Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Medieval Warming deniers dealt fatal blow as new evidence shows Medieval Warming happened in Antarctica and was global in extent   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 452
    More: Interesting, Medieval Warm Period, climate change denial, IPCC, Antarctica, tree rings, Little Ice Age, Antarctic Peninsula, ice cores  
•       •       •

4674 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Mar 2012 at 3:57 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



452 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-24 12:04:40 PM  
and this will change their minds or what?
 
2012-03-24 12:16:44 PM  
This proves 100% without a doubt that humans can't change the climate as well. Just like how the Giants winning the Super Bowl this year precludes any other team from winning it next year.
 
2012-03-24 12:27:04 PM  
There are Medieval Warming deniers?
 
2012-03-24 12:28:19 PM  
It was all them burnin' witches!
 
2012-03-24 12:31:03 PM  
you would of thought the gw enthusiasts / democrats / liberals would have dropped out of the gene pool by now, but nooooooo. happy saturday.
 
2012-03-24 12:31:19 PM  

munko: and this will change their minds or what?


depends on which loonies you're talking about - my personal view is that global warming is as much a natural process as it is anything else. the question is to what extent can mankind affect the whole process, and how to measure that impact. THEN we can ask ourselves what (if anything) we should do about the whole thing.

The GOP true believers tho, they feel that all global warming is part of a natural process and nothing we can do will stop it. Unless of course they don't believe in global warming at all, because SOCIALISMS or something. ether way, you can't really talk to them about it.

the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event. Evidence of global warming being part of a long term cycle on this planet is a vicious, evil plot by low down dirty corporations and we need SOCIALISMS to saved us from dem ebbil bastids. Again, you can't really talk to them about their beliefs because...well, f*ck you, that's why.

And then there's the rest of us, who are just trying to make sense of the data. some of which is contradictory, some of which is hoarded by academics who don't feel like sharing (either out of contempt for the masses or because they're trying to make a career out of this field). both 'sides' take things out of context, distort information and muddy the waters with personal and political attacks.

*sigh*

it's a mess.
 
2012-03-24 12:36:23 PM  

munko: you would of thought the gw enthusiasts / democrats / liberals would have dropped out of the gene pool by now, but nooooooo. happy saturday.


No, there are still scientists around, much to the dismay of the conservatives.
 
2012-03-24 12:36:27 PM  

GAT_00: There are Medieval Warming deniers?


oddly enough, yes. And i've seen both conservatives AND eco-nuts deride the idea of global medieval warming period data.

facts are facts tho, even if they don't fit neatly into your chosen worldview.
 
2012-03-24 12:39:45 PM  
nice paragraph/ your right /just kinda summerizing it all / had 2 semesters of climatology and meteorology so i know the truth beyond a shadow of a doubt /hope you like slashes ////
 
2012-03-24 12:41:34 PM  

Weaver95: Evidence of global warming being part of a long term cycle on this planet is a vicious, evil plot by low down dirty corporations


um... there is no such evidence dude.. not any that passes a sniff test let alone a peer review anyway.

that doesn't mean they're AREN'T natural cycles.. we've just controlled for the dominant natural forcings at this period and if the natural regime were the dominant forcing regime we would be cooling ever so slightly.
 
2012-03-24 12:45:02 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: There are Medieval Warming deniers?

oddly enough, yes. And i've seen both conservatives AND eco-nuts deride the idea of global medieval warming period data.

facts are facts tho, even if they don't fit neatly into your chosen worldview.


It's generally accepted. Hell, it's the reason the Medieval Ice Age was so nasty, the previous warm calm period allowed for growth. When the NAO became highly variable for about 50 years it killed a lot of people.
 
2012-03-24 12:46:31 PM  
Medieval Warming is just a conspiracy perpetuated by court alchemists who refuse to accept that the climate is influenced by an imbalance of the elements.
 
2012-03-24 12:47:02 PM  

Kazan: um... there is no such evidence dude.. not any that passes a sniff test let alone a peer review anyway..


the article in question seems to suggest otherwise:

More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica.



granted, the phrasing of the article is (deliberately?) inflammatory, but more and more evidence is showing that there WAS a significant period of warming during the middle ages.

which, oddly enough, isn't as big a deal as either 'side' seems to think. it just means that we don't have enough data yet to accurately model climate change fluctuations. cycles might be shorter than we thought, or maybe there's a variable we missed somewhere along the line.
 
2012-03-24 12:54:04 PM  
"Fatal blow"? Does this paper contradict the fact that the global mean temperature is higher now, or that the causes of the medieval warming are completely different than the current causes of climate change? All I gather from the abstract is that these guys are saying the effects of LIA and MWP extended to Antarctica.
 
2012-03-24 12:59:48 PM  
These global warming deniers remind me of creationists. They'll accept any scientific theory they hear about because "well they're egghead scientists, they must know what they're talking about" until it conflicts with their religious beliefs or self interests. Then everyone's an armchair scientist and real scientists are just after grant money.

...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.
 
2012-03-24 01:00:30 PM  

DarwiOdrade: "Fatal blow"? Does this paper contradict the fact that the global mean temperature is higher now, or that the causes of the medieval warming are completely different than the current causes of climate change? All I gather from the abstract is that these guys are saying the effects of LIA and MWP extended to Antarctica.


that's a good question - what DID cause the medieval warming period, and what are the differences between then and now? Are we entering a normal period of global warming that's being 'boosted' somehow by manmade pollution, is this an entirely manmade event or are we seeing a completely normal uptick in global temperature...?

or, you know, we can argue about what color socks Sarah Palin is wearing right now.
 
2012-03-24 01:02:05 PM  

Mugato: ...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.


same thing the eco-nuts have going for them - they want to prove that THEY WERE RIGHT all along.

most political debates these days really don't have a whole lot to do with the facts. its more about cheering for your team than anything else.
 
2012-03-24 01:07:59 PM  

Weaver95: Kazan: um... there is no such evidence dude.. not any that passes a sniff test let alone a peer review anyway..

the article in question seems to suggest otherwise:

More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica.



granted, the phrasing of the article is (deliberately?) inflammatory, but more and more evidence is showing that there WAS a significant period of warming during the middle ages.

which, oddly enough, isn't as big a deal as either 'side' seems to think. it just means that we don't have enough data yet to accurately model climate change fluctuations. cycles might be shorter than we thought, or maybe there's a variable we missed somewhere along the line.


um... that troll bait article is doing a good job of confusing you. we know the medieval variations are almost entirely, if not entirely, natural forcing. that has no bearing on what is going on now other than helping us tune our understanding of the natural forcings. that doesn't explain the billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we cannot find a natural source of, but if we calculate human contribution (fossil fuel usage) we miraculously find the source.

carbon dioxide is a strong forcer towards warming, unless someone wants to debate the chemical properties of CO2
 
2012-03-24 01:10:33 PM  

Weaver95: granted, the phrasing of the article is (deliberately?) inflammatory, but more and more evidence is showing that there WAS a significant period of warming during the middle ages.


Here's an overlay of a dozen or so different temperature reconstructions for the last thosuand years or two:

www.pnas.org

You'll note a common agreement that there was a relatively warm period
 
2012-03-24 01:12:23 PM  

Weaver95: DarwiOdrade: "Fatal blow"? Does this paper contradict the fact that the global mean temperature is higher now, or that the causes of the medieval warming are completely different than the current causes of climate change? All I gather from the abstract is that these guys are saying the effects of LIA and MWP extended to Antarctica.

that's a good question - what DID cause the medieval warming period, and what are the differences between then and now? Are we entering a normal period of global warming that's being 'boosted' somehow by manmade pollution, is this an entirely manmade event or are we seeing a completely normal uptick in global temperature...?

or, you know, we can argue about what color socks Sarah Palin is wearing right now.


I've read that the MWP was caused by a "negative La Nina" and "positive North Atlantic Oscillation" reinforcing each other, i.e., completely natural. Some speculate that it could have been kicked-off and/or stopped by volcanic or solar events.
 
2012-03-24 01:13:28 PM  

Kazan: carbon dioxide is a strong forcer towards warming, unless someone wants to debate the chemical properties of CO2


Cue the wall of green garbage
 
2012-03-24 01:17:45 PM  
Bleh. Got cut off. Here's the source for that graph, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2008. The red line on the right is the instrumental record-- it's warmer recently than at any period in that record.

What TFA claims is that according to one new paper, the relative warmth was also present in Antarctica, not just the Northern Hemisphere.

It then commits a significant fallacy by implying that because natural warm periods have happened in the past, human activities cannot be driving the current warming. This is like claiming that because humans have routinely died in the past, human activities can't kill off large numbers by war, famine, etc.
 
2012-03-24 01:18:31 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Kazan: carbon dioxide is a strong forcer towards warming, unless someone wants to debate the chemical properties of CO2

Cue the wall of green garbage


i assume that must be someone i have on ignore for being a useless idiot....
 
2012-03-24 01:25:21 PM  

Weaver95: Mugato: ...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.

same thing the eco-nuts have going for them - they want to prove that THEY WERE RIGHT all along.

most political debates these days really don't have a whole lot to do with the facts. its more about cheering for your team

getting paid than anything else.

Loonquawl is critical of your data sets and your shoddy analysis.

Phouchg supports you wholeheartedly.
 
2012-03-24 01:27:18 PM  

Weaver95: Mugato: ...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.

same thing the eco-nuts have going for them - they want to prove that THEY WERE RIGHT all along.

most political debates these days really don't have a whole lot to do with the facts. its more about cheering for your team than anything else.


"Both sides are bad, so vote against science."

What the "eco-nuts" have on their side is a rather massive pile of evidence. From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Note that this isn't an opinion poll-- it's simply a look at the published evidence in a massive sample of primary studies in the professional literature. Any jackass can say whatever they want in a newspaper interview, blog post, etc. But when it comes time to assess the overall picture based on the published evidence, things are pretty clear.
 
2012-03-24 01:41:09 PM  

GAT_00: There are Medieval Warming deniers?


lol yes, there are.
"it was local." "it wasnt caused by the sun" "it was so local that it had no impact on the rest of the planet"
 
2012-03-24 01:48:14 PM  

namatad: GAT_00: There are Medieval Warming deniers?

lol yes, there are.
"it was local." "it wasnt caused by the sun" "it was so local that it had no impact on the rest of the planet"


There's arguments for that for the Medieval Ice Age. The data from China doesn't show that much of a drop, and glaciers elsewhere didn't advance much. It got nasty in Europe, but not so much elsewhere.
 
2012-03-24 01:52:37 PM  

Weaver95: munko: and this will change their minds or what?

depends on which loonies you're talking about - my personal view is that global warming is as much a natural process as it is anything else. the question is to what extent can mankind affect the whole process, and how to measure that impact. THEN we can ask ourselves what (if anything) we should do about the whole thing.

The GOP true believers tho, they feel that all global warming is part of a natural process and nothing we can do will stop it. Unless of course they don't believe in global warming at all, because SOCIALISMS or something. ether way, you can't really talk to them about it.

the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event. Evidence of global warming being part of a long term cycle on this planet is a vicious, evil plot by low down dirty corporations and we need SOCIALISMS to saved us from dem ebbil bastids. Again, you can't really talk to them about their beliefs because...well, f*ck you, that's why.

And then there's the rest of us, who are just trying to make sense of the data. some of which is contradictory, some of which is hoarded by academics who don't feel like sharing (either out of contempt for the masses or because they're trying to make a career out of this field). both 'sides' take things out of context, distort information and muddy the waters with personal and political attacks.

*sigh*

it's a mess.


wait, I am so confused. I completely and totally agree with everything that you said.
fark, someone else posted my AGW rant before I could. Now what do I do???

My personal view, belief, understanding, position on global warming/cooling/ice age is coming has changed a number of times over the last few decades. As more and more science has become available, my views changed to reflect, not the consensus, but data.

The Deniers (new window)
This book alone, written by a noted Canadian Green activist, forced me to rethink everything that I had been TOLD was truth.

Did you know that the in the last 100 years, that this is the SECOND time that the arctic has been ice free (at least during the summer)?
Really? You didnt know that, but you think that the arctic ice melting has never happened in recent history? LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-03-24 01:55:14 PM  

GAT_00: namatad: GAT_00: There are Medieval Warming deniers?

lol yes, there are.
"it was local." "it wasnt caused by the sun" "it was so local that it had no impact on the rest of the planet"

There's arguments for that for the Medieval Ice Age. The data from China doesn't show that much of a drop, and glaciers elsewhere didn't advance much. It got nasty in Europe, but not so much elsewhere.


yes, but the difference between it was an European thing and it was a minor, but global event are two different things.
The deniers claim that it was local. The data is starting to show that it was global. was it the same everywhere? no. was it the same as a major ice-age? LOL, no. but to remove/smooth the event from your temp time series but it doesnt fit? yah, I have a lot of problems with that.
 
2012-03-24 02:00:09 PM  

Weaver95: which, oddly enough, isn't as big a deal as either 'side' seems to think. it just means that we don't have enough data yet to accurately model climate change fluctuations. cycles might be shorter than we thought, or maybe there's a variable we missed somewhere along the line.


The variable which I keep going back to is the sun as a driver. The sun spot data alone shows insane amounts of variation in the solar output. which over long periods of time (decades) would lead who huge shifts in temperature, ESP at a time when there was little or no increase/decrease in CO2. Is it the only factor? Of course not.
 
2012-03-24 02:06:51 PM  
Oh for fark sake. Global warming is an inherently natural periodic event for the Earth, but that does not absolve us of our responsibility for increasing its effects. We may not have caused global warming, but we most assuredly have altered its normal course.

To sum up: Both sides are loud mouthed idiots.
 
2012-03-24 02:08:31 PM  

namatad: The variable which I keep going back to is the sun as a driver. The sun spot data alone shows insane amounts of variation in the solar output. which over long periods of time (decades) would lead who huge shifts in temperature, ESP at a time when there was little or no increase/decrease in CO2. Is it the only factor? Of course not.


solar variation is account for and seen. luminosity differences in the solar cycle are visible in the record - it is a regular cycle.

i find it astonishing that random farkers think they're smarter than almost every climate and geophysical scientist on the planet....


arrogance that is called
 
2012-03-24 02:09:40 PM  

SoothinglyDeranged: To sum up: Both sides are loud mouthed idiots


uh...scientists are idiots? Is this what you really want to say?
 
2012-03-24 02:10:55 PM  

namatad: Weaver95: munko: and this will change their minds or what?

depends on which loonies you're talking about - my personal view is that global warming is as much a natural process as it is anything else. the question is to what extent can mankind affect the whole process, and how to measure that impact. THEN we can ask ourselves what (if anything) we should do about the whole thing.

The GOP true believers tho, they feel that all global warming is part of a natural process and nothing we can do will stop it. Unless of course they don't believe in global warming at all, because SOCIALISMS or something. ether way, you can't really talk to them about it.

the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event. Evidence of global warming being part of a long term cycle on this planet is a vicious, evil plot by low down dirty corporations and we need SOCIALISMS to saved us from dem ebbil bastids. Again, you can't really talk to them about their beliefs because...well, f*ck you, that's why.

And then there's the rest of us, who are just trying to make sense of the data. some of which is contradictory, some of which is hoarded by academics who don't feel like sharing (either out of contempt for the masses or because they're trying to make a career out of this field). both 'sides' take things out of context, distort information and muddy the waters with personal and political attacks.

*sigh*

it's a mess.

wait, I am so confused. I completely and totally agree with everything that you said.
fark, someone else posted my AGW rant before I could. Now what do I do???

My personal view, belief, understanding, position on global warming/cooling/ice age is coming has changed a number of times over the last few decades. As more and more science has become available, my views changed to reflect, not the consensus, but data.

The Deniers (new window)
This book alone, written by a noted Canadian Green activist, forced me to rethink everything that I had been TOLD ...


[citation needed]

And no, a denier book is not a citation. Science only, please.
 
2012-03-24 02:11:28 PM  

SoothinglyDeranged: I only know enough on the subject to come to an incorrect conclusion


FTFY

yes there is natural variation, no natural variation doesn't explain our current trend.

Kazan: i find it astonishing that random farkers think they're smarter than almost every climate and geophysical scientist on the planet....


arrogance that is called

 
2012-03-24 02:12:37 PM  
Got evidence that the current global warming is significantly natural? Write it down, submit it for peer review, AND COLLECT YOUR NOBEL PRIZE
 
2012-03-24 02:36:23 PM  

Mugato: These global warming deniers remind me of creationists. They'll accept any scientific theory they hear about because "well they're egghead scientists, they must know what they're talking about" until it conflicts with their religious beliefs or self interests. Then everyone's an armchair scientist and real scientists are just after grant money.

...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.


um ...
evolution vs creationism
evolution is a fact. Evolution happens. period. We have a number of theories explaining how it happens, and we dont have exact understanding of all of the factors, but there is no scientific question at all that Evolution is a fact.
Creationism denies all of science and the scientific method. (sort of, kind of) God exists. (axiom) (axioms are part of science) God made everything. QED

Climatology. (warmers and the deniers)
At best, we have a weak understanding of how climate works. Our current climate models do a terrible job of predicting the climate 10 years out. The recent cooling period was NOT predicted by the current climate models and was used by the deniers as "proof" that the warmers were all crazy. The warmers said that it doesnt matter, things will still get warmer.

The one thing which I KNOW for certain is that your models/theories must be able to PREDICT or your science is just a lot of hot air. I was taught that science was about making predictions and then TESTING to validate those predictions. Revise your models/theory, make new predictions, rinse and repeat.
 
2012-03-24 02:42:16 PM  

namatad: The recent cooling period was


DOESN'T EXIST MORON

talk out your ass more dude. talk out your ass more
 
2012-03-24 02:44:54 PM  

namatad: The one thing which I KNOW for certain is that your models/theories must be able to PREDICT or your science is just a lot of hot air. I was taught that science was about making predictions and then TESTING to validate those predictions. Revise your models/theory, make new predictions, rinse and repeat.


Where were the scientific tests proving that the introduction of pollution into our global environment *didn't* have an impact?

/oh wait no one ever did that
 
2012-03-24 02:45:43 PM  
Don't make me go all medieval on your ass you deniers!

Make with the graphs dammit!

i221.photobucket.com

/not a scientist so I gots nothing
 
2012-03-24 02:46:16 PM  

namatad: The one thing which I KNOW for certain is that your models/theories must be able to PREDICT or your science is just a lot of hot air. I was taught that science was about making predictions and then TESTING to validate those predictions. Revise your models/theory, make new predictions, rinse and repeat.


All I'm saying is that science isn't scrutinized or refuted by non-scientific people unless they have something inherently threatened by that science. I don't see many people screaming on talk radio shows that string theory is a bunch of horseshiat started by the string hugging liberals.

And to be honest I don't understand why anyone whose wallets aren't affected by the notion that reducing our carbon emissions is a bad idea are deniers except to be contrarian to who they consider to be "the liberals".
 
2012-03-24 02:46:40 PM  
I should be able to first put the poo in the ice cream and then the onus should be on you to have to prove that it's harmful.

.
 
2012-03-24 02:47:45 PM  

Mugato: string hugging liberals


You have maligned me for the last time, you bastard.
 
2012-03-24 03:39:38 PM  

Kazan: namatad: The variable which I keep going back to is the sun as a driver. The sun spot data alone shows insane amounts of variation in the solar output. which over long periods of time (decades) would lead who huge shifts in temperature, ESP at a time when there was little or no increase/decrease in CO2. Is it the only factor? Of course not.

solar variation is account for and seen. luminosity differences in the solar cycle are visible in the record - it is a regular cycle.

i find it astonishing that random farkers think they're smarter than almost every climate and geophysical scientist on the planet....


arrogance that is called


really? regular cycles? HAHAHAHAHAH
that was so cute that you ignored the major variation in those "regular" cycles ... but go ahead and keep pretending that you know more.

good thing that those regular cycles havent had any effect ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
cough

but you are completely correct
GW has NOTHING to do with sun
 
2012-03-24 03:40:57 PM  

gameshowhost: I should be able to first put the poo in the ice cream and then the onus should be on you to have to prove that it's harmful.

.


That's actually VERY close to the Ron Paul theory of Free Market economics.

gameshowhost: Mugato: string hugging liberals

You have maligned me for the last time, you bastard.


Is that a war on women thing?
 
2012-03-24 03:41:54 PM  

namatad: The recent cooling period


...what?

data.giss.nasa.gov

data.giss.nasa.gov
 
2012-03-24 03:46:18 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-03-24 03:49:21 PM  
When Greenland is green again someone will make a fortune in real estate.
 
2012-03-24 03:56:21 PM  

Triumph: When Greenland is green again someone will make a fortune in real estate.


And they're behind all the global warming denial. Follow the money.
 
2012-03-24 04:04:12 PM  
The existence of forest fires is bulletproof evidence that arson doesn't exist.
 
Displayed 50 of 452 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report