No simultaneous warming of Northern and Southern hemispheres as a result of climate change for 20,000 years

October 21, 2011
Earth

However, Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden, has now shown that global warming, i.e. simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres, have not occurred in the past 20 000 years, which is as far back as it is possible to analyse with sufficient precision to compare with modern developments.

Svante Björck's study thus goes 14 000 years further back in time than previous studies have done.

"What is happening today is unique from a historical geological perspective", he says.

Svante Björck has gone through the global climate archives, which are presented in a large number of research publications, and looked for evidence that any of the climate events that have occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 20 000 years ago could have generated similar effects on both the northern and southern hemispheres simultaneously.

It has not, however, been possible to verify this. Instead, he has found that when, for example, the temperature rises in one hemisphere, it falls or remains unchanged in the other.

"My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level", says Svante Björck.

As an example, let us take the last clear , which took place between the years 1600 and 1900 and which many know as the Little Ice Age. Europe experienced some of its coldest centuries. While the extreme cold had serious consequences for agriculture, state economies and transport in the north, there is no evidence of corresponding simultaneous temperature changes and effects in the southern hemisphere.

The climate archives, in the form of core samples taken from marine and lake sediments and glacier ice, serve as a record of how temperature, precipitation and concentration of atmospheric gases and particles have varied over the course of history, and are full of similar examples.

Instead it is during 'calmer' climatic periods, when the climate system is influenced by external processes, that the researchers can see that the climate signals in the archives show similar trends in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

"This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe. In these cases we can see similar effects around the world simultaneously", says Svante Björck.

Professor Björck draws parallels to today's situation. The levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are currently changing very rapidly. At the same time, global warming is occurring.

"As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today's as an exception caused by human influence on the earth's carbon cycle", says Svante Björck, continuing:

"this is a good example of how geological knowledge can be used to understand our world. It offers perspectives on how the earth functions without our direct influence and thus how and to what extent human activity affects the system."

Svante Björck's results were published this summer in the scientific journal Climate Research.

Explore further: Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

Related Stories

Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

September 11, 2008

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in ...

New Ice Age maps point to climate change patterns

January 19, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- New climate maps of the Earth’s surface during the height of the last Ice Age support predictions that northern Australia will become wetter and southern Australia drier due to climate change.

CO2 drop and global cooling caused Antarctic glacier to form

February 26, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Global climate rapidly shifted from a relatively ice-free world to one with massive ice sheets on Antarctica about 34 million years ago. What happened? What changed? A team of scientists led by Yale geologists ...

Cutting carbon dioxide helps prevent drying

March 24, 2011

Recent climate modeling has shown that reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would give the Earth a wetter climate in the short term. New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao ...

New interpretation of Antarctic ice cores

March 2, 2011

Climate researchers at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI) expand a prevalent theory regarding the development of ice ages. In the current issue of the journal Nature ...

Recommended for you

Climate change will drive stronger, smaller storms in US

December 5, 2016

The effects of climate change will likely cause smaller but stronger storms in the United States, according to a new framework for modeling storm behavior developed at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. ...

Extreme downpours could increase fivefold across parts of the US

December 5, 2016

At century's end, the number of summertime storms that produce extreme downpours could increase by more than 400 percent across parts of the United States—including sections of the Gulf Coast, Atlantic Coast, and the Southwest—according ...

170 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

teledyn
3.2 / 5 (28) Oct 21, 2011
This is a non-sequitur: "As long as we don't find any evidence for earlier climate changes leading to similar simultaneous effects on a global scale, we must see today's global warming as an exception caused by human influence"

Even if we had data going back billions of years, and we don't we have only the geological blip of 20,000 years, we still cannot leap to the conclusion that the cause is human influence. This is not to say that it is NOT human influence, only that merely standing at the scene of a crime does not absolutely make one guilty.

I do strongly SUSPECT humans are the cause, directly or indirectly, but it just irks me when science is presented as rhetoric; I'd hoped we outgrew that in the last century.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (35) Oct 21, 2011
Another nail of truth in the coffin of pollution loving AGW deniers.
RCB
2.4 / 5 (46) Oct 21, 2011
Another skewed article to prop up AGW; If Professor Björck actually looked at the temperature readings in the northern and southern hemispheres he could easily see warming is not global.
Another press-release article full of words but NO facts. It's too bad virtually none of the authors of this type of paper realize increases in atmospheric CO2, methane et al occur after warming, they are not the cause of warming. Since nature produces 97% of CO2, I do not believe the 3% tail is wagging the dog.

Truly sad propaganda..................
Egnite
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2011
As much as I'd love you to be correct RCB I'd rather hear about your evidence of such claims first. 3% seems a little low when you are couting almost 8billion carbon footprints. I'd expect fizzy pop companies to create about 5% themselves for putting in drinks...
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 21, 2011
3% x 500ppm = 0.000015 = 15 ppm.
Shootist
2 / 5 (33) Oct 21, 2011
Another nail of truth in the coffin of pollution loving AGW deniers.


"The polar bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson.
Cave_Man
3.8 / 5 (33) Oct 21, 2011
Omg again and again I see people saying "we only add a tiny amount"

Well that tiny amount has unbalanced a planetary "scale" which is now tipping toward the release of trillions of tons methane which are trapped in hydrates.

It's not about whether our emissions are building up, it's about our emissions changing things just enough to START a large SELF SUSTAINING cycle of methane release.

Like popping a balloon, you only need a tiny prick with a sharp needle and the whole thing pops, no matter how large the balloon is.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (76) Oct 21, 2011
Another nail of truth in the coffin of pollution loving AGW deniers.


"The polar bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson.


How many times have you posted this, a dozen? It's not an argument. Stop it.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Oct 21, 2011
Another nail of truth in the coffin of pollution loving AGW deniers.


"The polar bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson.


How many times have you posted this, a dozen? It's not an argument. Stop it.


Any time one can show that some intelligent and rational people don't buy into the AGW wild speculations, it is an argument. Just as the "absolute deniers" need to be combated, so do the catacysmic AGW promoters.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (73) Oct 21, 2011
http://en.wikiped...uthority

There is no reason to believe Dyson would have a better grasp of climate science than a climatologist. Dyson's celebrity is not an argument.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (34) Oct 21, 2011
If you are worried about the methane, extract it and use it for fuel.
kaasinees
3.4 / 5 (25) Oct 21, 2011
the tiny amount is a myth. a volcano might release more gas in one day than humans could, but the humans win on a year scale by far.
Doschx
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
The good news about AGW: little people can hold a proverbial gun to humanity's head. If you movers and shakers don't start taking steps towards self survival, I WILL buy an Escalade. With your tax money too, if I can swing it. *evil laugh*
pauljpease
3.6 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2011
The "tiny amount" argument just belies people's general ignorance about quantities, and non-linear dynamics. That's like saying it's fine to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.1%, because it's pretty close to zero, even though it is over the legal limit (in CA at least). Small numbers and small changes don't necessarily lead to small effects. Humans are naturally very bad and seeing the big picture of the entire web of cause-and-effect. There are so many feedback loops in nature that it's very difficult to know how small of a change is required to cause a noticeable effect. All of that being said, it looks like there's nothing we can really do to stop global warming. Even if we stop burning all fossil fuels now, the effects will continue to accumulate for generations. Better start investing in ways to become more adaptable.
Scottingham
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2011
Here's my thing about AGW...it doesn't matter if it's caused by us or not. It's happening either way, whether we like it or not. If we did or didn't start the chain reaction it doesn't matter because its started already.

Unless people get serious about nuclear power very quickly, our C02 output will never decrease.

We should be working on contingency plans for the inevitable sea level rises. Start working on a NYC delta project (http://en.wikiped..._Works)? Making hurricane/tornado proof homes? Drought/frost proof farms?

These are the questions we should be fighting over, not whether or not we caused it.
Gammakozy
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 21, 2011
There seems to be a case of fitting the conclusion to support one's pre-conception. The study found that similar global effects HAVE previously occurred during "larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages," yet the author of the study conveniently dismisses natural global cycles as an explanation and instead sees only evidence of man-made global warming. How convenenient and how typical. This is another example of why most of the public no longer trusts the global warming alarmists.
brianweymes
4.8 / 5 (20) Oct 21, 2011
Way too many people didn't read the article. Way too many untrained, lay people dismissing a research paper a scientist spent tens if not hundreds of hours on after taking 5 minutes to read a summary.
pauljpease
3.7 / 5 (19) Oct 21, 2011
How convenenient and how typical. This is another example of why most of the public no longer trusts the global warming alarmists.


But you are apparently guilty of the same flawed thinking, in reverse. What you're saying is that because there have been large-scale changes in the past, then a large-scale change in the present can't be caused by humans. There's no evidence for that argument. And there is a statistical argument against it. It's a pretty amazing coincidence that the present climate change started right after we started burning fossil fuels and cutting down the forests (I think humans have removed something like 50% of all the Earth's original forests in the last couple hundred years). If you look at the number of similar large-scale climate shifts it becomes pretty clear that the chances of this being random and not linked to humans is low, like winning the lottery low. But either way, we've made our bed and now we have to sleep in it. Hope you're comfortable.
Gammakozy
1.8 / 5 (24) Oct 21, 2011
poulipease: The point is that similar global effects DID happen naturally in the past whereas human altering of global climate has never happened before. According to the principle of Occam's razor, when there are competing hypotheses the one with fewest new assumptions is generlly the valid one. Why are we inventing a new explanation for global climate changes when natural cycles are a proven fact.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2011
Scottingham - CORRECT! Gammakozy, 20,000 years is a blip in geological time according to teledyn....now we're talking about changes that normally occur over that blip manifesting themselves inside a 150 year window. That is .00075 of a blip. Sadly there aren't any historical records from the end of the last ice age for us to compare the rate of increase in global temperature....but if i had to throw everything I own into a bet, I would bet it's not this fast. Perhaps you could point out a recurring natural cycle of warming and cooling that is on a 100-150 year interval....
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (29) Oct 21, 2011
http://en.wikiped...uthority

There is no reason to believe Dyson would have a better grasp of climate science than a climatologist. Dyson's celebrity is not an argument.


To work as a climatologist is to accept the AGW paradigmn.
AAhhzz01
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2011
Rubberman.
Sadly there aren't any historical records from the end of the last ice age for us to compare the rate of increase in global temperature....but if i had to throw everything I own into a bet, I would bet it's not this fast.

So... basically you dont know ( or have any record to prove otherwise ) if this temperture rise is typical or not, but your going with your hunches.

Cant say I blame you...but forgive me for having a different hunch.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (25) Oct 21, 2011
Another nail of truth in the coffin of pollution loving AGW deniers.


"The polar bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson.


How many times have you posted this, a dozen? It's not an argument. Stop it.


Certainly it is an argument. Dyson actually worked professionally on climate. Dyson specialty is, bringing together into gestalt, diverse sciences. He doesn't believe man's input into the environment has the level of impact the climate modellers say. Dyson, also dismisses the accuracy of three significant figures claimed by the modellers.

Also being a leftists from his days at Concerned Scientist Dyson has no political ax to grind.

Odds are, Dyson is right.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (26) Oct 21, 2011
Dyson is a better source on climate than Mann, of hockey stick fame, anyway.
georgesoros
1 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2011
i think this is quite a realistic prediction. remember that any carbon footprint from the southern hemisphere will be much lower than the north since it is very sparsely populated - south america has huge amounts of rainforest, australia only has significant population on the east coast, new zealand is surrounded by vast ocean and southern africa isn't as industrialized.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Oct 21, 2011
But soros, CO2 is a uniformly well mixed gas. The southern hemisphere has more water surface area and should therefore trap more heat.
Quarl
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2011
I don't understand the big deal. If Global Warming is our fault and we do nothing, we're screwed. If Global Warming is not our fault and we do nothing, we're STILL screwed. The fact remains that the planet is getting warmer. The fact remains that we will be trying to feed and house more people on less land. Mars, Lunar and space habitats are too far away technologically and we still don't have underwater habitats. WE may not have to deal with the problem, but our great-grandkids most likely will.
Ober
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2011
PPL, go research Earths Ocean currents!!!!! The explanation is simple when you look at the currents. Mini ice age caused by Atlantic ocean current stopping. This in turn can deoxygenate other oceans, eventually the currents return and all is well. I can't be bothered typing all this up so go do the research yourself!!!! Prepare to be educated!!!!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2011
"Even if we had data going back billions of years, and we don't we have only the geological blip of 20,000 years, we still cannot leap to the conclusion that the cause is human influence." - TeledynTard

Ya it could be space aliens, zombies, or some new force of nature that didn't exist a billion years ago.

But it's more likely to be an influence that did not exist then. Man.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2011
"Professor Björck actually looked at the temperature readings in the northern and southern hemispheres he could easily see warming is not global." - RCBTard

http://climate.na...ImgID=58

And that link proves you to be a liar.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2011
"I do not believe the 3% tail is wagging the dog." - RCBTard

Thinking people don't care what lying fools like yourself claim to believe.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2011
"3% x 500ppm = 0.000015 = 15 ppm." - RyggTard

Pre-industrialization 270 ppm
Current 390 ppm

390/270 = 1.44 = 44 percent increase.

Poor RyggTard. On the dishonest side of every issue.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2011
"The polar bears will be fine." -Freeman Dyson.

That is Old Man Alzheimers talking.

He forgets that during his own involvement with the Jason Program his groups climate simulations produced results practically identical the IPCC.

You seem to have forgotten that too John Boy.

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2011
"If you are worried about the methane, extract it and use it for fuel." - RyggTard

By the end of the century Fuel consumption will be 1/5th of what it is today, and those hydrates will make up a bulk of that fuel.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2011
"Unless people get serious about nuclear power very quickly, our C02 output will never decrease." - whatever

I assure you that nature has a many means of causing the inevitable decrease. Humanity won't like any of nature's solutions.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2011
Dyson is an idiot. Global warming is caused by us, and it's all the CO2 we've created burning fossil fuels over the last 50 years. It so obvious from every scientific paper you read. This is article is just another. The case is close, over and the deniers loose!

Subtle and not so subtle changes are already apparent in weather events caused by the additional atmospheric energy caused by global warming. The deniers aren't scientist. They are propagandists. And unfortunately deniers tend to be right-wing and have decided to politically block efforts by sane people to do something about climate change. Being a man made problem, it is a problem best managed politically. Unfortunately and most embarrassingly, the USA is the last hold-out to politically tackle the issue.

Hell, its a national security issue.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2011
"WE may not have to deal with the problem, but our great-grandkids most likely will." - Whomever

Who cares the Republicans say, with a standard discount rate of 3 percent and the grand kids 30 years away, they are only worth 40 percent of what the average person is worth today.

And their grand children... Only 28 percent.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2011
"The point is that similar global effects DID happen naturally in the past whereas human altering of global climate has never happened before. - GammaTard

And once you remove asteroid impacts, volcanism, and orbital changes, CO2 levels are implicated in virtually every one of the remaining instances.
kaasinees
3 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2011
some people just don't realize the shear impact we have...

if we take into account just the impact of domestication alone, wolves would have numbered thousands maybe ten thousands maybe hundred thousands tops on the whole planet, how many dogs are there now? millions?
how many cows? pigs? etc. etc. just think about the methane of that alone. screw cars, think about the cow farts. cows aren't "natural" we made them through domestication and we made huge numbers of them.

if you deny that has any impact on climate you are simply an idiot, this is not even discuss-able. we became a huge factor of the climate system undeniably.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (19) Oct 21, 2011
Oddly, Physorg has been rather mute on the recent release of Berkeley Earth Temperature results:

http://berkeleyea...ysis.php

How's about's THEM thar hockey-sticks?

Let's see how many physorg trolls will now apologize for maliciously slandering scientists with the "Climategate" libel.

Let's see how many will accept the objective evidence that Mann (and GISS) indeed conducted honest and careful data collection and analysis, and been presenting the TRUTH for all those years.

Stand up and be counted, all you Koch and Murdoch sock-puppets.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2011
Oddly, Physorg has been rather mute on the recent release of Berkeley Earth Temperature results:

http://berkeleyea...ysis.php
How's about's THEM thar hockey-sticks?


I was scrolling down the thread to see if any one was going to make mention.

Gold Star for you, Pink Elephant.

ecotek2u
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2011
Save your energy. Put it to good use instead of trying to bang you head against a brick wall. My father dismissed all the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer as alarmist propaganda. He was too invested in his existing habits and hated anyone telling how to live. He died of lung cancer, but that was "just a coincidence" of course.
Howhot
3 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2011
Here is what really pisses me off about the deniers and obstructionists to any governmental intervention to CO2 levels... CO2 lingers. CO2 levels will linger for 1000's of years. The ocean is the largest sink for CO2 but once the oceans are acidified, it lingers dead and acid for 1000's of years. Life in the ocean could be significantly impacted.

And as global temperatures go all hockey-stick on us, CO2 levels have also gone all hockey-stick too (Gore et. al. "Inconvenient Truth"). Cause and Effect, actions and consequences.

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 21, 2011
The issue regarding the hockey stick was the part over 400 years ago based upon poor quality proxy data.
The hockey stick data was intended to 'prove' that any current warming had never happened before.
Even the NAS had to state that any data prior to over 400 years ago is highly uncertain. Therefore the Medieval Warm period DID occur and appears to reflect current trends, before the SUV!
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Oct 21, 2011
Check out the donor list:
"Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation "
http://berkeleyea...nors.php
"The Charles Koch Foundation was established in 1980 by Charles G. Koch in order to advance social progress and well-being through the study and advancement of economic freedom. Through the Foundations history, it has supported the study of economic freedom through grant giving and support for professional education programs."
http://www.charle...g/about/
Listen for the AGWite heads exploding.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2011
"think about the cow farts. cows aren't "natural" we made them through domestication and we made huge numbers of them." - Kaas

Offset in part or large part by the eradication of Bison from North America I should think.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (20) Oct 21, 2011
"The Charles Koch Foundation was established in 1980 by Charles G. Koch in order to advance social progress and well-being through the study and advancement of economic freedom." - RyggTard

Where the Koch brothers define "economic freedom" as wage slavery for the masses and near infinite wealth for themselves.

Why else would Republicans universally propose tax plans that exclude capital gains from all forms of taxation?

Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (18) Oct 21, 2011
"The issue regarding the hockey stick was the part over 400 years ago based upon poor quality proxy data." - RyggTard

Which hockey stick are you referring to Tard Boy? There are now dozens of them using different data sets all showing the same curve.

"The hockey stick data was intended to 'prove' that any current warming had never happened before." - RyggTard

Wrong again Tard Boy. All of the now dozens of them are simply documentation of global temperature over the last few thousand years.

The intent is science. The intent is to provide a temperature time series.

Your intent though is to promulgate a lie that was dispensed with long ago.

"Even the NAS had to state that any data prior to over 400 years ago is highly uncertain. Therefore the Medieval Warm period DID occur" - RyggTard

If it is as highly uncertain as you claim then your claim that the medieval warm period DID occur must be a lie on your part as the data is uncertain.

Poor RyggTard. Caught telling another lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2011
"Dyson is a better source on climate than Mann" - Shootist

Mann is an active atmospheric scientist working for NASA.

Dyson is a 90 year old retired theoretical physicist who is suffering from Alzheimers.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2011
"[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much,

but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." - Freeman Dyson
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 22, 2011
Dyson professes his ignorance of Climate Science.

"[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, ABOUT WHICH I DO NOT KNOW MUCH,

but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." - Freeman Dyson
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2011
Therefore the Medieval Warm period DID occur...
Uhh, did you notice the article above? DID YOU READ IT? (Heh, why do I even bother asking? LMAO) You didn't even have to read the ARTICLE; you could have just read the TITLE:

"No simultaneous warming of Northern and Southern hemispheres as a result of climate change for 20,000 years"

But you didn't even bother to read THAT much, did you, you demented little troll?
Check out the donor list...
YES, THAT'S THE POINT. This was a Koch-funded project, it was led by a somewhat vocal 'skeptic', and included a couple of other 'skeptics' on its staff. The outcome was, hilariously, SURPRISING to all involved.

You couldn't make this shit up, it's so ridiculously ironic.

Yet, it's so sad at the same time... But not you. You're just plain hilarious.
Tyrant
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 22, 2011
This research must either be seriously misleading or flat out wrong since it contradicts everything we know about the last glacial maximum.
hush1
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2011
@Caveman
Like popping a balloon, you only need a tiny prick with a sharp needle and the whole thing pops, no matter how large the balloon is. - Caveman


O.k. Just suppose the atmospheric 'popping'/ripping (warming) does not occur as fast as that of a balloon's surface ripping from a prick. Surely you can find a 'magic silver bullet' gas (analogous to treating the balloon's rubber surface so when pricked, the hole closes or self heals after only a little loss of air) that reverses CO2 effects and simultaneously removes and displaces the CO2?

The balloon analogy was stretched. The idea behind the analogy - to find a solution - remains intact.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2011
@Tyrant,
This research must either be seriously misleading or flat out wrong since it contradicts everything we know about the last glacial maximum.
Another one who didn't bother reading "this research" or even the pop-sci version of it in the article above. To quote the latter:

"My study shows that, apart from the larger-scale developments, such as the general change into warm periods and ice ages, climate change has previously only produced similar effects on local or regional level", says Svante Björck."

Is there anything in the above quote that needs to be clarified further for you?
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (16) Oct 22, 2011
Why "surely?"

And, any idea what that "magic" might require?
Howhot
4 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2011
Hum Tyrant, which research do you think is serious misleading? The one that conclusively shows global average temperatures are increasing due to greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel emissions?

Or the one about Koch funding a group of phony anti-science toads that troll the comment sections to influence opinions and propagandize the science?
Parsec
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2011
http://en.wikiped...uthority

There is no reason to believe Dyson would have a better grasp of climate science than a climatologist. Dyson's celebrity is not an argument.


To work as a climatologist is to accept the AGW paradigmn.

People working as climatologist's spend time with the data every day. They are literally swimming in TON's of data from all sorts of independent lines of research supporting AGW. Why wouldn't they support AGW?
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
@deepsand
The 'magic' requires research. CLOUD is 'magic' research that spontaneously comes to mind.

'Surely' means any solution - gas is just a off the wall thought. I see other solutions to manipulate climate that makes no incision marks on anyone's way of living. The majority of 'everyone's' way of living needs improvement. The majority does not support status quo that is not sustainable.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2011
@Howhot
"...something sustainable like solar or bio..."
O.k. You don't like balloons. lol. We both want something sustainable. The LCD.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 22, 2011
@deepsand
The 'magic' requires research. CLOUD is 'magic' research that spontaneously comes to mind.

'Surely' means any solution - gas is just a off the wall thought. I see other solutions to manipulate climate that makes no incision marks on anyone's way of living. The majority of 'everyone's' way of living needs improvement. The majority does not support status quo that is not sustainable.

In short, you've no idea as to how one might stop a runaway train.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2011
I am in good company that share ideas about 'how to'.
What have you shared? Besides admonition?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Oct 22, 2011
The point is that one should not count on always being able to divert disaster at the last moment.

To say that "Surely you can find a 'magic silver bullet' gas that reverses CO2 effects and simultaneously removes and displaces the CO2" is wholly unrealistic.

The prudent thing to do is to stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than is absolutely necessary.
hush1
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2011
Never once have I asserted a strategy for reliance on last minute solutions.

"Wholly unrealistic" was AGW one life span ago - 100 yrs. ago.
Prudence arises from hindsight.
"Wholly unrealistic" was internet one life span ago.

"Wholly unrealistic" is pointless admonition.
Admonition is not synonymous with the word solution.
Admonition. Good for high ratings. Bad for discourse.

"Absolutely necessary" expressed in numbers please.
"Stop putting" expressed in ways/means of methods please.

Total cut off and/or reductions of human sourced CO2 is the slowest solution to all possible solutions. And the best?
You tell us. Without admonition.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (17) Oct 22, 2011
"It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes."
http://www.nation...203.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2011
"Another one who didn't bother reading "this research" or even the pop-sci version of it in the article above." = PinkElephant

Those individuals who are driven by ideology, corruption or money typically ignore facts and comments that run counter to their ideology.

They are often incapable of fitting a divergent idea into their world view as their world view is so detached from reality.

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing the origin of that problem.

When it comes to Global Warming denialism, the origin of the problem is the Libertarian/Randite ideology and it's associated corruption, as well as it's popularity in the brain dead Republican party.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2011
RyggTard lies by omission. Failing to include the sentence above which reads...

"The committee that wrote the report found sufficient evidence to say with a high level of confidence that the last decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years."

Lying? How typically Libertarian of him.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2011
"Total cut off and/or reductions of human sourced CO2 is the slowest solution to all possible solutions. And the best?
You tell us. Without admonition." - Hush

The most rapid response can be had with mandated improvements in consumptive efficiency.

If you make a product last twice as long, you end up using 1/2 the equivalent amount of energy needed to produce it.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (23) Oct 22, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

There is no reason to believe Dyson would have a better grasp of climate science than a climatologist. Dyson's celebrity is not an argument.


Dyson, being a theoretical physicist of high repute (and thus having a profound understanding of models and there accuracy), and having studied climate science since the 1970's, is eminently qualified in challenging the precision claims of AGW. For Dyson to become a climate scientist would be a considerable demotion, so don't expect him to be a climate scientist or Feynman to "be" a biologist.

Dyson statements are wrt precision claimed of AGW, not the basic science. I too accept that AGW 'is on to something' but when they claim knowledge of a few tenths of one degree over decades, this borders on abject fraud.

There is plenty of time to change energy sources without tanking capitalism and reducing western standards of civilization.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 22, 2011
Dyson is an idiot. Global warming is caused by us, and it's all the CO2 we've created burning fossil fuels over the last 50 years. It so obvious from every scientific paper you read. This is article is just another. The case is close, over and the deniers loose!


A) Dyson is a top level theoretical physicist that has made fundamental contributions to quantum theory which is orders of magnitude more difficult than climate change,.. so he most certainly is not an idiot.

B) Dyson does not reject the notion of AGW.

The conclusion is that you must be the idiot.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) Oct 22, 2011
Any claims re. AGW based on Dyson's stature as a theoretical physicist are argumentum ad verecundiam.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2011
Never once have I asserted a strategy for reliance on last minute solutions.

"Wholly unrealistic" was AGW one life span ago - 100 yrs. ago.
Prudence arises from hindsight.
"Wholly unrealistic" was internet one life span ago.

"Wholly unrealistic" is pointless admonition.
Admonition is not synonymous with the word solution.
Admonition. Good for high ratings. Bad for discourse.

"Absolutely necessary" expressed in numbers please.
"Stop putting" expressed in ways/means of methods please.

Total cut off and/or reductions of human sourced CO2 is the slowest solution to all possible solutions. And the best?
You tell us. Without admonition.

Refutation of the claim that A is True/False requires no ancillary proof re. other matters in order to be valid.

As for "Total cut off and/or reductions of human sourced CO2 is the slowest solution to all possible solutions," it is the ONLY ONE THAT IS IMMEDIATELY DOABLE.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2011
Trouble is, I do not see any reason why Dyson would be wrong about the polar bears. I see no reason why they won't be fine, especially considering they survived through a long-term ice-free Arctic 125,000 kya as a 'fairly new' species from 150,000 kya.

And, what are we to make of studies like the following in light of the above study?

http://www.agu.or...80.shtml

http://www.pnas.o...abstract

Someone either is not telling the truth or has omitted something. Possibly there is something else going on but what could it be? :)
hush1
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2011
The 'have nots' state:
For the sake of the earth do it.

The 'haves' state:
You 'have nots' have nothing to lose.
You 'have nots' can afford any solution.

For the 'haves' there is nothing less impressive than the earth. The earth is the least of all reasons for any solution.
bewertow
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2011
It's funny how some people who have a degree from the "academy of wikipedia science" come here and insult the intelligence of atmospheric physicists and other brilliant scientists who do this research. These guys know what they're doing.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2011
These guys know what they're doing.

Unless they don't toe the AGW party line, and many brilliant scientists do not.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2011
How would sock puppets like you know?
unknownorgin
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2011
About two weeks ago physorg reported on a government funded study that clearly showed that as CO2 increases plant life ramps up the production of oxygen. Also we live in a closed system and all the CO2 being released now was in the atmosphere in the past because coal and fossil feul were formed from plant life so instead of fearing that some kind of disaster will occur perhaps it is time to look at the big picture and understand how the system has worked for millions of years.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2011
it is time to look at the big picture and understand how the system has worked for millions of years.

The system conditions have never been stable; and, now is no exception.

Past is here NOT prologue.
Short bloke
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2011
The thermal storage ability of the three mighty oceans in the southern Hemisphere is only partly offset by Antarctica, and the lower thermal storage ability of the excess of land mass in the Northern Hemisphere is not assisted by the Ice of Greenland, arctic sea ice and the long duration of winter ice on land in high latitudes and altitudes. Even so, I would have expected the Southern Hemisphere to be warmer than the north, despite the much larger population and subsequent thermal activities including extra CO^2 injected into the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere. In that regard the grouping together of the Great Planets during the last two decades would have perturbed the Earths orbit causing presently unrecognised consequences. Dont be too surprised if when the Great Planets are located more evenly around the Solar system, our climate reverts to that considered to be the norm.
Short bloke
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
The thermal storage ability of the three mighty oceans in the southern Hemisphere is only partly offset by Antarctica, and the lower thermal storage ability of the excess of land mass in the Northern Hemisphere is not assisted by the Ice of Greenland, arctic sea ice and the long duration of winter ice on land in high latitudes and altitudes. Even so, I would have expected the Southern Hemisphere to be warmer than the north, despite the much larger population and subsequent thermal activities including extra CO^2 injected into the Northern Hemisphere atmosphere. In that regard the grouping together of the Great Planets during the last two decades would have perturbed the Earths orbit. Dont be too surprised if when the Great Planets are located more evenly around the Solar system, our climate reverts to that considered to be the norm.
Short bloke
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
The grouping together of the Great Planets during the last two decades would have perturbed the Earths orbit. Dont be too surprised if when the Great Planets are located more evenly around the Solar system, our climate reverts to that considered to be the norm.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
How would sock puppets like you know?

Lindzen is a professor of meteorology from MIT. He doesn't toe the AGW party line and is repeatedly attacked.
He is not the only one if you care to pull your head out and look around.
Short bloke
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
It may be of interest to those who knock The Charles Koch Foundation that it is the Koch Foundation money bankrolling the investigation into the global temperature of the Earth; and it is not surprising that so far researchers have found that there has been a 1 degree rise.
Short bloke
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011

I wish to apologize for the duplications above, I repeddle got a notice telling me the reply was too long then on shortening I got notices that the reply was outside the guidelines.

For this reply; It may be of interest to those who knock The Charles Koch Foundation that is the Koch Foundation money bankrolling the investigation into the global temperature of the Earth; and it is not surprising that so far researchers have found that there has been a 1 degree temperature rise.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
Another nail of truth in the coffin of pollution loving AGW deniers.
It's still disputable. Whereas I'm a mild supporter of antropogenic origin of global droughts, I'm not so sure about global temperatures, which are of geothermal origin in my opinion. These two aspects of global warming should be handled separately. The increasing of global temperature doesn't imply, the Earth atmosphere should become more dry necessarily - on the contrary: the higher temperature, the higher concentration of water in the atmosphere and water precipitation we could expect.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2011
We can find many evidences of this hypothesis: the solar system is passing the cloud of interstellar gas, the geovolcanic activity is increasing, we can observe the signs of global warming across whole solar system, the oceans are heating faster than the atmosphere (compare the heat content anomaly and the recent finding of hidden circumatlantic currents), the values of physical constants are changing, the magnetic pole of Earth is reversing, Moon' eccentricity is changing, the solar cycles are fluctuating, many comets are heading the Jupiter and Sun, the NASA denies the link of neutrinos to volcanic activity (2012 movie). You can find many other sources on my blog.

http://www.blogge...29215193

My experience is, when most of people ignores the evidence of phenomena obstinately despite the number of available sources, then this phenomena is just real.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2011
As for "Total cut off and/or reductions of human sourced CO2 is the slowest solution to all possible solutions," it is the ONLY ONE THAT IS IMMEDIATELY DOABLE.


It is not immediately doable. Not only will such action kill all economies unprepared to deal with such changes without contingencies in place to compensate--meaning a return to cave living in the absence of available compensatory technology in sufficient quantitative distribution--but it will take considerable time, many climate scientists claim (some claim hundreds of years), for Earth's natural sinks of CO2 to reduce levels of CO2 to levels claimed to be 'safe' for the earth.

That is hardly the definition of 'immediate.' Good luck with that in the interim. :)
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2011
That the consequences may not be the liking of some or all is immaterial to the matter of ability to do.

deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 23, 2011
How would sock puppets like you know?

Lindzen is a professor of meteorology from MIT. He doesn't toe the AGW party line and is repeatedly attacked.
He is not the only one if you care to pull your head out and look around.

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

And, when did meteorologists become experts in radiative Physics?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2011
And, when did meteorologists become experts in radiative Physics?

When did climatologists?
"Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, l964, Harvard University. Thesis title: Radiative and
photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics."
http://www-eaps.m...n/CV.pdf
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2011
That the consequences may not be the liking of some or all is immaterial to the matter of ability to do.


That may be true in theory but even if we stopped emitting everything now (I would hope that would include the manmade GHGs involved in manufacture of solar cells, which GHGs last hundreds and thousands of years), a number of climate scientists have said it will take hundreds of years to get back to 'normal.' That still is hardly immediate.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2011
And, when did meteorologists become experts in radiative Physics?

When did climatologists?
"Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics, l964, Harvard University. Thesis title: Radiative and
photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics."
http://www-eaps.m...n/CV.pdf

More argumentum ad verecundiam.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
To recap:

1) There haven't been any significant, synchronized *global* temperature swings on decadal or century time scales over the last 20,000 years. This makes the current trends exceptional, rather than "natural variability".

2) The MYTHS of "little ice age" and "medieval warm period" are debunked. These were regional, rather than global, events. They almost certainly did have knock-on impacts around the globe, but those impacts did not involve synchronized global average cooling or warming.

3) Even a Koch-funded group of "skeptics" have managed only to quite precisely reproduce the global temperature curves previously reported by GISS and CRU, and maligned by climate trolls. "Climategate" is now objectively shown to be a malicious, libelous, deliberate political hoax -- not that it wasn't obvious already to most of us, but now even the trolls can no longer deny it.

Now let's deal with ignorant appeals to false authority...
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2011
1) Lindzen is a proven political hack. He has been known to argue against addictive and carcinogenic qualities of tobacco, for instance. This shows he puts political and profit interests ahead of basic scientific objectivity and integrity. In other words, Lindzen is both an ideologue and a sold-out sock puppet.

2) All of Lindzen's criticisms have been shown to target barely-significant second- and third-order terms in the climate equation. He has been repeatedly shown wrong by actual measurements.

3) The overwhelming hyper-majority of "brilliant scientists" around the world have no problem with the physics and theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

4) Even when a prominent scientist of great repute and integrity proclaims something, that doesn't make it true. One example of countless many: "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1899.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 23, 2011
That the consequences may not be the liking of some or all is immaterial to the matter of ability to do.


That may be true in theory but even if we stopped emitting everything now (I would hope that would include the manmade GHGs involved in manufacture of solar cells, which GHGs last hundreds and thousands of years), a number of climate scientists have said it will take hundreds of years to get back to 'normal.' That still is hardly immediate.

That the effects may be a long time coming does not alter the fact that such action is indeed immediately doable.

Throwing up ones hands in despair because no immediate relief is in sight is no solution at all.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
Brovo Pink! That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The debate is over, AGW is causing global warming, the rate of increase in the warming is dangerously fast. And... Government action to direct people and businesses towards green sustainable sources of energy immediately. It's the USA that needs to get it's butt moving on the transitions from fossil fuels. It has to happen or earth in 200 years will be scorching and yes it will hurt coal and oil as business. But smart (and non-evil) business people will transition to other businesses.

"Now let's deal with ignorant appeals to false authority..."

I could not have said it any better. Great recap.
BaconBits
5 / 5 (1) Oct 23, 2011
Like most science, climate science is based on a large set of evidence, theory and contexts that have been debated, examined, critiqued and tested over decades by thousands of scientists. Nitpicking at interpretations and methodologies in a handful of studies does almost nothing to undermine the weight of evidence and the consistent success of the prevailing explanation of how Earths climate is changing and how we are causing it. The hypothesis that this is a natural cycle got tested and falsified repeatedly in the past 2 decades. All the natural cycle explanations failed when tested against the data and failed to predict short term trends with any success. RYG, NOUN, S_K etc can pursue their personal or paid agenda to keep sowing doubt and confusion but nothing they are saying is material. Its all noise to distract from the hard challenge of developing a plan to respond to what the science it telling us.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2011
Its all noise to distract from the hard challenge of developing a plan to respond to what the science it telling us.

That is a great quote, because that is what we have wasted our time on. There are some big time engineering challenges ahead that need immediate attention to abate this global warming crisis that is going to pound on us the future.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Oct 23, 2011
No doubt those who seek to first eek out the last possible dollar from creating the problem will stand ready and willing to offer their services in fixing it - for a handsome profit, of course.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
by thousands of scientists.

No it has not.
One major critique of the climatology is how few 'peers' are available to review papers. The community is quite incestuous.
Another major problem has been the availability of data. Mann and others have refused to release their data or source code for independent review.

For all you AGWites, why do NASA and NPL want NIST/NPL traceable radiometers on orbit if their current data was of such high quality?

Look up the CLARREO project at NASA.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
Even when a prominent scientist of great repute and integrity proclaims something, that doesn't make it true.

Unless they toe the party line.
What makes science great is the power of one. One individual can turn the world of physics on its head, and has, many times.
And when they challenged the consensus, they were attacked and ridiculed.
Consensus can also mean those thousands are either too lazy/busy to really do their own investigation or they fear loosing tenure.

Lindzen's professional qualifications were questioned. His PhD and research certainly demonstrate he understands infrared radiation in the atmosphere.

And of course Pinky is a expert and does not need to provide any evidence for his assertions.
Sorry Pinky, I don't trust you.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 23, 2011
I can show you PHDs that barely, if at all, qualify for a BA.
Skepticus_Rex
1.1 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2011
That the effects may be a long time coming does not alter the fact that such action is indeed immediately doable.

Throwing up ones hands in despair because no immediate relief is in sight is no solution at all.


It is too late. They are claiming that the damage has been done. In fact, one of the pages here on this very website made that claim. We must substitute other sources of energy that will compensate for the loss of carbon-based sources. This will take time and nuclear technologies must be part of the mix or the rest will collapse like a house of cards.

There is no way to just stop emitting CO2 and other, much worse GHGs under present technological constraints. It never could be done immediately without putting huge numbers of people out of work and completely collapsing the economies of entire countries.

You are being unrealistic but I suppose that is the purview of the young and the inexperienced. :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
Another major problem has been the availability of data. Mann and others have refused to release their data or source code for independent review.


Believe it or not that actually is true for much of the work done by them. When you try to force their hand by requesting such information as their source code and raw data, they often respond with letters from attorneys demanding that you cease and desist from harassing them. Mann especially did this sort of thing and even managed to get out of handing over his raw data and source code to the Feds when he was under investigation.

I don't know about you but I tend to disbelieve and remain skeptical of anything that cannot allow the methodology of the experiment to be seen and when authors of such studies block attempts at replication of the results to be made.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2011
That the effects may be a long time coming does not alter the fact that such action is indeed immediately doable.

Throwing up ones hands in despair because no immediate relief is in sight is no solution at all.

There is no way to just stop emitting CO2 and other, much worse GHGs under present technological constraints. It never could be done immediately without putting huge numbers of people out of work and completely collapsing the economies of entire countries.

You are being unrealistic but I suppose that is the purview of the young and the inexperienced. :)

You continue to conflate doability with desirabilty.

No doubt that owes to your youthful inexperience.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
Heh, I wish I were a youth again. There are many things I would do over. But, I can't go back. And, for the record, I have grandchildren. Of course, I can't prove that in an internet forum without revealing my identity.

But, to the subject, I am not conflating anything. It is not doable. You claim it is. I know it isn't. And, nothing nothing we do will effect change as rapidly as you expect, no matter how quickly we try to do it.

Recall that climate scientists have gone on record that changes in CO2 will take many years. Some say as much as hundreds of years. Even if we could stop emitting now--a complete impossibility under current technological constraints without the involvement of wars and other unpleasantries--we still have over a hundred years to wait for changes to occur to prevent an alleged coming disaster. Nothing we do will have immediate results in at least this arena. Change still would not be immediate without mitigative technologies available. Keep dreaming, though. :)
Manhar
1 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2011
Does global warming has any relation to AXIAL PRECESSION OF EARTH? AXIAL PRECESSION CAUSES polar and equinoxes shift and it may cause higher temprature at poles.
Manhar Panwala
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2011
How can someone not know how to spell "tow" and even be attempting to debate this?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2011
Heh, I wish I were a youth again. There are many things I would do over. But, I can't go back. And, for the record, I have grandchildren. Of course, I can't prove that in an internet forum without revealing my identity.

Why assume that others are your junior is any way, shape or form?

But, to the subject, I am not conflating anything. It is not doable. You claim it is. I know it isn't.

So, it is your position that it is PHYSICALLY NOT DOABLE?

And, nothing nothing we do will effect change as rapidly as you expect, no matter how quickly we try to do it.

Just where did I make any statement re. attainable rate of change?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2011
English is your second language, isn't it? :)

And, yes, it is physically impossible to do it "immediately." It is doable but certainly not immediately. Many gigatons of carbon will have to be pumped into the atmosphere to force those who do not want to comply to comply.

Under current circumstances on this world stopping carbon emissions is impossible until we run out of carbon-based fuels and/or suitable replacements can be found in sufficient quantities. Decomposing bodies also contribute methane and CO2 to the atmosphere. Imagine billions of them. :)
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2011
English is your second language, isn't it?

Is ad hominem your 1st language?

And, yes, it is physically impossible to do it "immediately." It is doable but certainly not immediately. Many gigatons of carbon will have to be pumped into the atmosphere to force those who do not want to comply to comply.

Semantic BS.

BTW, nice try at evading my calling you out on your misrepresenting my earlier statements. Presumably that means that you resign.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2011
I see drastic reduction as doable. If implemented, those that use artificial means of transportation die first. The human life forms that have not adapted to artificial means of transportation die last - if they are to die at all - their long haul on foot is long indeed - just guessing that any 'desirable'? former values of CO2 will take 200 years in 'self-healing' mode.

Clever people will distract. Arguing about what canoes, wooden sail ships, etc., are to be label as transportation.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2011
:) :) :)

Yes, we have front-loaded at least another degree or two of C onto our future climate. :) :)

However, if we CONTINUE to ADD even MORE carbon into the atmosphere at EXPONENTIALLY ACCELERATING rates into indefinite future until we run out of fossil fuels, the resulting eventual warming will by far exceed 2 degrees or even twice that amount. :) :)

Which means, if we continue with business as usual, our descendants are pretty much horribly screwed. :) :) :)

Their costs of coping with the damage we are continuing to pile onto the planet, will be astronomical compared to the amount of money we "save" on our "cheap" energy as we off-load that energy's true costs onto the future generations. :) :)

But who cares if the young and the as-yet-unborn are condemned to suffer. What's important is that we get to live large and that we get ours. Screw everyone and everything else. :) :) :)
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2011
Clever people will distract. Arguing about what canoes, wooden sail ships, etc., are to be label as transportation.

Great comment Hush1. The allegory being while we are debating whether the ship is sinking, the ship is sinking.

Whether Mann releases his data or not, many other scientists have; the article above is such. There is much better proof in currently collected data. Your a fool if you do not see what is going on in the atmosphere, the changes and extremes.

As clever as we humans are, we need to clever our way out of this mess. Bigtime and fast!

kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2011
note that there is a "lag" in the response of the climate system. we might be more screwed than we think at this very moment.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2011
The one good thing about the paper is that at least he admits several caveats. But, I did not see one archive of raw data in that study. Anyone got a link to or other location of any?

Semantic BS.


No, not really. Considerable carbon will have to be spent in enforcement if we even wanted to attempt to do what you propose 'immediately.'
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2011
From the actual paper:
I find it fair to conclude that in the perspective of 10 to 20 millennia, the ongoing global warming seems to be an anomaly. Owing to often incomplete chronologies of the proxy based paleo-archives, especially in relation to the last 150 yr of daily to annual instrumental records, it may, however, be difficult to find clear-cut evidence for such a statement.


He makes the conclusion but then inserts a caveat. He does that several times in the paper. In other words, "not certain." I would agree with that. With problems in many of the datasets (at least the author of the paper is honest enough to admit that) we could only be uncertain at best. AGW/AGCC new world religionists are going to have to do better than this, much better, if they are to convince the entire world.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2011
The semantic BS is your continued ramblings re. "doable" and "immediate," in which you continue to try to redefine the words to suit your own purposes.

And, no, "considerable carbon" IN EXCESS OF THAT which is WITHHELD from the atmosphere will not necessarily have to be spent. That's a Brothers Koch Fairy Tale.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2011
Bottom link Skep, you dig out a bunch of hydro-carbons from 10000's of feet below the surface, millions of year of sequestered carbon in a billion year journey to the center of the earth, and in a geological flash fire (the last 50 years), you release nearly all of it all at once! Don't BS yourself that somehow that is not AGW!

AGW is real my friend, and it's going to come down on us like the Hammer of Thor! You can say what ever about AGW new world religionists, the millions of thermometers across the globe (sample points) speak for themselves.

Fess up Rexxy, Your on the wrong side of a science debate.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2011
AGW/AGCC new world religionists are going to have to do better than this, much better
That's right :)

Much better now :) :)

Why hide your true troll's face behind polite obfuscations? :)

It's so much more picturesque in its sheer ugliness when it's out in the open. :)

:)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2011
deepsand,

War machines run on carbon. Good luck convincing the entire world to stop emitting 'immediately.' It isn't going to happen. Until everyone in the world can be gotten to cooperate on this collectively, there will be those who resist.

At best, you can hope for reductions and not cessation. Of course, reductions have not been working out so well over in Europe, now have they? How many nations are failing to meet their reduction targets, even with all the legislation and cap and trade schemes being put into law over there? :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2011
Howhot,

I am not on the wrong side of the scientific debate on this subject. I sit right in the middle. It is just easier for the religionists to label people who are skeptical. I do not deny that it has warmed since 1880. So, I am not a denialist. I just remain skeptical of the arguments on both sides of this debate.

Both sides have been and are doing some pretty underhanded things with the data to convince people to bend one way or the other. Neither side is convincing enough for me--yet. That is why I remain to this point a skeptic of both sides of the argument.

And, studies that are so very filled with caveats like the above do not help to convince me to lean one way or the other. I still am taking a wait and see approach for the next two decades (if I manage to live that long, that is) to get a better handle on what is or is not coming. But I applaud the honesty of mentioning uncertainties of the above author.

AGW is not a certainty when we are at a temp plateau for a decade.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2011
deepsand,

War machines run on carbon. Good luck convincing the entire world to stop emitting 'immediately.' It isn't going to happen. Until everyone in the world can be gotten to cooperate on this collectively, there will be those who resist.

At best, you can hope for reductions and not cessation. Of course, reductions have not been working out so well over in Europe, now have they? How many nations are failing to meet their reduction targets, even with all the legislation and cap and trade schemes being put into law over there? :)

All of which has nothing to do with physical doability.

There's nothing to be gained by your continuing to evade that point with misdirection.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2011
I am not on the wrong side of the scientific debate on this subject. I sit right in the middle. It is just easier for the religionists to label people who are skeptical. I do not deny that it has warmed since 1880. So, I am not a denialist. I just remain skeptical of the arguments on both sides of this debate.

Both sides have been and are doing some pretty underhanded things with the data to convince people to bend one way or the other. Neither side is convincing enough for me--yet. That is why I remain to this point a skeptic of both sides of the argument.

AGW is not a certainty when we are at a temp plateau for a decade.

Neither is there anything to be gained by continuing to deny the inescapable underlying Physics.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2011
we are at a temp plateau for a decade
:) :)

Please count the number of "temp plateaus for a decade" in the following graph :)

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

Then state what the overall, MULTI-DECADAL TREND is. :)

After you've done both of the above, go ahead and explain what it is exactly that you don't understand when it comes to the distinction between trends vs. noise.

:) :)

:)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2011
Pinkie,

Please provide either a higher resolution graph or the raw data. Thank you. :)

deep,

1. It has everything to do with 'doability.'

2. I have not denied the underlying physics of anything. That is your interpretation. It may have something to do with English being your second language.

http://journals.a...LI3461.1

Nonetheless, the IPCC AR4 is off by over 60% on the physics of global temperatures in relation to CO2. That is not my fault. It is theirs.

With the TAR their problem was the use of 'exaggeration factors' in their calculations. With AR4 it may have been more of the same. Without seeing their source code and raw data it is not entirely possible to say exactly why their calculations were so off-kilter. Even the authors of the paper at the end of my above link do not know for certain even after offering several possibilities. :)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2011
Neither is there anything to be gained by continuing to deny the inescapable underlying Physics.

What are the underlying physics? Do you know how the forcing functions are measured?
If CO2 is such a dangerous gas, there should be physics based first principle theory and data to support that theory instead of qualitative forcing functions. Especially after all these years of blaming CO2 for the ALL the warming.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2011
If you do not know and understanding said Physics, then you've no standing in this discussion.

And, if you do so know and understand, then you would also know that everything following your first question is irrelevant and/or immaterial.

So, either way, and by your own words, you are defeated.

Thank you for the easy victory. :lol:
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2011
deep,

This is not a high school debate club. Quit acting like it is. Go to college. Learn for several years. Eventually, you might learn things that will turn your worldview upside down. :)

Pinkie,

On second thought...raw data is preferred. :)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2011
If you do not know and understanding said Physics, then you've no standing in this discussion.

I am asking you, or anyone, to show from first principles how CO2 is the cause of such catastrophe.
CO2 absorbs strongly in narrow IR bands, 2.7, 4.3 and 15 um. How much energy is absorbed in these bands? The peak of 2.7 um is 1111K, 4.3um is 700K and 15 um is 200K.
There is not much energy from the sun at 2.7 or 4.3 microns, but it would be absorbed quite rapidly.
The earth radiates at ~300K, but again, the CO2 absorption at 15 um is not significant.
So we have very little energy absorbed by CO2 and there are very significant IR transparent windows around 10 um 300K.
You can feel this be going to a desert, on a clear summer night, and compare standing under an awning with standing under the clear sky. You can feel the cold of space, or your body heat radiating away.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2011
I understand the argument you are trying to make Skep and R2, that being that the science (and data) is too weak to support the AGW side. Far from it my friends. The physics... while still open to improvements, is well understood. It has been so for a long time. The computer models for the atmospheric models showing AGW are not some made up political crap. It's all based in physics models.

Because of your skepticism, the science behind the AGW theory has improved, obviously you like to keep our feet's to the fire. That said skeptical friends, the atmosphere is thin, we've dumped a lot of green house gasses into it, and we need to reduce immediately the amounts or physics takes over and earth is toast.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2011
If you do not know and understanding said Physics, then you've no standing in this discussion.

I am asking you, or anyone, to show from first principles how CO2 is the cause of such catastrophe.

Asked and answered many times over. We're not going to revisit Physics 101 just so that you can continue being argumentative.

You either know this stuff or you don't.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2011
deep,
This is not a high school debate club.

Yes, rational debate is difficult to secure when dealing with sophists and the uneducated.
Quit acting like it is.

If you are unwilling and/or unable to engage in rational discourse, you can quit any time you like.

Go to college.

Been there; done that. Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science & Electrical Engineering.

Learn for several years. Eventually, you might learn things that will turn your worldview upside down.

More ad hominem crap.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2011
Please provide either a higher resolution graph or the raw data.
You don't need that. You managed to diagnose a "decadal plateau" in data of precisely that resolution, without any problems. All I'm asking of you, is to count the total number of such "decadal plateaus" over the last 2 centuries. Then relate the relevance of such plateaus to the overall long-term multi-decadal trend. You know: something a fourth-grader could do? But then again, you don't sound like you're smarter than a forth-grader.
On second thought...raw data is preferred. :)
Here you go :)

http://berkeleyea...data.php

Knock yourself out :)

:) :)
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2011
What are the underlying physics? Do you know how the forcing functions are measured?
Yet again, the ignoramus asks for explanations on a level he could comprehend. Once again, he is pointed to such an explanation:

http://www.aip.or...math.htm

Yet again, he will blithely ignore and dismiss the opportunity to learn anything that contradicts his preconceived dogma.

Yet again, nobody is either in shock or in awe.

Yawn.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2011
I am Fourier.
"Despite Fourier's exceptional prowess in mathematics and physics, he lacked the knowledge to make even the simplest numerical calculation of how radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere."

Fifty million of America's population has a fourth grade elementary school level of understanding or less. For them the link is useless. Thks for the link. IOU
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2011
Running the Planck equation, atm CO2 absorbs ~.5% of the solar energy from .2-15 um, which is about 6 w/m^2 at the top of the atmoshpere.
The amount 'trapped'by the 15um CO2 band from radiating into space is miniscule.
And this is effectively indpendent of CO2 concentration.
Gee, it couldn't be the climate scientists are not smart enough to figure out how water vapor, clouds and snow affect the climate could it. After all, CO2 is easy to measure, is well mixed, is an evil combustion gas and fits the narrative well, except for those nagging little Placnk equations that show CO2 absorbtion is quite small.

Pinky, where is your data prior to 1800 to support your claim there was no little ice age or MWP?
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2011
R2 wait. There's more:

vf1,ct,rhcri,cw_land,cw_sea,entcoef,eacf,dtheta,ice_size,i_st_ice_sw,i_cnv_ice_sw,i_st_ice_lw,i_cnv_ice_lw,asym_lambda,G0,z0fsea,charnock,r_layers,eddydiff,start_level_gwdrag,kay_gwave kay_lee_gwdrag,Alpham,dtice,diff_coeff,diff_exp,diff_coeff_q, diff_exp_q,anthsca,isopyc,mllam, mld,vdiff,vvisc.

Check for misspelling. Thks.
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2011
Everyone wants to know what climate harbors. That's as natural as satisfying the need to know what weather has in store for us.

The notion is silly that humans have control over weather or climate. You are hostage to both weather and climate.

You are not hostage to your fellow being. You are free to believe otherwise and free to do otherwise.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2011
Everyone wants to know what climate harbors. That's as natural as satisfying the need to know what weather has in store for us.

The notion is silly that humans have control over weather or climate. You are hostage to both weather and climate.

You are not hostage to your fellow being. You are free to believe otherwise and free to do otherwise.

Humans are relatively a big part of the climate system and we influence climate that way.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2011
Gee, it couldn't be the climate scientists are not smart enough to figure out how water vapor, clouds and snow affect the climate could it.
No, it couldn't. And you'd know that if you didn't so PREDICTABLY ignore the link I posted up for you. What, you don't like it when all of your false assumptions are obliterated in one fell swoop?

http://www.aip.or...math.htm

Try again.
Pinky, where is your data prior to 1800 to support your claim there was no little ice age or MWP?
There was no ***GLOBAL*** LIA or MWP. There was an LIA, and there was an MWP. They were not GLOBAL.

http://www.physor...ult.html

http://www.physor...644.html

http://www.physor...165.html

http://www.physor...430.html

http://www.physor...539.html

http://en.wikiped..._reports
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
Phil Jones: "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented."
Even Phil Jones can't say if it was global or not. He has some integrity.
Data from Peru:
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
http://www.co2sci...mwpp.php
"A master speleothem 18O record (which is a proxy for temperature) was developed for New Zealand's eastern North Island for the period 2000 BC to about AD 1660 from data acquired from three speleothems of Disbelief and Te Reinga caves. This record revealed that the warmest time interval of the nearly 4000 years occurred between about AD 900 and 1100."
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
"Maximum annual air temperatures in the vicinity of Cold Air Cave (24°1'S, 29°11'E) in the Makapansgat Valley of South Africa were inferred from a relationship between color variations in banded growth-layer laminations of a well-dated stalagmite and the air temperature of a surrounding 49-station climatological network developed over the period 1981-1995, as well as a quasi-decadal-resolution record of oxygen and carbon stable isotopes (MWP: AD 800-1100): Peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was as much as 2.5°C warmer than the Current Warm Period (AD 1961-1990 mean)."
http://www.co2sci...cave.php
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
Pinky, is it not AIP that stated AGW is 'incontrovertible'?
What legitimate science organization that might need to question the speed of light would make such a statement?
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2011
Pinky, is it not AIP that stated AGW is 'incontrovertible'?
These days, it is everyone except for ignorant cooks/sockpuppets like you.

So, did you actually read up this time, on what IN FACT comprises radiative transfer and variously-dimensioned climate models? Does that mean we won't hear from you any longer all those inane and ignorant pronouncements about omitted water vapor, clouds, and ice, or about detailed absorption/emission spectra?

Or was it all just too much for your little pin head?

Regarding LIA and MWP, like I said they DID occur. They were not, however GLOBAL. Yes, regional climates around the earth do interact; some place getting colder or warmer may cause another place to get wetter or drier.

There is no evidence of GLOBAL temperature swings back then, and indeed there is evidence AGAINST global temperature swings. Many of those regional changes were not well-synchronized with other regional changes, either.

Read the IPCC summary quotes: last link above.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2011
Humans are relatively a big part of the climate system and we influence climate that way. - kasinees


Yes. Then treat and understand your captor well.
There is no better captivity than being held hostage to climate.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
radiative transfer and variously-dimensioned climate models?

So there are no first principle analyses to validate these models.
.005% is not much energy.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
Why does this 'study' in this journal have more weight than the papers that disagree?
Or maybe the author neglected to review ALL data?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2011
"BEST results point to the Little Ice Age being colder and perhaps substantially colder than previously thought."
http://climateaudit.org/
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2011
please dont feed the troll called ryggesogn2 :(
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Oct 26, 2011
So there are no first principle analyses to validate these models.
Ah, I see that you did NOT in fact read up on the construction and validation of those models.

http://www.aip.or...math.htm

Oh, well.

No, I'm not even slightly surprised. Carefully guarded ignorance is, after all, your modus operandi. You won't exist without it.
"BEST results point to the Little Ice Age being colder and perhaps substantially colder than previously thought."
They do?

Or is it that climateaudit.org in general and Steve McIntyre in particular are about as scientifically objective and trustworthy as the CEO of Exxon?
please dont feed the troll called ryggesogn2 :(
Yes, it's clear the troll is steadfastly committed to remaining a troll.

Oh well...
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2011
radiative transfer and variously-dimensioned climate models?

So there are no first principle analyses to validate these models.

Asked and answered ad nauseum.

Your needless repetition of feigned ignorance has reached the point of being puerile.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2011
Pinky,

That data was not raw data. It is averaged data. That is not what I asked for, thank you. Want to try again? :)
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2011
Specify the minimum acceptable granularity/resolution; and, justify such stipulation.
cees_timmerman
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2011
Brazils cattle industry [...] is responsible for about 80 percent of all deforestation in the Amazon. In fact, the Brazilian cattle industry is the largest single source of deforestation anywhere in the world. And deforestation in turn causes one-fifth of all the greenhouse gas emissions in the world, more than all the worlds cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined. - Lindsey Allen, http://www.greenp...n230709/
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2011
That data was not raw data. It is averaged data.
And what, pray tell, will you do with raw data? :)

Or are you about to accuse the BEST group of manipulation, as well? :) :)

And how would raw data enable you to do what a fourth-grader can do by simply looking at the graph -- as referenced before? :) :) :)

:)
Galilean_Cannonball
2 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2011
The problem with the climate change "debate" isn't so much the science - most people are unlikely to understand or care about the how it works -, they just believe it unless it means doing something different. Climate change needs some response from us; most scientific facts don't, and those that do, we resist vehemently sometimes until it's too late. Here in Australia, we are about to implement a "carbon tax" which of course won't "save" the planet, only most likely it will lead to the demise of the government, and the just passed legislation will eventually be rescinded, but hopefully it might spur others on to do something meaningful. It's a difficult debate, full of scientific intricacies that will take a long time to filter down. We need to have this debate and we need the general populace onboard otherwise no measure we implement will work or attempt to implement will be accepted.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2011
Where will the carbon tax money do? How will it be spent?
'Liberals' want to add taxes to the 'bad' things they want less of, but what do the 'liberals' do with those taxes?
How will those revenues be replaced if they achieve their objective of eliminating the 'bad' product?
The dirty little secret is the 'liberal' doesn't really want to make the 'bad' product go away, they just want another revenue stream.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
Irrelevant BS.

Unable to prevail on the facts, like many denialists, you attempt to evade by diverting attention to matters of policy.

Your dirty little secret is that your objections are rooted firmly and solely in policy. Where it the case that dealing with AGW held out the promise of economic good fortune, you'd be on the other side of the fence.

Galilean_Cannonball
not rated yet Oct 30, 2011
In the long run putting a price on carbon - even if we all do it - won't necessarily avert a profound change in the climate; it might though, give people pause and lead to sustainable outcomes that damage the planet less and may make this place a more hospitable place for the billions will be born in the coming decades. I'd rather live on a planet where its inhabitants plan for the future rather than one where countries become the equivalent of gated communities fearful of what's outside and hence, adopting a siege to cope. Remember Y2K? Maybe all that furious activity before the turn of the century saved us, or maybe when the date clicked over nothing much would have happened, we don't know, except we weren't willing to take a chance. The problem with climate change we don't know when the clock will tick over, maybe it already has, who knows? So it's easy to carry on debating since seemingly there is no cost, but the ledger is filling up fast.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
Will all governments who want a carbon tax or other 'sin' taxes create a fool proof means of applying those funds to their national debts instead of their general funds?
'Liberals' like to apply market principles when they want to coerce their people, but such coercion comes at a cost they refuse to measure. The opportunity costs lost.
Squeeze a balloon and try to predict which parts will pop out between your fingers. That is what happens when the 'progressive' wants to coerce behavior, unpredictable results.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
The problem with climate change we don't know when the clock will tick over,

You are assuming humans can control climate. How do you KNOW your 'fix' won't trigger the next ice age?

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2011
No we know why AGWites are afraid of a warming climate:

"The archaeological and anthropological records indicate that each time the ice retreated [during the ice ages], the primitive peoples of the Eurasian landmass grew more populous and their culture more advanced. "
http://www.stanfo...Man.html
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
You can not live...without assumption.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2011
You can not live...without assumption.

Wrong assumptions can kill.

"Svante Björck has gone through the global climate archives, which are presented in a large number of research publications, and looked for evidence"

The assumption here is that there is a significant body of research of the MWP in the southern hemisphere.

What assumptions are made in the global climate models?
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2011
Wrong assumptions can kill. - R2

Then assume nothing.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2011
Specify the minimum acceptable granularity/resolution; and, justify such stipulation.


Raw data, deep. Raw data. All of it. All of the samples. All without averaging. I don't think I can spell it out any plainer. :)
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2011
Specify the minimum acceptable granularity/resolution; and, justify such stipulation.


Raw data, deep. Raw data. All of it. All of the samples. All without averaging. I don't think I can spell it out any plainer. :)

Guess you missed the part about data not trumping the inescapable Laws of Nature.

Data != Information.
Information != Knowledge.
Knowledge != Understanding.

Nice try, though. Keep running , and maybe you'll catch up.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.