing new technology to replace oil, and let the earth warm a little. There are many many advantages to letting the world warm… in fact the energy savings are enormous. Who is talking about that aspect? Where are the studies for that side of the equation. The IPCC isn’t being scientific about CO2 forcing, they are being totally one sided. It’s disgusting. And it will hurt a lot of people. Do you know the Inuit of Northern Canada are welcoming the thawing of the NW passage? They stand to benefit from it greatly and get out of their perpetual poverty.. and won’t be cut off from supplies 8 months of the year. The route will save 7000 Km for every ship traveling between Europe and asia.
If you think the rich, and the AGF pundits will be hurt by the drastic CO2 reduction measures proposed, have a look at how they are behaving right in your face. These people are just out for themselves, suckers!
“Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.”
http://tinyurl.com/yzfvhe2
Yo, RGB, you copy and pasted a quote from a nano-scientist (who in the end, didn’t discount the possibility of warming partially caused by carbon dioxide) and attributed it to a major climatologist and his research.
By all means, please lecture the scientists about ethics.
I’m definitely not defending the scientists but when the other side seems willing to take their life’s work and twist it to whatever they want, they may not want to release the raw data.
I don’t know if CO2 is a major cause of global warming or not. I don’t know if cap and trade will fix it. But based on the the mistakes, unsourced crap and outright lies posted over the few days on the blog, I haven’t seen anything that would dissuade me.
Re#78 Hyph3n, I don’t know if CO2 is a major cause of global warming or not. I don’t know if cap and trade will fix it. But based on the the mistakes, unsourced crap and outright lies posted over the few days on the blog, I haven’t seen anything that would dissuade me.
You mean outright lies like the famous hockey stick graph… that everything IPCC hinges on? After all, if there’s no abnormal sudden rise in global temperatures, what are they so panicked about?
What do you think of the graphs in my post #48? Do you forgive a deception of that magnitude but discredit scientist skeptics because of a few laymen bloggers?
And what do you think of our “must have a gas guzzeling limo and eat caviar” summit leaders? Post #77.
If you only challenge the posters who have made errors in their posts, concentrate only on those errors, and avoid the valid and pertinent arguments that you are at a loss to explain… and think THAT somehow puts you on the right side of the argument… you are only deluding yourself.
The trouble with the Medieval Warming Period is that they don’t know if it was a regional thing or global. Your link n #48 is interesting, but the graphs unsourced, they aren’t normalized so it’s difficult to compare, and there are references to a studies that are not sourced or linked to.
And in the end, this is all AGW folks seem to have… interesting data that might show something, but it’s hard to trace back the original info.
Global warming is not Al Gore and his mansion or the IPCC crowd and their limos any more than Christianity is about Ted Haggard, homosexual sex and meth. The hacked scientists’ email don’t help their cause, but I have yet to find anything in there that disproved GW. At most it’s massaging data (which scientist do everyday for good and ill reasons) and trying to control the message.
Dvorak screwed up this post by implying the article was new and the NYT was swinging to the AGC crowd. RBG got caught in a blatant lie and has yet to say “sorry” or “my bad.” Yes, I put those on the same level… honesty and accuracy are honesty and accuracy.
For what it worth, I appreciate your posts. I think you have an interesting view of this… and you may be right. Global warming may be a 150 year blip on climate cycles we can’t control. I think it’s the best out of a bunch of bad scenarios. But hoping doesn’t make it so.
JimR, why don’t you challenge your own side for better data?
The graphs on the wattsupwiththat blog could have easily been made the same scale and units. Why weren’t they? I’m wonder if they would have shown too much similarity outside of the Medieval Warming Period. Why isn’t the bottom one sourced?
From: Obamaforever per #6
To: All anti-Climate Change Retards
To: Cursor per per #60 (Also known as Mr. hit and run)
I will be addressing you Retards shortly, but first I will eviscerate Mr. hit and run. I find that hit-and-run is a favorite tactic of the creationists. They pull an anti-evolution post out of their ass. The post is one big lie. You never see them again.
Mr. hit and run, you called me a troll for what I posted in #6. All I did was to point out that the date of the NY Times article was 1993. I bit dated wouldn’t you say, Mr. hit and run? The problem was that Johnny did not back-up the 1993 article with an up-to-date article.
How many Retards took the trouble to read the article-not many. How many Retards would have said anything about the 1993 date-zero.
If pointing out the obvious makes one a troll than I am a troll!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. hit and run, you have been captured, tried, convicted and sentence to a lifetime of having your head up your ass.
Speaking of which, Dvorak is absent from this post. He post the article and he does a hit and run. Embarrass are we, Johnny?
Re: Hyph3n, “Your link n #48 is interesting, but the graphs unsourced, they aren’t normalized so it’s difficult to compare, and there are references to a studies that are not sourced or linked to.”
Excuse me? Did you even read the page? There’s not a lot of copy.
Reference for source and data… “Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demolished the hockey stick graph in a number of papers that established that almost any numbers would produce the same configuration.” So look them up.
The article refrences 3 other scientific and historical sources, but you have to Google them. Is that too much to ask? And this isn’t the only article discussing these graphs. Others are more scientific in nature… but I suppose if you don’t want to know, you don’t want to know…. (I’m taunting you 🙂 )
Also, where did Dvorak imply that the article was new? Glaciers don’t suddenly decide to change their history of 150,000 years, just 16 years after we sample their data. What made you say The science may or may not STILL be valid in your post #15. it seems to me you are in denial and are being irrational in order to keep your current belief. I don’t mean that in a nasty way Hyph3n, I have caught myself doing that at times as well. Human nature.
Re:# 81, Hyph3n…Sorry, missed one of your points…”Global warming is not Al Gore and his mansion or the IPCC crowd and their limos any more than Christianity is about Ted Haggard, ”
I have to strongly disagree with that analogy. The IPCC crowd is pushing for global economic upheaval, and they are in a position to force it to happen. Ted Haggart or any other evangelist never had, nor ever will have that much power over you and I.
Hyph3n,
The entire ongoing Hockey Stick saga, papers (data) and correspondence to date.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Exerpt:
“A major investigation into the hockey stick, the Wegman Panel Report, was headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, also past Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics. The Wegman panel not only fully endorsed our findings, but also presented a wide-ranging critique of the insularity of the paleoclimate community, their isolation from mainstream statistics, and their hostility towards external review and replication work. Wegman makes a good recommendations about the need for higher standards of disclosure and review scientific research is used in public policy.”
Pedro… LOL.
http://uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Okay, I’ll make it even easier for some of you…
Published scientific paper that destroys the hockey stick graph. The one that started it all. Contains all data and sources.
http://uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
From: Obamaforever
To: pedro-King of the Retards per #86
Quote:
#83 A guy who writes every post in the form of a letter calling everyone else a retard. Rich.
End of quote.
pedro, you read as good as you think- very poorly.
The “everyone else” phrase I am thinking is your crowd-the anti-Climate Change people. If the phrase refers to the entire population of the world then you are wrong.-as ever! My phrase “anti-Climate Change Retard”. ONLY includes the people who deny the evidence of Climate Change.
pedro, King of the Retards, please return to the interstate and pick-up the cans you need to get your mule.
78. Give it up Hyph3n,
Read RBG 42 closely this time. Ditto 14 RBG.
The links identify themselves clearly including NOAA and even the original source data is provided as a link. You can lead a horse to global cooling but…
RBG
From: Obamaforever
To: pedro-King of the Retards per #91
I bask in the laughs of Retards.
So keep them laughs acoming!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many cans so far, pedro?
Okay, last one first…
JimR said “Also, where did Dvorak imply that the article was new?”
Dvorak said “The NY Times seems to have switched sides, though, so that could make a difference.”
I choose my words carefully. He implied that it was a new article. At the very least, he didn’t say that it was 16 years old. (Hopefully, he didn’t realize.)
JimR said “The article references 3 other scientific and historical sources, but you have to Google them.”
If you are going to play Jr. Scientist then you really need to play by their rules. It’s not my job to seek out the references they make (what if I get the wrong one?) It’s their responsible. Oh, I did follow a few links leading to another backwater blog with the same info. That ain’t science, that’s a reach around. If you are referencing a study, tell me where can find it.
JimR said “Reference for source and data… ‘Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demolished the hockey stick graph…'”
I know about the McIntrye and McKitrick argument. They say that you can take random number and mathematically still get a “hockey stick.” And they may be right. Of course, they may also be right (or wrong for that matter), but the data is still valid.
Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
RBG- I read your freakin’ article. How else would I know that the guy is a nano-technology research (shilling for research dollars, BTW)? And even he said CO2 may have some part to play even if there are other causes. Your original post has been altered to make the links a bit more clear, but you made it seem that the quote was from Alley. Why include the wikipedia link and a short bio of him in your post?
(The article itself was again– everyone say it– interested. But he’s not a climatologist and it would take 2 weeks to dig into the facts and figures he presents. Honest, if I have the time, I look at the links posted.)
From: Obamaforever
To: pedro-King of the Retards per #95
Quote:
Some food for thought: if there are so many more retards that laugh at you yet barely anyone besides you, whom do you think the retard really is? My money is on the few not laughing.
End of quote.
King of the Retards, the paragraph in question makes no sense (like you, hee, hee). I suggest you revise said paragraph. I think it might help if you pulled your head out of your ass first.
It might help to get some fresh air. Look for cans maybe? Yes? No?
#87, JimR,
The Wegman Report is a fraud. Two Republican Congressmen, in denial already, asked Wegman, also a Republican and Bush supporter, to write the report. Wegman claimed it was peer reviewed by some friends. Shortly after its release it was derided for the garbage it is.
Wegman, a Statistician, presented his report at the American Statistical Society. It was debunked there as bad science.