HockeyStick, finally updated with modern trees, collapses

Yet not as warm as before the little ice age. If the hysterical alarmists had been around back then, when you could grow wine grapes in England and Greenland was green, what would they have blamed? Viking farts?

 

Since we are 7 billion and growing, global warming is man's fault for copulating and adding to the population. We have added billions of bodies which are 98.6 degrees, and our body heat is warming up the planet. Man made global warming.

 

Most of the time a person in an office will generate about 400-500 btu,for a person at a walk you need about 600-800 btu and for vigorous exercises your up into the 1500-2000 btu for short periods.

I used to have to calculate how to cool a gymnasium during a game. We figured about 400 btu per hour.

Multiply, say 500 btu per hour by the population and you get 3,500,000,000,000 btu per hour.

The sun produces about 427.9 btu per sq/ft per hour which makes about 2,364,438,054,971,900,000 btu per hour.

That means that people create about 0.00014803% of the energy on earth by being alive. Man made global warming.

 

The last time Greenland was green was between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.

 

When a pool is full of water, how many drops does it take to make it overflow?

 

Yet it was green enough for the Vikings until the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler. Correct me if I am wrong but they did not live on Greenland 450,000 and 800,000 years ago.

 

It

It was green along the coastlines, and for 500 years during the medieval warm period they farmed it. As the climate cooled, they moved away. That is what I was referring to,, but granted, they lived alongside glaciers. But it was a very green place along the coast.

So, it was green during the medieval warming period. But of course not all of it.

What caused the medieval warming? We were in an interglacial period, which would naturally be a warming What caused the little ice age? Climatologists do not know what causes ice ages. All that they seem to be certain of, is that man is causing climate change. They know so little, yet they absolutely know this? LOL.

 

Yes, the Vikings lived in Greenland, but only along the southern and western coast. The majority of Greenland has been covered with ice for the last 110,000 years.

http://archive.archaeology.org/image.php?page=online/features/greenland/jpegs/map.jpeg

 

The interglacial warming peaked about 5,000 years ago and there was steady cooling until about 100 years ago. The medieval warm period corresponds to a period of increased solar activity, while the little ice age was simply a return to normal afterwards.

Climatologists do know what causes ice ages. Look up Milankovitch cycles sometime.

 

Yes, during this interglacial they have melted. Otherwise, they didn't. In fact, Greenland has never completely melted during any interglacial including this one.

 

The machinations of the Hockey Team were always plainly agenda driven.

I can't wait to see the outcome of the Stein/Mann fight.

 

So any indications that it could melt completely would be unprecedented, right?

 

It melted more during the last interglacial. It will not melt completely.

 

What is so incoherent here, is that you can take one scientist, who will say they do not know, yet another one will say indeed they do know. And if you dig deep enough, you will see that the ones that said they do know is not basing it upon hard evidence to back up his beliefs, but upon a theory, which has never been actually proven in the way that a hard science provides proof.

So, my contention will remain unchanged, as it applies to ice ages. But I don't want to get into slinging one scientist against the other. For that gets us nowhere, right? And never would I actually trust any scientist, who is earning his living from gov't grants, to prove what the IPCC reached a conclusion on, before they shoved a couple billion a year, into that co2 research with the agenda to find evidence that the conclusion was actually correct.

But with that said, it is my opinion that solar activity has more to do with climate and climate change, than co2. And it is not my opinion but fact, that the money being given to study climate change is only related to co2 and basically ignores the other factors involved in climate, and change. In order to really study the other factors, and place them in context, requires grants these days. We are not shoving billions in solar research and climate. And if we did, we would probably see it as a major factor in climate and change.

How do we know, with hard irrefutable evidence, that the warming peaked 5000 years ago? And how do we know, that the little ice age was a return to normal, after the medieval warming period? It seems that after the ice age ended, the big one, that we entered into an interglacial period, which saw a warming of the earth, melting glaciers, and then that was interrupted by the little ice age, which added to glacial ice, and since the end of it, the glaciers have been predictably melting, as normally would be expected.

Also, it is also said, by scientists, that our interglacial period has already lasted longer than it should have, and that if we were similar to past ice cycles, we would be already cooling down again, entering into the next cycle of ice ages.

When hard science creates a model, they have a great record in making predictions, which shows that the understanding and data used was accurate. Yet when these climatologists created their climate models, they failed to make accurate predictions. Which means that they do not have enough of an understanding of climate, and the factors involved, to make accurate predictions, using these models. This should illustrate that they don't know enough about this subject to send people into hysterics over climate change, but it is dismissed by the hysterical, and the scientists involved in creating those models. I think this is human nature imposing itself into science, and the inability of the egos to admit they are not capable of making predictions that match reality.

 

There is no such thing a "proof" in science, and you will seldom if ever see that word in a scientific paper. Science is always open to new data. What science does have is evidence, and when the evidence becomes large enough and compelling enough, it becomes perverse to withhold one's provisional assent. Nevertheless, we see that perverse attitude time and time again in Denierstan.

We do not have one scientist against another. What we have is one scientist against thirty-two. And the denizens of Denierstan have absolutely no problem ignoring the thirty-two and clinging to the one, for political rather than scientific reasons.

And yet you have no trouble at all trusting the one on the other side, who receives his money from fossil-fuel interests.

And why should anyone trust your opinion, when the overwhelming weight of actual evidence says that you're wrong, wrong, wrong?

If it really is a fact, then you should have no trouble at all proving it. Citations, please.

Oh really? And how many papers have you read during the past year on solar effects on climate? Do you even know how many have been published, just in the last ten years? Thousands.

There's no such thing as "irrefutable evidence". See Climate Denial Strategy #3 in my sigline. What we do have is a lot of unrefuted evidence, but that's just never enough for the denizens of Denierstan.

And to explain why this happens, the denizens of Denierstan throw up their hands and say it must be magic, and to hell with Conservation of Energy. Because actually trying to explain the evidence is way, way too much like "science" to be acceptable to the ayatollahs.

What scientists said that? In what peer-reviewed papers? Citations, please.

No model is perfect, but some models are useful. What prediction are you claiming climate models made, that failed?

 

Thanks for agreeing with me.

What is your opinion of a study funded by big oil that concluded "many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend."

By looking at all of the available data. Marcott et al. 2013 is the most comprehensive reconstruction of temperature over the current interglacial. If you don't agree with it's conclusions, then produce a better reconstruction.

Isn't that exactly what got climate scientists worried about Global Warming back in the 1970's to begin with?

CMIP5 is currently the most comprehensive, best tested climate model that climatologists have. If you think it is inaccurate, feel free to direct me to a better climate model.

 

Evaluation of short-term climate change prediction in multi-model CMIP5 decadal hindcasts

 

We're not talking about short-term changes here, are we? That would be called weather. Fortunately, they are much better at modeling long-term changes of 30 years or more.

 

All that says is that the CIMP5 outperforms the CIMP3. I'd (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hope so otherwise the tax payers waisted a lot of money. The models do not do well over the long term. They hindcast poorly. They are over tuned to CO2 in order to make scary projections. You would call a climate model a C- model. The modelers do just enough to pass the hindcast test no more.

 

Good theory…… but the Global Dimming Effect as well as the effect of acid rain on trees……….. pretty much messes up what you might expect to happen with tree rings.

 

Let us know where acid rain is still a problem while the tree rings still deviate from actual temperature. Piling on unprovable hypothesis (which is, after all, opinion) after another does not yield anything resembling fact. What it points out is that other factors are at play and you cannot believe a tree ring proxy record as anything other than a scientific curiosity, nothing to pin political decisions on. Briffa tree rings, which Mann's hockey stick is built on, was developed by taking tree rings from other parts of the world and as some of the climate gate emails show, a Russian researcher wrote that they were not showing what Briffa expected them to show yet they were later manipulated by Mann to show what he wanted to push as his agenda. Tacking together two completely different sets of data, one that has to be tortured dramatically and questionably, to push an agenda is just plain dishonest.

 

Well….. I do believe that Dr. Chaim Tejman does have the best answer for stabilization of the climate.

http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il/globalW2.htm

 

Sea levels have been rising for around 30,000 years now. So what exactly is your point here?

Are you aware that the "San Francisco Bay" is less then 10,000 years old? At about the time that the Egyptians were starting agriculture, there was no San Francisco Bay, just a small indentation where a prehistoric river ran into the ocean.



Funny how so many who scream climate change seem to want to live in a static world where nothing ever changes. They think the planet is now as it always has been, and always will be.

 

When are so many who deny AGW going to realize that change itself is not the problem. It is the rate of change that causes concern.

 

So explain the faster rate of change from the late 1800's to the 1940's.