2
   

Medieval warming was global

 
 
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 04:47 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html

Quote:

Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming?
The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html#ixzz1qJSy33t4
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 06:59 am
@gungasnake,
I think it has become obvious those who believe in global warming have turned it into a religion . They must have their way or they wont feel important .
They take measurements from ice laid down during an ice age and declare the place to be getting warmer now the ice is going. How pathetically stupid can their methodology be ?

When the Earth had its maximum green house gases, it had a ice age that turned it into a snow ball . Conveniently ignored by the warmers except to say global warming can make it cooler....?????
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 07:20 am
@Ionus,
Quote:

When the Earth had its maximum green house gases, it had a ice age that turned it into a snow ball

When was that Ionus?
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 07:58 am
Yeah. What years?

Here's more from Zunli Lu's webpage at Syracuse University:

Quote:
Trace elements in carbonate and paleo-redox
Global warming will affect marine ecosystems in complex ways. The lower oxygen solubility at higher temperatures could lead to a decrease in dissolved oxygen (deoxygenation). This would severely impact ocean life (including valuable fisheries) because oxygen is necessary for eukaryotic organisms, and plays an important role in biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and other biochemically important elements. Forecasting ocean chemistry changes during perturbation of the climate system relies on the development of computer models and their calibration using proxy data on the state of the oceans. Development of geochemical proxies thus is key to enable us to use geological records to predict potential consequences of global warming. I'm interested in developing new and sensitive proxies for oxygenation, to investigate changes in oceanic redox conditions during abrupt warm events and oceanic anoxic events in the geological past. Currently, I'm focusing on iodine proxy in carbonate rocks and micro-fossils.


He doesn't sound like a doubter to me. You?
Joe(just gassing through)Nation
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 08:04 am
@Joe Nation,
It will be the years that Pangaea was located at the South Pole. But we are supposed to ignore that and assume it was the entire globe.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 08:06 am
@Joe Nation,
Lu's not a doubter. It's the people that took his 41 samples and tried to make it have meaning beyond his claims, those are the doubters. I would hate to see how much they whined if global warming advocates only used 41 samples to declare warming exists.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 08:22 am
The basic idea was for Algor to become the world's first carbon-exchange billionaire. It's all about money.
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 09:03 am
@gungasnake,
Oh well, that's clear enough. So, I should call Al, ask him if he's made enough money and, if he has, to call off the conspiracy.

But, then what should those who are experiencing climate change do in the meanwhile, pray for rain?

Joe(check out Texas)Nation
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 09:24 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

No, it just throws doubt on your logic. This is a classic example of the fallacy of "affirming the consequent." If CO2 emissions cause global warming, the reasoning goes, that must mean that all global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. But that doesn't follow. Just because global warming on at least one prior occasion was caused by something other than CO2 emissions doesn't mean that global warming on this occasion isn't caused by CO2 emissions.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 09:41 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

No, it just throws doubt on your logic. This is a classic example of the fallacy of "affirming the consequent." If CO2 emissions cause global warming, the reasoning goes, that must mean that all global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. But that doesn't follow. Just because global warming on at least one prior occasion was caused by something other than CO2 emissions doesn't mean that global warming on this occasion isn't caused by CO2 emissions.


Agreed. What then do you call the error associated with fervently believing a theory that so far is only occasionally (and even then, slightly) consistent with the evolving facts and observations?
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 09:42 am
Doesn't show a damned thing about climate change today, except in the fever fantasy dreams of Daily Mail reporters.

The Medieval Warm Period, from proxy temperature indicators, was .1 to .2 degrees C cooler than the 1961-1990 glaobal temp average, which has itself been exceeded by every year this century.

Furthermore, when different forcings are going on than during the MWP, you can't use it as a guide to what's happening today.

Simple facts: greenhouse gases raise global temperatures, more greenhouse gases, more temp rise. That's basic physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily rising. It is around a third greater than it has been any time during the last half dozen ice ages and interglacials, higher than the WMP. Isotopic analysis of the atmospher shows that the increase is due to human activity, in particular burning fossil fuels. So temps have been rising and will continue to do so. The WMP is entirely irrelevant to those facts.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:19 am
@MontereyJack,
Unfortunately for your theory global temperatures have NOT been rising as predicted by AGW enthusiasts or even by the IPCC. The total observed warming since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 18th & early 19th centuries. That's about one-third of the IPCC prediction.

Following exposure of the decidedly unscientific behavior of some leading AGW academic proponents, and the continuing failure of the natural atmosphere to respond as predicted by their theory, they changed their verbiage a bit, now referring to "climate change" instead of "global warming". A sneaky little deception that, in that the earth's climate has always been varaible and filled with changes on many different time scales. We now also see increased references to the supposed greater incidents of violent storms, while careful analysis shows nothing unusual happening other than the increased urbanization of areas ones relatively empty.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:36 am
@georgeob1,
I omitted a few words in the opening paragraph of my last post. It should read
Quote:
Unfortunately for your theory global temperatures have NOT been rising as predicted by AGW enthusiasts or even by the IPCC. The total observed warming since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 18th & early 19th centuries has been less than 1 degree C. That's about one-third of the IPCC prediction.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:45 am
@parados,
Quote:
It will be the years that Pangaea was located at the South Pole. But we are supposed to ignore that and assume it was the entire globe.
The mineral, called Ikaite, is a hydrated form of Aragonite/Calcite. Its a recrystallization of some earlier minerals , the porocess of which occurs only in cold waters. The fluctuating amounts of O16/O18 give clues as to the warming temp in THESE COLD AREAS. Also, the time period that liu has been studying is the Holocene, not when "Pangea was at the SOuth Pole" His groups studies are covering the time periods in the last 100K and more concentrated on the last 10K. Since C14 can be effective in that time sequence, the research groupmay also see about the time period of recryctallization since the CO3 would have been remobilized and would pattern out as "A New Geo Clock date"

Much geological data is coming out that does not affirm man induced climate change Im afraid. Whether Liu is a "Believer" or a denier" is kinda stupid, lets just let the data and evidence [play out and wuit the fuckin conclusions till its all in .
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:49 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
That's about one-third of the IPCC prediction.

Which IPCC prediction gives warming predictions from the end of the little Ice Age til today?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:50 am
@farmerman,
I realize that was the time period Lu was studying.

I was responding to the claim that the earth was a snow ball when CO2 was much higher.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:53 am
@parados,
There was an entire geologic period in the Pre CAmbrian, just before the "Cambrian Explosion" Thats was called the "Cryogenian" , popular writing has called this period "Snowball Earth"
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 10:58 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Agreed. What then do you call the error associated with fervently believing a theory that so far is only occasionally (and even then, slightly) consistent with the evolving facts and observations?

You mean like the persistent-yet-thoroughly-refuted belief that cutting taxes raises revenues? That's not a logical error, that's a psychological bias.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 11:10 am
@parados,
Quote:
“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
Press release Syracuse University
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2012 12:08 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

[You mean like the persistent-yet-thoroughly-refuted belief that cutting taxes raises revenues? That's not a logical error, that's a psychological bias.


I have never made such an absurd general proposition. Nor have I ever made such an equally absurd blanket denial such as the one you gave here.

The relationship between Tax Rates and the resulting tax revenues is clearly a function of numerous external variables, as well as the starting values of tax rates and collections themselves. It's a fairly easy proposition to show that at extremely low tax rates, an increase in the tax rate will usually yield aan increase in revenues. That's because, at some low point, tax rates have only a small effect on total exonomic activity. Likewise it is easy to show that at very high tax rates, a decrease in the tax rate will often yield enough increased economic activity to more than offset the nominal revenue loss associated with the rate reduction, resulting in a revenue increase. It is noteworthy that, at high initial tax rates, a large portion of increased economic activity goes to tax revenues.

Even a detailed and therefore complex analysis of this problem would fall short of the certainty you so blithely expressed, in that the energy and creativity people put into hiding income and otherwise evade taxes, through political action or simply diverting economic activity to barter or undocumented transactions, observably increases very quickly with rising tax rates.

It takes a simple mind to favor simple explanations.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Medieval warming was global
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.34 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 01:24:13