'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen' (page 10)

designs

At the end of the Berriasian period temperatures increased due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide. www.palaeos.com

besty

I'd like to know why you think Greenland is a suitable proxy for global temperatures?

Because it or any other place that is mostly ice like Antarctica is one of the most well preserved archives of data that we have to draw on for environmental conditions mellenia ago.

I agree. Where we might disagree is the validity of cherry-picking a region and a timeframe and then declining to cite the source. if I argued that the Antartic cooled within the same timeframe as the Artic warmed, what would you say?

I'd like to know which peer-reviewed journal the graph was originally published in?

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Noted.

I'd like to know specifically which warm period you would like an explanation for?

That's just it, I want to see the big picture not just the picture since the industrial age which doesn't tell the whole story.

I'd like to know specifically which warm period you would like an explanation for? Do you understand that dominant forcing may vary?

I'd like to know why the graphed x-axis shows an 11,000 year period and your post also includes a reference to 125,000 years? <confused.com>

I can understand why your confused and off topic. Because number 1 you didn't watch the video that is the reason for this thread, nor have you read the previous comments on this thread or you wouldn't be confused.

Ok humour me and explain it in your own words the warm period which you need help with I will try.

That consensus exists is shown not only by Doran Zimmeran 2009, Oreskes 2004 but also agreement by every national and international scientific body on the planet.

You still have not proven that consensus exists. Saying it more and louder does not make it so.

Difficult to prove something to someone 'open minded' who disagrees with 98% of climate scientists, pretty much every government on the planet, the United Nations panel set up to examine this issue, the US military and and every national and international scientific body. What kind of proof are you looking for? Given that the people interpreting the ice-cores you cite disagree with your view, where do you go from there?

Perhaps you can take a swing and answer the question of why temperature has been greater on the earth prior to the industrial age.

Give me a couple of facts to play with :-)

besty

unless Besty questions the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's data

No I don't - I wholeheartedly agree with NOAA that climate change is manmade - thanks for highlighting their role in global awareness of this problem.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57469878/noaa-links-extreme-weather-to-climate-change/

I'd welcome your opinion on other NOAA initatives linked to manmade cliame change such as ocean acidification, drought, and Atlantic hurricanes http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate/factSheets

Freeman Dyson is one prominent scientist who doesn't buy into the so called consensus. Henrik Svensmark is, I believe, another. His cosmic ray/global temperature hypothesis has been supported by experimental evidence collected at CERN.

Thank you for drawing attention to the efficacy of the scientific method - yes there are alternative explanations - but they are a minority view.

soontobe

Observed global temperature is on the verge of falling out of the predicted range (with a 95% confidence interval).

soontobe

Here is another chart showing the same thing:

besty

loving the Daily Mail as the source of all wisdom :-)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/16/article-2294560-18B8846F000005DC-184_634x427.jpg

besty

@soontobe:

Out of interest where would you place yourself:

1 - its not happening

2 - it is happening, but it's not us causing it

3 - it is happening, it is us causing it, its a good thing

4 - it is happening, it is us causing it, its not as bad as they predict

5 - it is happening, it us causing it, its as bad as they predict, but we can't do anything about it

And would you care to take a crack at the other 2 questions:

2 - Why any poster denying the consensus is better qualified than the 98% of climate scientists who agree with the majority opinion that human caused climate change is a fact, similar to evolution and gravity. (putting the deniers in the Flat Earth Club)

3 - The role of deep ocean warming and its relative importance to land surface temperature (may as well throw in some discussion on ocean acidification as well)

designs

Do any of the scientists who are of the 2% who do not believe we are in a warming period have an explaination for the Andes rapid ice melt. Do these same scientists have research and comments on global pollution from industrialization- fuels.

soontobe

loving the Daily Mail as the source of all wisdom :-)

The other chart is from The Economist. The data in the chart appear to be the same. If you don't have a problem with the data, then I fail to see the point of your comment besides an attempt at well poisoning. I notice you tried to do the same thing with TT2C. That's not going to work here.

And, by the way, I'm not going to play the "answer 20 questions" game.

soontobe

According to Ambler's review of the Doron/Zimmerman data, 10,257 scientists were contacted, 3,146 responded. That's less than 31%. Of that group "only 5% described themselves as climate scientists, numbering 157. The authors reduced that by half by only counting those who they classed as "specialists."

Smells like selection bias.

'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'

Share this