Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 Next
Comments 64401 to 64450:
-
Was Greenland really green in the past?
jatufin - Ah yes, marketing... -
Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
oamoe - The oceans are an excellent measure of total energy, but unfortunately detailed data only goes back about 50-60 years, with considerable uncertainty early in the record. With atmospheric temperatures, on the other hand, we have >150 years of instrumental data and numerous proxies going back over a thousand years. Personally, I think it best to continue to evaluate all of the data, take full advantage of the uncertainty reduction from redundant measurements, and define the state of the climate from every perspective possible. -
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
LIA appears to be global but much less pronounced in the Southern hemisphere than in NH (based on comparative glacial geomorphology). MWP varied globally in timing and strength as described in Mann et al, 2009 -
chirhophoros at 10:39 AM on 9 February 2012New research from last week 5/2012
Thanks Ari :-) CC -
jatufin at 10:34 AM on 9 February 2012Was Greenland really green in the past?
And about the naming of the place, why not to look at the original source: Þat sumar fór Eiríkr at byggja land þat, er hann hafði fundit ok hann kallaði Grænland, því at hann kvað menn þat mjök mundu fýsa þangat, ef landit héti vel. 1880 translation: In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, "Because," said he, "men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name. -
oamoe at 10:27 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
In you discussion you cite the atmospheric temperature record as adjusted by Foster and Rahmsdorf. You then, almost as an afterthought, note that heat is accumulating elsewhere as well and show a y-axis squashed graph of ocean heat content. Why should ocean heat content be an afterthought? I would suggest we define global warming, first and foremost, as the accumulation of heat in the ocean. Since 90% of the global energy imbalance goes into the oceans, and since its heat capacity makes ENSO based heat exchanges far less important, it seems the ideal metric. Let's just use the NOAA 0-2000 meter global OHC frfom 1955-present as out standard graph, taking data from (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html) -
Sascha Tavere at 10:14 AM on 9 February 2012Global Sea Level Rise: Pothole To Speed Bump?
(novice question) "Summer melt on West Antarctica has received less attention than on Greenland, but it is more important" says M. Mann in his reticence paper. Because of ocean temperatures or are the other or more reasons? -
Fred Staples at 10:00 AM on 9 February 2012Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
I use the data, Tom, not the charts, which stop at 2002. However, the charts are interesting. Consistently significant cooling at all altitudes between 1958 and 1978, before the satellite data. We are discussing the impact on the satellites’ field of vision of the stratospheric temperatures. The weights of the relevant altitudes are shown on Roy Spencer’s chart, at your post no. 20. So, what does the TMT blue line see of the stratosphere? We are looking for the altitude at which the relative area under the blue line ceases to be significant. Would you agree that there is nothing significant above 15 kms, and little above 10kms, the point where the stratosphere might be said to commence? If so, Tom, you can download the HADAT data and repeat my calculations with EXCEL. My results have surprised you, so you suggest that they are in error. You will find that you are wrong. There has been no significant cooling for more than 50 years at 11.74 kms, which is the most influential altitude. At 15.75 kms the cooling has been more pronounced, but you still have to go back 22 years to achieve significance. What can we conclude from these facts. At the higher level the effect on the TMT line is marginal, both as to the trend itself and its possible impact. At the higher impact level, 10kms, there is almost no cooling trend. In between, a cooling trend of 1.0 degrees per century, but nothing significant for 50 years. So Tom, if your second and third points (29) are wrong, why (on what grounds) do we reject the mid-troposphere satellite data?. -
MattJ at 09:47 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
Typo: "ice caps exhibit little or now flow, " should read, "ice caps exhibit little or no flow, "Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed; thanks! -
skywatcher at 09:42 AM on 9 February 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
#120 muttkat: There's no evidence for vineyards in Greenland in the MWP, temperatures were nowhere near warm enough for that! The only evidence for crops are a few grains of barley found in a Viking-age midden, but that does not confirm whether they were locally-grown or imported. Local growing of barley is maybe possible in the warmest years of the Greenland MWP, but the most sensible explanation is that the Norse Greenlanders imported it, due to a combination of low temperatures and poor soils. It would be a commodity worth trading for, as the Norse were partial to beer! There are a few active volcanoes in Antarctica, but not enough volcanism to do much damage to a whole ice sheet (ice sheet big, volcanoes small). Iceland is a good example, where Vatnajokull survives happily despite having several active volcanoes under it, notably Grimsvotn and Bardarbunga. -
JMurphy at 09:34 AM on 9 February 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
muttkat, have a look at the Greenland used to be green myth. I doubt there would have been any vineyards there, though. As for underwater volcanoes, presumably they would be very noticeable, being as how the water temperature would get warmer the deeper you go towards those volcanoes ?Response:[DB] NSIDC has a FAQ on undersea volcanoes here:
http://nsidc.org/asina/faq.html#volcanoes
"The heat from the volcanoes would have dispersed over an enormous volume and had little effect on ocean temperature, much as a bucket of boiling water emptied into a lake would have little effect on the lake's temperature."
-
muoncounter at 08:48 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
Neukom 2009 reports on southern South America: The reconstructed SSA mean summer temperatures between 900 and 1350 are mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology. After 1350, we reconstruct a sharp transition to colder conditions, which last until approximately 1700. MWP appears much more variable; hence the controversy over whether it really was a 'warm period' or just a 'climate anomaly.' -
EliRabett at 08:25 AM on 9 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
Eli, takes no position on whether the temperature is rising in jerks or ramps, but even if you hold for jerks, why are all of the jerks are positive? and jerks are bigger trouble because the damage comes all at once. -
Composer99 at 08:22 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk: The purpose of this post is to refute the contrarian claim that the Medieval Climate Anomaly was globally warmer than the present day, where 'the present day' is, effectively, any given year in which someone asserts this claim. The SkS-created graphic to which you object (thank you for the correction, by the way) does exactly this by showing both the MCA global temperature reconstruction (to the extent that such a thing is possible given the proxy data used) and a (not quite) present day global temperature anomaly, both calibrated to the same climatological baseline. Indeed, the present day data is already a few years out of date. Since the contrarian claim is about the present day, it is IMO sufficient to show that the present day is much warmer than the MWP/MCA. If you want a more complete picture, there are always the Moberg et al 2005 reconstruction with instrumental data in the 'Basic' version of this article and the various other graphs provided by Daniel Bailey upthread (comment #20). Given the inclusion of these graphs in this post (to say nothing of other posts with additional information) I think SkS has satisfactorily minded the ps and qs.Response:[DB] The Basic tab article in the OP above shows the SkS version of the graphic from Moberg et al 2005. The original is here:
With a zoomed-in version of the pertinent section here:
It is left for the viewer to demonstrate a substantive, non-pedantic difference between the SkS version and the original graphic from Moberg.
-
Klaus Flemløse at 08:16 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
Until now I have understood that LIA and MWP are not global. Is this still correct ? -
Paul D at 08:11 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
"Wall Street Journal rapped over climate change stance": http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/48528 -
Don9000 at 08:08 AM on 9 February 2012NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 2)
Tom@42 Tom, I never meant to criticize the use of "implies" in Dr Hansen's paper. I have looked through my post and don't see such a criticism, but perhaps it appears to be implied. Again, it was not intended to be. On your second point, I readily concede that many people use the English language far too loosely. I try to buck that trend to the best of my ability, but I also concede I am far from perfect. To be fair to native English speakers, the language's marvelous flexibility does render it at times rather illogical or inconsistent or prone to errant constructions. That said, I suspect Latin as actually written and spoken by plebeians and senators alike back in the day had its own issues.--Don -
EliRabett at 08:02 AM on 9 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
If Briggs is arguing that (as Robert S said)Briggs argues that most people aren't actually interested in the uncertainty in unobservable model parameters, but the uncertainty in the unobserved observables - the temperature at places where averaging techniques (statistical models) attempt to predict, and where we don't have measurements (though theoretically we could).
Then he simply is ignorant (and Eli uses that word advisedly) of the research underpinning all global climate records. Remember that the prequel to GISSTemp was a study by Hansen and Lebedeff showing that there was significant correlation in temperature trends out to 1000 km. That conclusion has been confirmed by a large number of more recent publications and never falsified. So indeed, the global surface temperature anomaly records DO provide significant, statistically useful information about the anomalies at places where there are no thermometers and about the variability in those records. (you can, of course, verify this further by holding out stations from the calculation and then comparing, in essence BEST does this as a lumped study with the 36K stations) -
muttkat at 07:55 AM on 9 February 2012Antarctica is gaining ice
On the Antarctica ice melting issue aren't there some underwater active volcanos that would melt ice? Being there were crops and vineyards grown in Greenland between the 9th & 12th more or less how warm would temperatures have to get for that to happen again? What caused the temperatures to rise to that point before? -
Rob Painting at 07:52 AM on 9 February 2012NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 2)
Don 9000 - I'm sure a once-in-a millenium event is aptly described as 'monster.' See Barriopedro (2011). -
Rob Painting at 07:46 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"How can you compare centuries of data that include both a warm and cool period to a decade of warm data? By using 1711, I would be unfairly averaging in cooler years to the recent warmer ones to bring down the significance of the recent warming" No by including 1711 you would be including a period where global warming had not even begun. The question is: how does present warming relate to the MWP? Present warming is the period affected by human-added greenhouse gases. So how does that compare to a period without large human perturbation? You know, the natural background state. If, as is claimed, the MWP was warmer why does a compilation of the ENSO data indicate that the tropical Pacific was much cooler than present? As I'm sure you are aware ,the tropical Pacific has a huge effect on the global climate through the sea surface-atmosphere heat exchange. And once again, why is the ITCZ anchored further south during the MWP? That indicates an Earth cooler than present too. Maybe it was globally warmer during the MWP, but the evidence thus far indicates otherwise. "That is my exact point for not doing it in the MWP either. Otherwise the comparison has no meaning." And for consistency you'll be telling the fake-skeptic blogs that a comparison is utterly meaningless too. Right? -
Don9000 at 07:42 AM on 9 February 2012NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 2)
Rob, Your clarification and the news from Dr Hansen works for me regarding the missing word "implies." In fact, I have no problem with that word as Dr Hansen used it. My only small objection was that you used the word "state" and then inserted the word "monster" into your paraphrase. Rather small beer.--Don -
william at 07:23 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
If the freshening of the North Atlantic due to the export of ice from the Arctic ocean leads to the shutdown of the Gulf stream and therefore the extension of cold conditions in the North, the same effect could occur if the Arctic ocean becomes ice free. In this case, an accelerated melting of the Greenland ice sheet could occur as the now warm air from the ocean is sucked down katabatically over Greenland, melting the ice. We would possibly have a flickering back and forth between cold and warm periods, followed, when much of the ice is gone, to a very much warmer climate. This very cold winter in Europe may be a harbinger of things to come. How long does it take for the Gulf Stream to respond to a change in its driving force. -
jzk at 07:06 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"Of course, but then the Industrial Revolution had not even begun in 1711." Yes, of course that is the point. How can you compare centuries of data that include both a warm and cool period to a decade of warm data? By using 1711, I would be unfairly averaging in cooler years to the recent warmer ones to bring down the significance of the recent warming. That is my exact point for not doing it in the MWP either. Otherwise the comparison has no meaning. -
Alex C at 06:38 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
John: Thanks for the notice, will remember down the road.Response:[dana1981] It's probably an issue of copying from a Word document or something. If you just type the post straight into the SkS blog post box, the default font size is what we normally use.
-
Tristan at 06:31 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
I think I understand what jzk is trying to say. If you took the temperature reconstruction and randomly generated noise for it (in line with the expected distribution) to show examples of what the year to year temp might have looked like, some examples would have years (possibly multiple consecutives) as high as the decade just passed. -
Rob Painting at 06:26 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk -"How about this. Take Mann's chart and compare it to one of the last 300 years (1711-2011). Would the chart be different than the decade one? You bet it would" Of course, but then the Industrial Revolution had not even begun in 1711. Fake-skeptics make the false claim that the MWP was warmer than today, not 1711. So some comparison is necessary in order to demonstrate that that is wrong. It would be nice if an apples-to-apples comparison could be made, but that isn't possible. -
jzk at 06:17 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Yes I understand the proxy data, and I am not expecting to plot temperatures from May, 975. But certainly a more narrowed view can be taken. If not a decade, how about half a century? One can see from Mann's data that half of that period was warmer and the second half cooler. And besides, it is not Mann that is comparing a decade of our warmest weather so far to any of his data. It is this site. How about this. Take Mann's chart and compare it to one of the last 300 years (1711-2011). Would the chart be different than the decade one? You bet it would. -
muoncounter at 06:09 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
Oppenheimer 2003 on the 1258ish volcano. Palaeoclimate reconstructions indicate very cold austral and boreal summers in AD 1257–59, consistent with known patterns of continental summer cooling following tropical, sulphur-rich explosive eruptions. This suggests an eruption in AD 1257, producing a stronger climate forcing than hitherto recognized. A figure from a summary of Crowley 2000:
Clearly these volcanic events were known; I'm still not seeing convincing evidence that they initiate cooling lasting hundreds of years.
-
Tristan at 06:04 AM on 9 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
DB Absolutely, that's what I thought and why I checked. I wanted to alert him to a connection to his moniker in case he didn't know about it. -
John Hartz at 06:03 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
Technical note: The font size of the text in this OP is larger than the one normally used in SkS articles. -
Tristan at 05:40 AM on 9 February 2012Michael Mann, hounded researcher
Say I wanted to be able to evaluate the claims made in MM03. How big a project is that? Years or weeks? -
Rob Painting at 05:35 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk - "I could take Mann's data from the MWP and produce that global chart based on 950 to 1250. Then I could produce another chart with the same data, but only 980-990. Then, I could put them next to each other. One would be all red, and the other would be all white" This is the point I made earlier, although not clearly enough, you cannot do this because the proxy data with sufficient global coverage and resolution (detail at the annual level) does not exist. For the instrumental record we have millions of measurements made all over the world for the last 130-odd years. These have great precision because they were made by thermomemeters, on (mostly) a daily basis. Even then great care has to be taken to ensure spurious signals, and therefore bias, doesn't creep into the record. In the MWP thermometers had not yet been invented so we have to rely on signatures of global temperature embedded in ice cores, tree-rings, coral growth rings, sediment deposits, pollen, cave stalagmites/stalagtites (speleotherms) etc. Not all of these signatures (proxy data) have resolution at the annual scale, most are only indicators of local temperature, they are affected by other factors which have to be zeroed out, and virtually all of them are not complete. They only cover a small interval over the MWP. The purpose of the statistiscal analysis by Mike Mann and others is to combine all this data so as to give an idea of what global temperature was back then. That means weighting the data and putting them into a common reference frame relative to each other. That way you can allow for the fact that the data do not overlap, and have different time resolution, and are only indicators of local conditions. So what you ask cannot be done. -
Utahn at 05:17 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
Well said. Its amazing, almost any claim I've seen Michaels make is a distortion of the truth when you actually go to the source... -
dana1981 at 05:15 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
Also note that Nordhaus is one of the most conservative economists when it comes to estimating the costs of climate change, i.e. see here and here, and nevertheless supports putting a price on carbon emissions. -
jzk at 05:14 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"Also, "...to a peak of warming". Really? On what basis do you claim that current temperatures are a peak? All available evidence indicates that they are just a spot on a continuing upward slope." CB, Peak so far. If temperatures continue upwards, then it would be fair to redo the graph. Then, there would be a new "warmest" decade to use. Compare the warmest decade currently to the warmest decade in the MWP. Using Mann's data would still yield your desired result that the MWP was cooler than today, but it would be doing it in a fair presentation of the data. The comparison in the charts presented is meaningless. As I stated, I could show the same thing by comparing any time period to a shorter time period contained in itself. What would that show? Nothing. -
dana1981 at 05:13 AM on 9 February 2012Michaels Misrepresents Nordhaus and Scientific Evidence in General
Nice post Alex. You just have to shake your head when the fake skeptics insist their (mis)interpretations of the climate science/economics literature are correct, and the scientists' interpretations of their own work are wrong. Nordhaus has supported a carbon pricing system for decades, and it's a gross misrepresentation to use his work to argue against such a system. -
jzk at 05:10 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Composer99, Mann didn't take his chart and compare it to 1999-2008, skeptical science did. -
CBDunkerson at 05:02 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
owl905, you seem to be unable to differentiate between things that you (for whatever reason) assume I meant and what I actually meant (and/or said). This makes meaningful communication effectively impossible. -
owl905 at 04:54 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
@CB - your response doesn't match your original claim. And your response indicating that I either agree or disagree with Miller is untrue - I disagreed with your statement that the volcanic effect lingered for centuries. As for evidence that supports a better interpretation, read Mann - "does not require a solar trigger", but probably still requires that notorious weaker solar source. And that is not a feedback. And it makes a mess of the 'self-sustaining' phrase. Also note that Mann's paper shows no 'four super-eruptions' in the 1375-1400 interval, and the graph posted by muoncounter properly shows a real possibility from the mystery 1458 timeframe. -
Composer99 at 04:33 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk: The historical instrumental temperature record (those graphs of NASA GISS, UAH, HadCRUT, and the like) are compared to an arbitrarily defined 30-year climatological baseline period in order to clarify temperature anomaly information. I am not aware of any serious valid criticism of this practice. As long as the uncertainties and caveats due to proxy data (the differences in practice) are made clear in the applicable literature, is there some appreciable difference, in principle, between this standard practice and what has been done in Mann et al 2009 with regards to the Medieval Climate Anomaly? -
CBDunkerson at 04:14 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk, again... the claim that the several hundred year MWP was warmer than current temperatures comes from skeptics. SkS showing a graphic proving that claim false is thus perfectly reasonable. Rather than complaining here about a graphic disproving the claim, perhaps you should be instructing 'skeptics' on how to make less ridiculous arguments. Also, "...to a peak of warming". Really? On what basis do you claim that current temperatures are a peak? All available evidence indicates that they are just a spot on a continuing upward slope. "Compare the warmest decade of the MWP to the warmest decade now. That would be a fair comparison" It would not be the comparison that 'skeptics' constantly make and it is not possible with current data. We do not have sufficiently detailed geographic and temporal data to create a map of (or even conclusively identify) the warmest decade of the MWP. Though again, I find it odd that you suggest that the peak of the MWP should be compared to the not-peak of the current warming to be 'fair'. Surely, if we were really trying to determine whether modern warming is within the range of natural variability (as claimed) we should compare the peak of the MWP to the eventual future peak of the modern warming, no? -
Tom Curtis at 04:11 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk @58: "I just want to promote good science" No, you want to apply a cooky cutter standard without any understanding of context or purpose. Such "cooky cutter standards" cannot exist in real life, except as reduced to basic principle: 1) Do not present false information; 2) Do not make unjustified inferences; and 3) Always let readers know what you have done, so that they can check it for themselves. If you want to argue the article represents bad science, you have to engage with the argument in the article and show how it is unjustified based on available evidence. Failing to do that, at best you can show that there are people out there easily confused by a misunderstanding the author failed to consider (possibly because it is so obviously an unjustified inference). -
Tom Curtis at 04:04 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk @56, your claims are unjustified. To begin with, Mann et al 2009 make exactly the sort of comparison you claim to be unjustified. Specifically, figure one (intermediate article above) is a comparison of temperatures over a three century period in the Middle Ages to a thirty year period in the twentieth century. With a bit more work, John Cook could have compressed his two figures (from Mann et al 2009) into one by showing the MWP compared to a 1999-2008 baseline. Clearly, therefore, there is no inprinciple difference between Cook's comparison and the data presentation in the original graph. If there were any merit to your claim that such comparisons are bad science, then you must reject that chart itself for not (impossibly) choosing a three century baseline in calculating the anomalies. As it stands, I suspect editors and reviewers of Science Magazine know a little about what constitutes good and bad science. They appear to have judged this comparison of a three century interval with a thirty year interval good science for the very simple reason that, without such comparisons the mean temperature cannot be differences cannot be shown at all. That is something you should consider seriously. Without the sort of comparison, which you in a now deleted post called "absolute fraud" the information in the anomaly map could not have been presented at all. So yours is a standard which amounts to censorship of the data. The question with a diagram in science is always only three things: Does the diagram accurately present the information collected by the study; do the inferences drawn from the information in the graphic actually follow from that information; and is the graphic presented in a way that avoids confusion. On these three counts, nothing prevents a comparison of three centuries data to a single decade. What is necessary for such a comparison is that the conclusions be appropriately restricted, and that the data be presented in such a way as to avoid unwarranted conclusions. On the first point, (accuracy of information) there is no question; on the second, as the unwarranted inference you are making is not made by either Mann et al, nor John Cook there has yet to be shown a problem. On the third point, I believe that a caution to the effect that the data presented does not show that all decades within the MWP where cooler than the 2000s. But that is not a question of poor science, but of poor presentation. -
jzk at 04:03 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"a graphic comparing temperatures over those two time periods seems a perfectly reasonable response." CB, But that is not what you did. You compared several hundred years that contained both warming and cooling to a peak of warming. That is no comparison at all. Compare the warmest decade of the MWP to the warmest decade now. That would be a fair comparison, and if you used Mann's data, it would still confirm your case which seems to be, "yeah some warming then, but not as much as now." I just want to promote good science. -
CBDunkerson at 03:53 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
jzk, given that false claims that 'the MWP was warmer than current temperatures' are made on a regular basis, a graphic comparing temperatures over those two time periods seems a perfectly reasonable response. Yes, in an ideal world we would be able to tell the deniers, 'comparing multiple centuries to a few years is "meaningless and bad science"' and they would shut up and go away. This is not an ideal world. Instead, we present a direct comparison of the exact things they cited. If they want to change their claim to 'some decade in the MWP may have been warmer than the past decade' we can switch to pointing out that all available evidence suggests otherwise. Until then I really don't see the problem in providing direct evidence that the claim they are making is false. -
muoncounter at 03:36 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
A new discussion of the 'missing' volcano just popped up. Well-illustrated and sourced, including a figure from the new Mann paper.
It sure looks like these coolings are short-lived transients.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:18 AM on 9 February 2012Still Going Down the Up Escalator
piratelooksat50 From a statistical and scientific perspective there is no fuss, it is all really quite straighforward. The fuss arises when those who don't understand the science and/or statistics argue that climate change has stopped [or other such claims] on the basis of the lack of statistically significant warming over a timescale to short to expect a statistically significant trend whether the climate was warming at the expected rate or not. It is very much the purpose of SkS to point out such canards, and explain why they are specious. The escalator diagram is a very good example of this. -
MangoChutney at 03:18 AM on 9 February 2012Volcanic Influence on the Little Ice Age
@dana1981 #13 Thank you dana, this is as I thought and I agree "if this theory is correct". -
jzk at 03:07 AM on 9 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Tom, "There is, however, some justification for it in this instance." While you may have evidence to suggest that the MWP was not that warm, that warming will continue, that the decade chosen will turn out to be a cool decade, or anything else related to this issue, comparing those two charts is meaningless and bad science. That is my only point. In fact, it detracts from the real case that you are making because it appears to be manipulation.
Prev 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 Next
