Research points to abrupt and widespread climate shift in the Sahara 5,000 years ago

Apr 05, 2013 by Jennifer Chu
An immense dust storm over central Africa is seen in images taken during consecutive overpasses of NASA's Aqua satellite. The dust appears thickest to the right of center, in a region known as the Bodele Depression, once the location of a large lake. Now the region is one of the largest sources of wind-blown dust on Earth. Credit: Jacques Descloitres/Modis Rapid Response Team/NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center

As recently as 5,000 years ago, the Sahara—today a vast desert in northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles—was a verdant landscape, with sprawling vegetation and numerous lakes. Ancient cave paintings in the region depict hippos in watering holes, and roving herds of elephants and giraffes—a vibrant contrast with today's barren, inhospitable terrain.

The Sahara's "green" era, known as the African Humid Period, likely lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, and is thought to have ended abruptly, with the region drying back into desert within a span of one to two centuries.

Now researchers at MIT, Columbia University and elsewhere have found that this occurred nearly simultaneously across North Africa.

The team traced the region's wet and dry periods over the past 30,000 years by analyzing sediment samples off the coast of Africa. Such sediments are composed, in part, of dust blown from the continent over thousands of years: The more dust that accumulated in a given period, the drier the continent may have been.

From their measurements, the researchers found that the Sahara emitted five times less dust during the African Humid Period than the region does today. Their results, which suggest a far greater change in Africa's than previously estimated, will be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters.

David McGee, an assistant professor in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, says the quantitative results of the study will help scientists determine the influence of on both past and present climate change.

"Our results point to surprisingly large changes in how much dust is coming out of Africa," says McGee, who did much of the work as a postdoc at Columbia. "This gives us a baseline for looking further back in time, to interpret how big past climate swings were. This [period] was the most recent climate swing in Africa. What was it like before?"

Getting to the core of dust

To trace Africa's dust emissions through time, McGee analyzed collected in 2007 by researchers from Columbia and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Researchers sampled from sites off the northwest coast of Africa, spanning a distance of more than 550 miles.

At each site, they collected a core sample—a 10-foot long cylinder topped by a weight—which scientists submerged, collecting a column of sediment.

McGee says a 10-foot column represents approximately 30,000 years of sediments deposited, layer by layer, in the ocean—sediments like windblown dust from the continent, marine deposits brought in by ocean currents, and leftover bits of organisms that sank to the seafloor. A centimeter of sediment corresponds to about 100 years of deposition, providing what McGee calls a "high-resolution" record of dust changes through time.

To trace how much windblown dust accumulated over the past 30,000 years, McGee used a combination of techniques to first determine how fast sediments accumulated over time, then subtracted out the accumulation of marine sediments and biological remnants.

Layer by layer

Using a technique called thorium-230 normalization, McGee and his colleagues calculated accumulation rates for sediment layers every two to three centimeters along the column. The technique is based on the decay of uranium in seawater: Over time, uranium decays to thorium-230, an insoluble chemical that sticks to any falling sediment as it sinks to the seafloor. The amount of uranium—and by extension, the production rate of thorium-230—in the world's oceans is relatively constant. McGee measured the concentration of thorium-230 in each core sample to determine the accumulation rates of sediments through time.

In periods when sediments accumulated quickly, there was a smaller concentration of thorium-230. In slower-accumulating periods, McGee measured a greater thorium-230 concentration.

Once the team calculated rates of sediment accumulation over the past 30,000 years, it went about determining how much of that sediment was dust from neighboring Africa. The researchers subtracted biological sediment from the samples by measuring calcium carbonate, opal and organic carbon, the primary remnants of living organisms. After subtracting this measurement from each sample layer, the researchers tackled the task of separating the remaining sediment into windblown dust and marine sediments—particles that circulate through the ocean, deposited on the seafloor by currents.

McGee employed a second technique called grain-size endmember modeling, charting a distribution of grain sizes ranging from coarse grains of dust to fine grains of marine soil.

"We define these endmembers: A pure dust signal would look like this, and a pure marine sediment would look like this," McGee says. "And then we see, OK, what combination of those extremes would give us this mixture that we see here?"

This study, McGee says, is the first in which researchers have combined the two techniques—endmember modeling and thorium-230 normalization—a pairing that produced very precise measurements of dust emissions through tens of thousands of years.

In the end, the team found that during some dry periods North Africa emitted more than twice the dust generated today. Through their samples, the researchers found the African Humid Period began and ended very abruptly, consistent with previous findings. However, they found that 6,000 years ago, toward the end of this period, dust emissions were one-fifth today's levels, and far less dusty than previous estimates.

McGee says these new measurements may give scientists a better understanding of how dust fluxes relate to climate by providing inputs for climate models.

Natalie Mahowald, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Cornell University, says the group's combination of techniques yielded more robust estimates of dust than previous studies.

"Dust is one of the most important aerosols for climate and biogeochemistry," Mahowald says. "This study suggests very large fluctuations due to climate over the last 10,000 years, which has enormous implications for human-derived climate change."

As a next step, McGee is working with collaborators to test whether these new measurements may help to resolve a longstanding problem: the inability of climate models to reproduce the magnitude of wet conditions in North Africa 6,000 years ago. By using these new results to estimate the climate impacts of dust emissions on regional climate, models may finally be able to replicate the North Africa of 6,000 years ago—a region of grasslands that were host to a variety of roaming wildlife.

"This is a period that captures people's imaginations," McGee says. "It's important to understand whether and how much has had an impact on past climate."

Explore further: NASA's HS3 mission continues with flights over Hurricane Gonzalo

Related Stories

Saharan dust impacts West African monsoon precipitation

Mar 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Africa's Saharan Desert is the largest source of mineral dust in the world, covering more than 3 million square miles and causing dust particles to blanket African skies. According to Pacific ...

Earth is getting dustier, model suggests

Jan 05, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- If the house seems dustier than it used to be, it may not be a reflection on your housekeeping skills. The amount of dust in the Earth's atmosphere has doubled over the last century, according ...

Dust trackers plan alert system

Feb 07, 2008

Scientists are studying whether dust clouds from deserts in Africa and Asia carry bacteria, fungus and viruses to North America.

Recommended for you

The ocean's living carbon pumps

16 hours ago

When we talk about global carbon fixation – "pumping" carbon out of the atmosphere and fixing it into organic molecules by photosynthesis – proper measurement is key to understanding this process. By ...

User comments : 172

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
2 / 5 (50) Apr 05, 2013
The only person who is worse than a fear mongering neocon is a fear mongering climate blame believer who like a climate coward scares our kids to their exaggerated crisis.

Would you condemn your own kids on a simple "maybe"? Of course not! So why is science saying "maybe" a climate CRISIS is coming for 27 years good enough to issue them CO2 death threats?

Not ONE SINGLE IPCC warning isn't smothered in "could bes" and "maybes"……

Science says an asteroid hit crisis is real and inevitable but a climate change crisis isn't as real as an asteroid hit crisis is.
Science agrees it is real and happening but does NOT agree and has NEVER agreed it will be an actual crisis over 27 years of intensive research on EFFECTS not causes of an assumed to be real crisis.
Birger
4.5 / 5 (30) Apr 05, 2013
mememine,
I do not see how your comment is relevant to this article. The work with the dust will make it possible to better understand African climate 6000 years ago.
mememine69
1.8 / 5 (44) Apr 05, 2013
Birger,
These same lab coats have condemned my kids to their exaggerated crisis of climate blame because the scientists "all agree" that it "could" and "might" be a climate crisis. CO2 death threats from science to our kids is the only issue right now. This Reefer Madness has done to science what abusive priests did for religion.
QuixoteJ
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
Would be interesting to see how this data relates to the ancient climate in Egypt and to the ongoing debate about the type of erosion seen at the Sphinx (for deteriming when it actually occured).
anders_molin_71465
2 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2013
The interesting question seems to be how the CO2 level correlates with the amount of dust from Sahara. Are we going towards a more dusty Mediterrinean area or toward a Sahara as was more than 6,000 years ago. Are we shaping our own future in a way that will be beneficial for us?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2013
The only person who is worse than a fear mongering neocon is a fear mongering climate blame believer who like a climate coward scares our kids to their exaggerated crisis.

Would you condemn your own kids on a simple "maybe"? Of course not! So why is science saying "maybe" a climate CRISIS is coming for 27 years good enough to issue them CO2 death threats?

Not ONE SINGLE IPCC warning isn't smothered in "could bes" and "maybes"……

Science says an asteroid hit crisis is real and inevitable but a climate change crisis isn't as real as an asteroid hit crisis is.
Science agrees it is real and happening but does NOT agree and has NEVER agreed it will be an actual crisis over 27 years of intensive research on EFFECTS not causes of an assumed to be real crisis.


Because, as I believe I've told you before, the only thing certain in life is death and taxes. And we're taking about the Earth. We don't have a spare one you know?
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (26) Apr 05, 2013
The interesting question seems to be how the CO2 level correlates with the amount of dust from Sahara


Yes, you could undoubtedly get a government grant for that, since the term "CO2" is mentioned.
ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (26) Apr 05, 2013
Yes, you could undoubtedly get a government grant for that, since the term "CO2" is mentioned.


LMAO - too funny!

If a research whore can find a funding-chump who will finance a study re the possible effect of climate change on future Boston Marathons, any-frickin-thing is possible.

ScooterG
2.1 / 5 (26) Apr 05, 2013
This Reefer Madness has done to science what abusive priests did for religion.


Exactly 100% correct - pearls of wisdom.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 05, 2013
Because, as I believe I've told you before, the only thing certain in life is DEATH and TAXES....
-- runrigTurd
And, if the AGW Alarmist Turds have their way, you are guaranteed both, though not in that order.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (27) Apr 05, 2013
Wow this one brought out the loonies again! Another computer day at the asylum I guess!

mememine69 you are just a fool who is ignorant of how science works. the hope would be that you don't procreate, cause you've already shallowed the gene pool enough on your own.

Claudius playing up his version of the conspiracy, with support from the conspiracist who doesn't understand he is a conspiracist.

What a collection of moronic fools.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 05, 2013
Would be interesting to see how this data relates to the ancient climate in Egypt and to the ongoing debate about the type of erosion seen at the Sphinx (for deteriming when it actually occured).


I agree. The timing of the building of the Sphinx seems to be close to the dates of this study, and might help explain why it was abandoned so (relatively) suddenly.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2013
Because, as I believe I've told you before, the only thing certain in life is DEATH and TAXES....
-- runrigTurd
And, if the AGW Alarmist Turds have their way, you are guaranteed both, though not in that order.


Idiot - we are guaranteed them anyway. And any taxes after my death are not my concern.

The comment wasn't directed at you either.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (23) Apr 05, 2013
These same lab coats have condemned my kids to their exaggerated crisis of climate blame because the scientists "all agree" that it "could" and "might" be a climate crisis. CO2 death threats from science to our kids is the only issue right now. This Reefer Madness has done to science what abusive priests did for religion.


It is difficult to believe that people can be this thick. Your basic premise, then, is to shoot the messengers because they dare to point out that the addition of heat-trapping co2 can lead to problems. Can you not see how ridiculous you sound?

Well obviously you don't, given you repeat it so often. You're a real "special" case in the shrinking cadre of bunker dwellers.

Where did you stand on the 2012 end of the world thing? Or the pole shift thing? What did you tell your children about those?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (19) Apr 05, 2013
This Reefer Madness has done to science what abusive priests did for religion.


Exactly 100% correct - pearls of wisdom.


Pellets of dog turd painted silver. Figures you'd pick them up.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (22) Apr 05, 2013
Claudius playing up his version of the conspiracy, with support from the conspiracist who doesn't understand he is a conspiracist.


Conspiracy requires at least two people. With whom am I supposedly conspiring?

And compare how easy it is to get a research grant on almost any subject that includes demonization of CO2 in some way, as opposed to getting a research grant that describes CO2 as being a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (17) Apr 05, 2013
What a collection of moronic fools...Pellets of dog turd painted silver. Figures you'd pick them up.


5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (19) Apr 05, 2013
Conspiracy requires at least two people. With whom am I supposedly conspiring?


I didn't say you were. I said you were claiming "they" are.

And compare how easy it is to get a research grant on almost any subject that includes demonization of CO2 in some way, as opposed to getting a research grant that describes CO2 as being a relatively insignificant greenhouse gas.


You describe a conspiracy. Please don't tell me that you are another who doesn't recognize allegations of conspiracy just because you omitted the word "conspiracy".
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (27) Apr 05, 2013
This Reefer Madness has done to science what abusive priests did for religion.


Exactly 100% correct - pearls of wisdom.


Pellets of dog turd painted silver. Figures you'd pick them up.

Climate Science is NOT science, it's a CULT, with the dumbest Turds at the bottom of the pile, ready to heap scorn on and burn the heretics (skeptics), while their Vicar; the Gore, is living large on the millions he's making from this lie.
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
5,000 years ago, the Sahara—today a vast desert in northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles—was a verdant landscape
So we shouldn't overestimate the scope of global warming episode today. Such an episodes did happen routinely in the past and they even were probably much more dramatic. IMO the cometary impact into Indian Ocean, which has lead into biblical flood was the culprit there.
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 05, 2013
Maggnus

Exactly why is it wrong to believe in conspiracy?

Police detectives often discover and prosecute conspiracies, are they loonies because of this?

History records multitudes of conspiracies. Can we accuse historians of idiocy because of this?

From my point of view, it is extremely naive to claim conspiracies either don't exist, or that those who investigate them are necessarily tin-foil hat wearers.

Forgive me for having misinterpreted your comment regarding "conspiracist who doesn't understand he is a conspiracist." Even after re-reading it, it still seems to say what I thought it said, but it is so convoluted I suppose you might have meant something else.
ScooterG
1.3 / 5 (24) Apr 05, 2013
Oh look, it's Magnuss the Brilliant, vociferous defender of the taxpayer-funded study that indicates a change in the weather might affect the completion times of runners in the Boston Marathon!

Hey Magnusss - If climate change somehow causes the course of the Boston Marathon to run uphill from start to finish, could that 1) possibly affect the runners' completion times and 2) do you think it would be a wise use of taxpayer money to pay someone to study it?

What about a 60MPH wind? If climate change causes a 60MPH wind in the face of the runners, should we spend money to study the potential effect on runners times?

hahahahahahahaha - I crack myself up sometimes
Maggnus
4 / 5 (16) Apr 05, 2013
[q5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

False Continuum
The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
@antigoracle

While I agree with you completely, I deplore your use of invective. It weakens your argument entirely.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2013
False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful.


You must have missed the part about "... you avoid dealing with issues."

You might also note that I am quoting from a numbered list. You might wonder what the list is about.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2013
5,000 years ago, the Sahara—today a vast desert in northern Africa, spanning more than 3.5 million square miles—was a verdant landscape
So we shouldn't overestimate the scope of global warming episode today. Such an episodes did happen routinely in the past and they even were probably much more dramatic. IMO the cometary impact into Indian Ocean, which has lead into biblical flood was the culprit there.


Ironic, isn't it, that the Sahara shows signs of re-greening?

"Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening because of increased rainfall. Satellite imaging shows extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20-year-long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kröpelin."

- Wikipedia
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
satellite imaging shows extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002
You can call me unconvinced....
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2013
satellite imaging shows extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002
You can call me http://www.aether....gif....


Well, you had better get busy and edit the Wikipedia article, shouldn't you?

Actually, climate change is responsible for about half of the decrease in Lake Chad, the rest due to "human water use, such as inefficient damming and irrigation methods"
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
I'd say not as I was banned from Wikipedia many times...
the rest due to "human water use, such as inefficient damming and irrigation methods
Actually I don't know about any lake, which gained its water in recent time, but I know about many lakes, who are drained to bottom. Therefore in my perception the global net trend are droughts and desertification. The lack of water becomes serious problem everywhere over the world.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
To get back to the subject at hand - a close look at a satellite view of the world reveals that a swath of desertification occurred, stretching from the Sahara right through to the Gobi desert, in an east-northeasterly direction, or south-southwesterly direction considering the rotation of the Earth. I am willing to concede to the theory that a major solar phenomenon or some other "sudden" and "abrupt" natural catastrophe caused this desertification.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2013
Therefore in my perception the global net trend are droughts and desertification. The lack of water becomes serious problem everywhere over the world.


For instance, the Ganges is being greatly depleted by extensive use by the inhabitants along the river. Overpopulation more than climate change is responsible for much of the reduction in fresh water availability. I am much more alarmed by overpopulation than by climate change.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Apr 05, 2013
Birger,
These same lab coats have condemned my kids to their exaggerated crisis of climate blame because the scientists "all agree" that it "could" and "might" be a climate crisis. CO2 death threats from science to our kids is the only issue right now. This Reefer Madness has done to science what abusive priests did for religion.
Sounds like you have a problem with science in general. It appears that these scientists are only collecting evidence and trying to interpret it.

Do you have a problem with evidence? Only more evidence will tell us whether AGW is real, or whether we can do anything about it if it is. You want us to STOP collecting evidence because you already KNOW what it's going to say?

Religionists think this way did you know that? What idiot religion do you belong to then, which makes you think this way? What GOD is telling you that EVIDENCE is IRRELEVANT??
verkle
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.


Totally agree.

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
Much as denialists have to shout even louder when the fact climate science result of AGW becomes clearer, they should _welcome_ more data. Then it becomes easier to publish competing models that can predict all data better than current climate science.

However, no one sees any such research. A pity too, since data collections as these are really painstaking. (Thorium-230 concentrations? Grain end-members? ... feel the nit and the grit!)

@mememine: "Climate blame"? AGW is the current climate science model. It doesn't mean CO2 death (unless you try to make a runaway greenhouse like Venus, which is far away).

Also, it isn't really relevant to this, which was basic model-neutral data collection.

"what abusive priests did for religion". Except of course that science and religion is incommensurate, making your attempt to perpetrate a poison the well fallacy apriori meaningless. AGW is a well tested fact, religious claims are not.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2013
@Claudius: "since ... "CO2"". Sure, that is what the article notes, society is interested in how the climate works because a) we have observed that we are affecting it, and b) we have observed that we can affect it. Otherwise the interest would be lower.

"why is it wrong to believe in conspiracy". Because such theory is painstakingly constructed to be hardest to reveal (hidden evidence), meaning it is a) most often myth, b) always the least likely pathway due to the many finetuned factors necessary.

Come on, 5 years olds knows that the most fantastic stories are the least promising to be factual, they stop believing in Santa.

"Regreening". Like Greenland. =D Local effects, not global greenhouse effects. Earth is large and varied enough that there will always be locales that goes against the global trend. It isn't like Venus. (Interestingly, Venus has a height differentiated local climate instead. Some mountains have some type of chemical "snow".)
antigoracle
2.4 / 5 (16) Apr 05, 2013
@antigoracle

While I agree with you completely, I deplore your use of invective. It weakens your argument entirely.

Claudius, the only reason I started doing this was in response to Maggnus and Vendicar calling everyone they disagreed with a Tard and had hoped it would drive them to stop. I now realize that will not happen. I agree with you and so it's time to stop.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2013
@antigoracle: "Climate Science is NOT science".

That it is a science is accepted by the rest of the science community and the majority of world leaders (which is why the IPCC oversight exists). Climate science as science is published daily in the media because of, you know, the interesting fact of AGW and the problems it makes.

It is only "the dumbest Turds" that would try such a monumental lie as yours.

@baudrunner: "theory". No mechanism, no theory. Unidentified "catastrophe" isn't a mechanism.

In fact, geology had to get away from "catastrophism" to mature into a science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
Here try this link
http://m.guardiannews.com/global-development/2011/feb/25/great-green-wall-sahel-desertification
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 05, 2013
Here try this link
http://m.guardiannews.com/global-development/2011/feb/25/great-green-wall-sahel-desertification
Goddammit I was trying to say that claudiuses info seems to conflict with the understanding that the Sahel is desertifying and moving southward due to overgrazing and pop pressure.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
You must have missed the part about "... you avoid dealing with issues."

What issues Claudius? That the first comment on this thread is a direct attack and an insult? That even after Quioxte and Anders tried to make the discussion a civil one, first you, then scooter, then againstseeing all chimed in to make more insults? Is that the issue you want to discuss?
You might wonder what the list is about.

I know exactly what the list is about. Is your use of that list supposed to be ironic?

Your questions about conspiracy are dishearteningly common. Your naivety is displayed my your inability to comprehend its import, not my mocking disdain of it.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 05, 2013
Claudius, the only reason I started doing this was in response to Maggnus and Vendicar calling everyone they disagreed with a Tard and had hoped it would drive them to stop. I now realize that will not happen. I agree with you and so it's time to stop.


From the guy whose very first post on a science site read something to the effect of all scientists are schills and paid to lie in order to forward the agenda set out for them by Al Gore.

I have nothing but contempt for such a statement, and for the person that makes it. I am not afraid to show my contempt for such a stupid person. If you don't like the adjectives I use, then stop making stupid, biased, conspiratal, insulting statements.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
The only person who is worse than a fear mongering neocon is a fear mongering climate blame believer who like a climate coward scares our kids to their exaggerated crisis.
These same scientists can't agree what took down the WTC towers. Research is good but the conclusions must be scrutinized and put in context, especially because modern science is heavily corporatized and banksterized. Mafias have never been so strong and centralized as today

Quantum mechanics and relativity are far from being understood 110 years after world debut

@Maggnus The best science stands upon it's own evidence. So long as we're asking questions there is hope for the species
robweeve
2.6 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2013
the sides of the Sphinx are grooved, worn away in a manner that can only be accomplished by water erosion
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
@Maggnus The best science stands upon it's own evidence. So long as we're asking questions there is hope for the species


I don't disagree, with qualifiesr; question the science, not the person presenting it; and, learn what is known before you blindly question what has been learned.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
the sides of the Sphinx are grooved, worn away in a manner that can only be accomplished by water erosion


Well, not only, but it sure looks like it's water. If this article is correct and the area was wet only 6000 years ago, it would make the water theory much more plausible.
meerling
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
It's so sad to see how the non-scientific, the superstitious, and the trolls have invaded the science sites.
Along those lines, please review http://phys.org/help/comments/
It's the RULES for posting, and a lot of people are ignoring them.
Unfortunately my post is also not up to the guides, but if it stops the inappropriate B.S. on the thread, it will be worth it.
Drop the politics, conspiracy talk, insults, and off topic chatter.
Thank you.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
It's so sad to see how the non-scientific, the superstitious, and the trolls have invaded the science sites.
Along those lines, please review http://phys.org/help/comments/
It's the RULES for posting, and a lot of people are ignoring them.
Unfortunately my post is also not up to the guides, but if it stops the inappropriate B.S. on the thread, it will be worth it.
Drop the politics, conspiracy talk, insults, and off topic chatter.
Thank you.


I whole-heartedly agree with you ............ But it wont happen.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2013
Oh look, it's Magnuss the Brilliant, vociferous defender of the taxpayer-funded study that indicates a change in the weather might affect the completion times of runners in the Boston Marathon!

.............

What about a 60MPH wind? If climate change causes a 60MPH wind in the face of the runners, should we spend money to study the potential effect on runners times?

hahahahahahahaha - I crack myself up sometimes


"I crack myself up sometimes" only sometimes? That seems to be your constant condition.

And good luck to scientists who get their grants, for whatever they want to study. They do no more than anyone else in their jobs - that is to further it. Human nature. You just don't like it because of your stance on AGW. Shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.
R_R
1.6 / 5 (20) Apr 06, 2013
McGee says. "It's important to understand whether and how much dust has had an impact on past climate."

Its important to understand the impact of IMPACTS on earths past climate, like the massive impact in the Indian ocean that caused this sudden change to Africa. But you cant tell science anything, its just another selfish ass Wall Street. I commend Physorg for letting the socalled conspiracy nuts have thier say, put a little truth if the face of the brainwashed yes men.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2013
@antigoracle

While I agree with you completely, I deplore your use of invective. It weakens your argument entirely.


Sure does.
R_R
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 06, 2013
Ah yes, your perfect world where the genius scientists politely discuss thier big gleaming LIES in peace and a paycheck arrives every week. How sweet (till the next big rock hits us)
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
From the guy whose very first post on a science site....
-- maggnus
Let me explain to you, what got me here.

1] Your Vicar Gore, not satisfied with the millions he made of GW. So he sets up a Carbon Credit Exchange to become the first GW Billionaire.

2] McIntyre's discovery of the lie that was Mann's Hockey Stick and poster of the IPCC
http://en.wikiped...roversy.

3] Climate Gate and the revelation of their acrimonious actions against anyone who did not conform to the agenda.

4] True scientists. http://www.ted.co..._do.html Enlightening, but the true revelation is at the end, where he says you have to find the truth for yourself. A common exhortation from true scientists.

5] I start reading the GW/Climate Change articles on this forum, and see you and Vendicar's one line response calling everyone, across the divide, a Turd. Never a reasonable debate, except for runrig.

So here we.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
So here we.


Indeed. You've laid out your delusional accusation of conspiracy. The fact that it makes you look like a tin-hat wearing, bunker building loonie seems to be lost on you.

Hahaha really, you're like the poster child for the lunatic fringe.
Maggnus
3.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
PS against-seeing: When one deals with the lunatic fringe, there is no point in dicussing the findings of scientists, nor any proof of the condition you are trying to argue for, nor how the application of logic supports a contention you make, because the lunatics you are arguing with have already decided what they are going to believe.
There is no proof you can offer to one who does not accept proofs. There is no logical argument you can make to one who does not accept logic. On the contrary, any proof or logical argument you offer will only cause the lunatic fringe to dig deeper into their hole of self delusion and actually entrench their view, pushing them deeper into their delusional and imaginary world.
The best one can do is to continually point out the stupidity of their statements, the irrationality of their conspiracy theories and the moronicness of their take on science so that those reading their made up tripe will not be taken in by it, but rather laugh at its ridiculousness
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 06, 2013
When one deals with the lunatic fringe...

Uh huh, and you and everyone in your cult are sane. You should try taking a moment to re-read your rant before hitting the submit.
You and your cult are the only one intelligent enough to understand the science, everyone else is a tard and lunatic. NEVER an educated nor reasonable response.
You frequently boast that 97% of "climate scientists" support AGW, so tell me what of the remaining 3% - What do they believe? Are they not doing science? Are they not scientists? No, they are skeptics and lunatics.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
There is no proof you can offer to one who does not accept proofs.


AGW is YOUR assertion. The burden of proof is yours alone. I have yet to see any convincing proof that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor in global warming. When I asked for proof, I was pointed to research articles which were concerned with demonstrating that an analysis of CO2 isotopes proved that man was generating CO2. This is not proof that CO2 is causing the observed warming. It does prove that humans are generating CO2, but that was a no-brainer to begin with.

Give some evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a warming crisis and I will accept it. So far it hasn't been done. I am actually much more open minded than you assume.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
"You frequently boast that 97% of "climate scientists" support AGW, so tell me what of the remaining 3%"

It is actually surprising that the pool of "climate scientists" who were polled had a 3% minority that did not support AGW. After all, those scientists were basically vetted by the peer-review process, and in order to join that club, it is necessary to have a pro-AGW position.
Maggnus
3.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
AGW is YOUR assertion.

No, fool, it is the finding of tens of thousands of dedicated researchers and scientists from around the world, covering a myriad of different disciplines, whose multiple lines of research all point to the same basic premise: to wit, the world is warming because of CO2 loading of the atmosphere by humans. The burden of proof against this avalanche of data is yours.
Give some evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a warming crisis and I will accept it. So far it hasn't been done. I am actually much more open minded than you assume.

Pidgeon chess. You refuse to see it because you have already decided. Pointing out even more evidence is a waste of time.

Your understanding of proof is in need of work Claudius.
Maggnus
3.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
It is actually surprising that the pool of "climate scientists" who were polled had a 3% minority that did not support AGW. After all, those scientists were basically vetted by the peer-review process, and in order to join that club, it is necessary to have a pro-AGW position.


And again, allegation of conspiracy presented in a manner intended to dispute the science. A misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation: : to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair ; a lie
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
"Your understanding of proof is in need of work Claudius."

Really? So for you, the fact that humans are producing CO2 is all the proof you need that anthropogenic CO2 is creating a warming crisis?

And, when I said it was your assertion, it should be obvious that I was referring to the rest of the AGW community as well.

Your comments merely underline an impression I am forming from all this that "climate science" is not science at all.

In one of the "climate-gate" emails, one "climate scientist" was concerned that "genuine scientists" (his exact words) might become involved in the peer-review process and allow anti-AGW research to be published. Obviously he agreed with my impression on the state of "climate science."
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2013
Really? So for you, the fact that humans are producing CO2 is all the proof you need that anthropogenic CO2 is creating a warming crisis?

Obfustication, presented in such a manner as to misdirect and misrepresent the previous statements.
And, when I said it was your assertion, it should be obvious that I was referring to the rest of the AGW community as well.

Appeal to Spite.
Your comments merely underline an impression I am forming from all this that "climate science" is not science at all.

Ad Ignorantiam
In one of the "climate-gate" emails, one "climate scientist" was concerned that "genuine scientists" (his exact words) might become involved in the peer-review process and allow anti-AGW research to be published. Obviously he agreed with my impression on the state of "climate science."

Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Find the number to those ones, Mr Irony.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
"Find the number to those ones, Mr Irony."

More than one this time.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
Interesting! You don't actually understand the meaning of the fallacies you use, and then try to cover that lack by invoking even more fallacious arguments. I actually thought more of you than that Claudius.

So your fallback position is: no I'm not, you are.

So now that we've got all of that out of the way, I can't help but still wonder at the answer I got to my question: at what point do you begin to discuss the science Claudius?

The answer is: I won't discuss the science because I have already decided what the science says, and I am going to only discuss how my theory of the conspiracy behind global warming works.

Fallacy indeed!
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
"at what point do you begin to discuss the science Claudius?"

That was way back when I asked you if you had some better proof of AGW than that humans are producing CO2. It shouldn't be too hard.
Maggnus
3.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
That was way back when I asked you if you had some better proof of AGW than that humans are producing CO2. It shouldn't be too hard.


Another obfustication, combined with the fallacy of switching the burden of proof, combined with the fallacy of an unattainable proof.

Allow me to explain, as you obviously don't understand. The obfustication is using a very general statement to try and convey a myriad of complex issues. The burden of proof fallacy is claiming global warming is wrong because you don't see the proof. The fallacy of unattainable proof is that you will accept no proof as good enough.

Isn't it fun how fallacy works? Want to back up and try again?
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
If I were to assert that the moon is made of green cheese, the burden of proof is on me.

Similarly, if an assertion has been made that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a warming crisis, the burden of proof is no those who made the claim. Those who are skeptical need only point to flaws in the argument, which I have done.

I have not switched the burden of proof around, the ball was always and remains in the AGW court.

I have heard all the "evidence" the AGW camp has, and none of it is persuasive. I am simply asking you to provide some convincing proof. When I did this in a previous discussion, I believe it was djr who provided me with a list of articles dealing with the fact that humans are producing CO2. That's not enough, I'm asking for more.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
If I were to assert that the moon is made of green cheese, the burden of proof is on me.


True. Can you explain why?

Similarly, if an assertion has been made that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a warming crisis, the burden of proof is no those who made the claim.


False. That is the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance.

Those who are skeptical need only point to flaws in the argument, which I have done.


False, that is the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

I have not switched the burden of proof around, the ball was always and remains in the AGW court.


Yes you have. The evidence has been presented, multiple times across multiple disciplines. You are trying to use the fallacy of Burden of Proof to switch who has the burden of proof.

I have heard all the "evidence" the AGW camp has, and none of it is persuasive. I am simply asking you to provide some convincing proof.


The fallacy of unattainable proof. Already discussed.
Maggnus
3.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
There are at least two other fallacies in your last comment, Claudius.

You clearly have little grasp of the subject of fallacies, which means you can`t possibly understand climate science.

See how fallacy works? Want to back up and try again?
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"."

- Wikipedia

I have not asserted that anthropogenic CO2 is creating a warming crisis. I am the critic, and if you shift the burden of proof to me, it is you, not me, that is committing a fallacy.
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
There is also this:

"He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim."

- Wikipedia
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
You have asserted that the science which supports the contention that global warming is occurring is wrong. There is an implicit burden on you to prove the truth of your statement. You are trying to avoid that burden by shifting that burden to me, the person critical of your assertation. You are appealing to ignorance.

You assert that the issue of global warming has not been proven to you. You then set an impossibly high standard by which to provide such proof. That is a fallacy.

You assert that scientists are party to a conspiracy. The burden of proof of that assertion is yours. The statement that I am a party to the conspiracy because I dispute your assertion is a fallacy.

The statement "you are an idiot, and therefore your assertations are wrong" may be true, but is a fallacious argument. The fact of your idiocy does not necessarily make your assertions wrong. Similarily, that fact that your assertions are wrong does not necessarily mean you are an idiot.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2013
You assert that the issue of global warming has not been proven to you.

http://www.youtub...eyMa3jyU
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2013
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2013
"You have asserted that the science which supports the contention that global warming is occurring is wrong. There is an implicit burden on you to prove the truth of your statement."

The role of the critic is to attack the position of the one who make the assertion. The assertion, and it is yours as well as the rest of the AGW community, is that CO2 is causing a warming crisis. I am critical of that, and it is not a new assertion. Therefore I have no burden of proof. If you wish to abandon the AGW position, I will have no further comments.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
>
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2013
No Claudius, it is you who have come to this site of science to assert that the science of global warming, which the science of climatology has established, is wrong. You further assert that the science behind global warming is not a real thing, but rather is a made up phenomena underpinned by a consiracy.

You, Claudius, have come to this site, Claudius, to make the allegations I have put words to.

You are on a science site. Your position is based on misrepresentation, obfustication and allegations of conspiracy. Your avoidance of that fact is a further buttress to the contention you have the burden of proving the allegations you came here to air.

Please, do stop commenting. Your position is untenable in any case.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
"You are on a science site. Your position is based on misrepresentation, obfustication and allegations of conspiracy.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

There is absolutely >nothing< more scientific than questioning and criticizing it. Without criticism, science would cease to exist. It's called "testing the theory". If the theory can't survive testing and criticism, it is tossed aside. If it is robust, it survives. The proposition of AGW is not robust, and like piranhas the critics will come, there is blood in the water.

I don't have a theory about climate change, the AGW community you belong to does. I would have to prove any theory I presented, but I haven't presented a theory, you have, and are therefore open to criticism.

You once maintained that science was "collecting and analyzing data" and then you, who didn't even know the proper definition of science wants to exile me from this forum. It is to laugh.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Apr 06, 2013
AGW is deducible from first principles, a fact that denialists conveniently either never learned or choose to ignore.

Claudius
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 06, 2013
"AGW is deducible from first principles, a fact that denialists conveniently either never learned or choose to ignore."

Do you care to elaborate? I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet. Neither have I heard a viable theory elucidated. In fact, I believe there actually isn't a theory, is there?

And when I ask for proof, or even a theory, I am ridiculed and called a liar. How much easier, if you could just provide an answer.
Whydening Gyre
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2013
looks like we've all agreed on something - to disagree.
MOST entertaining...
R_R
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
A wee interlude

"Oh ye conspiracy, Egyptology and Geology"

"Oh ye conspiracy, Archeology and History"

"Oh ye conspiracy, most especially, climatology"

It is no coincidence this dramatic change in African climate coincides with the timing of a massive impact in the Indian Ocean and the start of civilization in Egypt and Sumer. This was not the start of civilization, it was a relocation. Cheers Back to the movie
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
Claudius :"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim."

I think this is accurate - but that the situation is more complex than you want to suggest.

An analogy - I believe that evolution is a fact. I do not have first hand proof of evolution. Many 'scientists' disagree with evolution. I have observed debates between pro and anti evolution scientists. The information was over my head - I am not an expert on genetic mutations, and irreducible complexity etc. Therefore I think it is very valid for me to defer to the consensus of science. I am not surrendering my intellect - I am recognizing my limitations - and the complexity of the subject. I would effectively lose in a debate with an anti evolution scientist - because I cannot argue at the level of complexity that it would require on that subject. Think about this Claudius - if I assert that evolution (consensus science) is a load of rubbish - is the burden not on me - cont.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
to defend my assertion - and do I not need to have some credentials for challenging consensus science - or is it OK for me to assert that the earth is really only 1 billion years old - even though I have never studied the topic?

2nd point - when debating conspiracists - the argument is lost if you get into the details. Have you ever talked with someone who believes the Government is poisoning us with contrails? I have. It is impossible to win that argument - they will always have evidence to counter your evidence. It is a never ending exercise in futility. For example Claudius - you claim there is no evidence to support the assertion that C02 is causing warming. Vendi has frequently presented evidence - explaining radiative frequencies etc. All above my head - but don't you think that supports the notion that no amount of evidence would be enough for you. cont.
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
cont. Here is a pretty extensive discussion of the subject of the evidence supporting C02 causing warming - http://scienceblo...hat-co2/
I am sure it will not be sufficient for you - you will have counter evidence.

Final point - as you have acknowledged - the climate is warming. Scientists have documented that the climate is warming - and therefore asked 'what is the source of this warming' Scientists are in very strong agreement that the greenhouse effect is the source of this warming. If you disagree with this assertion - does that not put the burden on you to explain what is causing this warming?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
Wow... Dir just won my vote for leader of the Debate team...
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2013
http://www.youtub...LQmCnr3I
The AGW Alarmist Cult supported the use of corn as a fuel source, a net contributor of CO2 to the environment. Just one example of the blind ignorant allegiance of the cult.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2013
And once again, we have Claudius twisting the argument, making mirepresentations and publicly airing his misunderstandings and lack of knowledge about the whole subject. I am amazed I can continue to be surprised by the depth of ignorance and paranoia he and others like him display.
You don't "question and critisize" the science Claudius, you assert the science is made up and that the scientists who present the results of their work are lying. So, yet another misrepresentation from you.
The proposition that global warming is occurring and is the result of manmade causes is so robust you feel the need to come here and make fallacious and misrepresentative arguments in some contrived effort to counter it. Your arguments have become so transparently rebutted that you continually retreat into misrepresentations and allegations of conspiracy, because that is all you have left.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2013
Antigoracl: "The AGW Alarmist Cult supported the use of corn as a fuel source"

So Claudius - which number is it on your list - when someone randomly drops a completely unrelated piece of information on to a thread - that is clearly designed to misdirect the discussion - in a clearly specious manner? I hope you will appropriately chastise antigoracle.

On top of that - I personally do not support the use of ethanol. The ethanol lobby is very powerful - and is heavily invested promoting the interest of agribusiness. Lumping us all into this childish grouping of AGW alarmists is very sloppy - Claudius - you should have a number for that behavior.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2013
And then you cry and alledge I am trying to oppress you and ban you from this forum. I wouldn't exile you because I believe your pathetic attempts to continually promote consipracy, speaks volumes about the mindset of the bulk of the ever shrinking cadre of anti-scientific conspiracy buffs, and speaks far clearer about the stupidity of such claims than I could ever hope to! YOU were the one who said you would stop commenting, I sarcastically asked when that would occur. So, yet another misrepresentation from you.
Did you take the time to read the comments and link from djr? In all our discussion about your lack of understanding of fallacy, burden of proof and science, I actually lost sight of the fact that science is not a court of law. It was never about proof Claudius, not that any proof offered would ever be enough for you anyway.
I'm glad to hear you have downloaded the first IPCC report. There are 3 others, all building on and updating the science of the first. Read them too.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2013
I'm glad to hear you have downloaded the first IPCC report. There are 3 others, all building on and updating the science of the first. Read them too.

And, you'll notice that the AGW poster of the IPCC, Mann's Hockey Stick, completely obliterates the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which were present in the IPCC's previous report. This was acceptable to the IPCC because it was necessary to propagate their AGW lie. This is what the AGW Cult would call building on the science,
while they ignore the fact that science has unequivocally affirmed that Mann's Hockey stick was flawed science and, as some have stated, fraudulent. Can't wait to see what lies they would fabricate to propagate this previous one.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2013
.....This is what the AGW Cult would call building on the science,
while they ignore the fact that science has unequivocally affirmed that Mann's Hockey stick was flawed science and, as some have stated, fraudulent. ....


Oh yeah, better tell that to Berkeley. This is their BEST study ( funded by the Koch's in an effort to debunk that which you say is
"unequivocally affirmed" )..... http://berkeleyea...summary/

"Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years".
"Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years."

cont
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2013
Cont

"Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend."

"Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
Oh yeah, better tell that to Berkeley. This is their BEST study ( funded by the Koch's in an effort to debunk that which you say is
"unequivocally affirmed" )..... http://berkeleyea...mary/...

Oh runrig, you unsurprisingly play the AGW Cult's Fanatic to perfection. I present you with the fact that Mann's Hockey stick was a lie that the IPCC used to drive government policy to the tune of Trillions of dollars. Policy that will cripple economies and you respond with another lie. Hundreds of millions have been wasted on producing more hockey sticks, all of which have gone the way of the original; blatant fabrications.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
"Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions....

Ok, so humans have been increasingly adding CO2 since 1900.
How do they explain the cooling that happened during 1940 - 1980 and 2000 - present? What volcanic activity caused these cool periods?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2013
Oh runrig, you unsurprisingly play the AGW Cult's Fanatic to perfection. I present you with the fact that Mann's Hockey stick was a lie that the IPCC used to drive government policy to the tune of Trillions of dollars. Policy that will cripple economies and you respond with another lie. Hundreds of millions have been wasted on producing more hockey sticks, all of which have gone the way of the original; blatant fabrications.


"blatant fabrication" - only in your own mind. The world is warming as a result of anthroprogenic CO2 and it matters not how much squealing you do about hockey-sticks. There is overwhelming support out there for that. So these graphs as well? ...http://berkeleyea...summary/

I say again, this is from a source desperate to disprove AGW. I suggest you look at the graphs there, especially the one where rising CO2 tracks exactly with rising global temps.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
I say again, this is from a source desperate to disprove AGW. I suggest you look at the graphs there, especially the one where rising CO2 tracks exactly with rising global temps.

Which graph? And answer my previous question.

deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 07, 2013
"AGW is deducible from first principles, a fact that denialists conveniently either never learned or choose to ignore."

Do you care to elaborate? I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet. Neither have I heard a viable theory elucidated. In fact, I believe there actually isn't a theory, is there?

And when I ask for proof, or even a theory, I am ridiculed and called a liar. How much easier, if you could just provide an answer.

Asked and answered countless times, both here and elsewhere.

If you don't understand the basics then you've no business opining.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
I'm glad to hear you have downloaded the first IPCC report. There are 3 others, all building on and updating the science of the first. Read them too.

And, you'll notice that the AGW poster of the IPCC, Mann's Hockey Stick, completely obliterates the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, ...

Neither of these were global phenomena.
Claudius
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
@djr

I read the article you referred to. To summmarize, it seems to show that temperatures have been increasing, CO2 levels have been increasing, and to answer the charge of correlation is not causation they look at several factors, decide they are not significant, and then pronounce:

"we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause,"

I must say I was incredulous. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, it is also an unlikely candidate, but rather than go looking for possible other causes, they basically throw their hands up and say "we can't think of anything else."

This is about as valid as Medieval logic in deciding the Earth was flat, since they could think of no other explanation, and it did look flat, after all.

This is not science.

djr
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2013
I must say I was incredulous. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, it is also an unlikely candidate, but rather than go looking for possible other causes, they basically throw their hands up and say "we can't think of anything else."

I also am incredulous Claudius. They absolutely did look for other possible drivers. In fact there is a graph that shows 4 other possible factors - and shows that C02 is the one that most clearly correlates to temperature increase. Other factors were also recognized (night cooling, stratospheric cooling, energy imbalance) that strengthen the case.

So you asked for evidence - evidence was provided - and you dismiss the evidence. You do not provide any alternative hypothesis.

"we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause,"

This is a total misrepresentation of the argument presented. cont.
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2013
The argument could be much better summarized this way -

We know there is warming - and we therefore look for the driver of that warming. We are able to identify 5 factors that could be involved in the warming. C02 is certainly a viable candidate - based on well understood physics. C02 has by far the greatest correlation to the warming. Other factors strengthen the argument (night warming, Statospheric cooling, energy balance measurements). This makes a very strong case for targeting C02 as the driver of the warming. You dismiss this entire argument with a wave of the hand. What is your explanation for the current warming trend (that you have acknowledged is occurring)?

You certainly support my assertion that no amount of evidence would suffice. You end by glibly stating "this is not science." You are wrong - this is science - you do not like the science - so you arrogantly dismiss it - without of course presenting any support, or alternative explanation.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2013
C02 is certainly a viable candidate - based on well understood physics. C02 has by far the greatest correlation to the warming.

Really. Then explain the cooling from 1940 to 1980 and 1998 to present.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2013
C02 is certainly a viable candidate - based on well understood physics. C02 has by far the greatest correlation to the warming.

Really. Then explain the cooling from 1940 to 1980 and 1998 to present.

Since you clearly do not understand multivariate functions attempting to explain such would be to undertake a fool's errand.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
Since you clearly do not understand multivariate functions attempting to explain such would be to undertake a fool's errand.

And, since you are a moron, I didn't and won't ask you.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2013
Your sophomoric retort is laughable.
R_R
1 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
Put another way, science's masters have effectively built in a corrot and stick system designed to cover up truths it wants to keep from the public. With regards to climate science, all conclusions are suspect because cataclysmic impacts and Pole Shift have not been factored in.

For instance low carbon/temp periods did not result in giant lobes of ice reaching south (ice ages), we are just seeing evidence of the previous pole position (Hudson Bay). And periods of high carbon/temp did not result in forests and animals living at the poles, we are just seeing evidence these areas were outside the polar circles before pole shift.

Obviously the average scientist feels intimidated to speak up on such issues as the evidence is overwelming.
Claudius
1 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2013
"This makes a very strong case for targeting C02 as the driver of the warming."

No, it doesn't. CO2 increases after increases in temperature, which indicates temperature is driving CO2.

Science isn't about guessing at the answer. That is the kind of reasoning science was developed to prevent. You might as well argue that sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes, the reasoning is just as solid.

To insist this use of guesswork as evidence is science is beyond belief.

"What is your explanation for the current warming trend"

How is that relevant to the evidence you presented? Perhaps there won't be an easy explanation, it is complex, and chaotic. But jumping to conclusions is not the scientific way.
djr
3.7 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2013
Antigoracle: "Really. Then explain the cooling from 1940 to 1980 and 1998 to present."

If you are interested in an explanation - the video embedded here is interesting. http://www.skepti...1998.htm

And this is an interesting article.

http://theenergyc...confirms

My guess is that in line with Claudius' previous response - that of course in reality you are not interested in the facts. You both have a pre-selected view on things - and no amount of evidence will make a difference.
djr
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
No, it doesn't. CO2 increases after increases in temperature, which indicates temperature is driving CO2.

Come on Claudius - this is the oldest response in the book - and has been dealt with a million times. Historically we understand that there has been about an 800 year lag - C02 to temperatures - it is fully documented and understood. Then the C02 feedback kicks in. This time around things are different. I am sorry to be blunt - but if you just keep throwing up the same arguments over and over - you clearly are not interested in evidence - you are interested in obstructionism.

Here is a good synopsis of the evidence for AGW - http://climate.na...vidence/

A nice look at the historical relationship between C02 and temperature. http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html
Skeptical science has a good discussion of the temperature lag issue - http://www.skepti...ture.htm

djr
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
"What is your explanation for the current warming trend"

How is that relevant to the evidence you presented?"

This is so fundamental - I am staggered at your response. Of course it is relevant. You are claiming that C02 is not responsible for the current warming trend. I then ask 'what is your explanation' - and you say 'how is that relevant'.

That you do not understand the absurdity of your response is incomprehensible to me. You were the one stating that if a person makes an assertion - it is their responsibility to support that assertion. I agreed with you. You now make an assertion - and ask how is it relevant for me to ask you to support your assertion. Of course providing an alternative explanation is relevant. You cannot just say 'that explanation is rubbish - but I have not alternative' You preach about science - but foundational to science is observation - hypothesis - validation. You provide no hypothesis - just armchair obstructionism.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
No, it doesn't. CO2 increases after increases in temperature, which indicates temperature is driving CO2.


Commonly used misrepresentation. CO2 is both driver and driven when the planet warms. Previous epochs have seen it go both ways. The "snowball earth" epoch for example, is thought to have been ended as a result of volanic activity adding CO2 to the atmosphere. In that case CO2 was the driver, holding more heat in the atmosphere, allowing more warming, which then added more CO2, which held more heat, which drove more warming, etc.

The end of the last glacial epoch saw the opposite. The warming was initiated by the Milankovitch cycle, which caused warming of the atmosphere, thus releasing CO2, which held in more heat, causing further warming , etc. This was warming driving CO2.

Now, despite CO2 levels of the last few thousand years holding relativiely steady, or even slowly dropping, we have added significantly more CO2. As we've added CO2, temperatures have gone up.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
It has been shown that CO2 levels from the last ice age forward have been steady at between 170PPM to 280PP. We have now passed 380PPM and CO2 levels continue to rise. The scarier part of this, however, is not just the rise in CO2 levels, as the Earth has seen such levels before, albeit millions of years ago. It is the speed of that increase.

The rise is so fast, that the feedbacks that may result from the warming, which can add more CO2 to the atmosphere even faster, have not yet begun to kick in in earnest. If that happens, and signs are pointing to the idea that it has already started, then we may see a run-away effect that has not been seen since the early days of the dinosaurs.

CLuadius would have us believe this is guesswork. This is a misrepresentation of course, we know what can happen when a lot of CO2 gets added to the atmosphere. That we cannot point to a specific time and place that such an effect will occur does not make the science any less robust.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2013
Oh runrig, you unsurprisingly play the AGW Cult's Fanatic to perfection. I present you with the fact that Mann's Hockey stick was a lie that the IPCC used to drive government policy to the tune of Trillions of dollars. Policy that will cripple economies and you respond with another lie. Hundreds of millions have been wasted on producing more hockey sticks, all of which have gone the way of the original; blatant fabrications.


So you are saying the BEST study is wrong as well? even a "blatant fabrication".

Which graph?

The graphs on the link of course. Specifically the one of Temp v CO2 ( either ). However you look at it - the graph, any graph, of historical global temperature record going into the modern era displays a "hocky-stick" like shape due to the marked rise since the industrial era ( excepting the dirty "global dimming" effect ). Just no getting away from it. LIA and MWP were not global (in sense of having same marked effect as in Europe/N Atlantic).
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
ANd then Claudius says this:

Perhaps there won't be an easy explanation, it is complex, and chaotic. But jumping to conclusions is not the scientific way.


I don't know what his definition of "jumping to conclusions" is, but the first scientific comments regarding the possibility of global warming arising as a result of CO2 being added to the atmosphere were made by John Tyndale in the 1860's and then Svante Arrhenius in the 1890's. Science has been looking at CO2 driven warming since then, albeit with more skepticism than study despite some intense studies (Callander in the 1930s, Hulburt in 1940 for eg) although it didnt really begin to kick into gear until the 1950's when Kaplan began his studies.

So considering we have been looking at CO2 as a driver for over 150 years, I would say that we haven't "jumped to" any conclusions.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2013
Here is a good synopsis of the evidence for AGW - http://climate.na...vidence/

So, the Medieval Warm period was way warmer than it is today, so pray tell, what human generated CO2 caused this.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2013
So, the Medieval Warm period was way warmer than it is today, so pray tell, what human generated CO2 caused this.


Good ole againstseeing.

Against seeing that this has been answered about a dozen times in the last month or so.

Against seeing that the warming of that period was regional.

Against seeing that the warming of that period was short lived.

Against seeing anything that might take away from the conspiracy he sees everywhere.

Against seeing that making the exact same claim over several articles does not make the claim any more correct than the first time he posted it.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2013

Against seeing that the warming of that period was regional.

Against seeing that the warming of that period was short lived.

Yep, regional as in the Northern Hemisphere, just as the data shows today. Yet none of the doom and gloom the AGW Alarmist brays happened. In fact prosperity prevailed until the little ice-age hit.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2013
..... C02 has by far the greatest correlation to the warming.

Really. Then explain the cooling from 1940 to 1980 and 1998 to present.


We've been around this particular merry-go-road that many times I've become dizzy. Still, again. The 1940 - 1980 period saw large amounts of atmospheric aerosol/particulates leading to "global dimming" ...http://en.wikiped...dimming.

And 1998. Well the El Nino of 98 was a massive one and since then the ENSO has seen weak Ninos at best with Ninas predominating ( Nino=warm Pacific and Nina=cold ). Also the PDO has entered another cold phase.... http://www.nwfsc....-pdo.cfm
Notice how there is a cold PDO between '40 and '80 also.
These multivariant cycles within the climate system overlie and at times mask the warming CO2 signal. A marked rise in Asian pollution is also playing a part ... http://www.pnas.o...90.full/
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
So, the Medieval Warm period was way warmer than it is today, so pray tell, what human generated CO2 caused this.

Please show scientific data that demonstrates that the Medieval Warm Period was 'way warmer that it is today'

Here is a discussion of the issue - with a graph showing multiple proxy reconstructions. http://www.ncdc.n...val.html
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
Runrig: "We've been around this particular merry-go-road"

I think it is just a big game. Whose turn is it today to bring up the same tire issues that have been answered a million times. But oh - you better not say bad words - or Claudius will chastise you for being uncivil. Is it not uncivil to keep repeating the same arguments - no matter how many times they are addressed?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2013
Please show scientific data that demonstrates that the Medieval Warm Period was 'way warmer that it is today'

http://wattsupwit...-period/
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
Here is a good synopsis of the evidence for AGW - http://climate.na...vidence/

So, the Medieval Warm period was way warmer than it is today, so pray tell, what human generated CO2 caused this.

To repeat, the MWP was NOT GLOBAL in scope.

Stop pretending otherwise.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
Please show scientific data that demonstrates that the Medieval Warm Period was 'way warmer that it is today'

http://wattsupwit...-period/

Says a former TV weather reporter with no academic credentials.
Whydening Gyre
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
As with most things, it's more likely a COMBINATION of numerous climate modifiers making CO2 appear the bigger culprit in this current warming trend. Not to worry, though. Earth will take it's own corrective action, regardless of who or what caused it. We could be in for a hell of ride, gang...:-)
Or not...
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
To repeat, the MWP was NOT GLOBAL in scope.
Stop pretending otherwise.

So the IPCC includes it in their report and then slowly makes it disappear when it debunks their agenda. And now it was not global yet we have the following: http://www.co2sci...tica.php
When will the AGW Alarmist lying end.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
Antigoracl - you claimed that the MWP was 'way warmer than today' - I asked you for 'scientific evidence' to support that claim. You link to a climate blogg. I read your blogg, and also the original blogg that Watts was referring back to. In the blogg - Watts presents a chart that does show that the MWP was warmer than today - except if you dig into the article a little - That graph was from one reconsctruction - of central England - done back in the 60's. Subsequent to that reconstruction there have been many many much more extensive reconstructions. If you look back at an earlier article by Watts - that is linked in the article you referenced - you will find this graphic - http://wattsupwit...ure3.png

I hope you will agree with me that to state 'the MWP was way warmer than todoay' was at best misinformed - and probalby more accurately characterized as deliberately deceitful.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
Antigoracle: This is from your C02 science article -

"however, are loath to admit the existence and global expression of this cyclical fluctuation of climate"

This is a total lie. The scientific literature is filled with the understanding that the climate has experienced millions of years of fluctuations. Look up Milankovich cycles. Look up interglacials. Science is not only aware of these historical cycles - but it is thanks to science (proxy data reconstructions) that we have the degree of understanding of past climate that we have. To suggest otherwise is pure ignorance on a scale I find impossible to understand.

Think about this irony - science has brought us a complex understanding of previous climate changes through painstaking research. The very scientists who you now insult as liars - are the same people who have brought you the complex data - that you now use to claim invalidates global warming. Here - read this - http://www.epa.go...ce/cause
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
I hope you will agree with me that to state 'the MWP was way warmer than todoay' was at best misinformed - and probalby more accurately characterized as deliberately deceitful.

If you read the blog, you would see that they were repeating what the IPCC (the AGW Authority) has presented in their reports. So, if anyone has been misinformed or deceitful it's the IPCC and you have to ask why, exactly as the blog was. The subsequent response from the AGW Alarmists was that the MWP wasn't global and so I posted:
http://www.co2sci...ica.php. At the heart of the AGW fabrication is Mann's hockey stick, which and subsequent hockey sticks have been proven to be fabrications.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
If you read the blog, you would see that they were repeating what the IPCC (the AGW Authority) has presented in their reports.

That is correct - and I did read the blogg, and the earlier referenced blogg also. Now - as I already explained - and if you read and comprehended the blogg - you would understand - that graph was based on information from the 60's - from central England - and was best information available at the time. Extensive subsequent research has provided much more complete data - hence the updating of more recent IPCC reports. All of the data process is transparent - suggesting it is some kind of cover up is monumentally ignorant - look at the tables that show the multiple proxy data sets. Oh but you want to depend on a 50 year old data set - from central England - vs. more recent and extensive cross referenced data sets. You are willfully and grossly ignorant - your deliberate misrepresentations are sickening.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
Nice response antigoracle - don't discuss the science - just post a youtube video with one person's testimony. I love the quote - "a major researcher said..."

Just to summarize - the MWP was not 'way warmer than today.' The science contradicts your lie. You have no data to support your lie - just a conspiracy theory tape from youtube.

I repeat - You are willfully and grossly ignorant - your deliberate misrepresentations are sickening.
deepsand
3 / 5 (12) Apr 09, 2013
Both the MWP and the LIA were collections of disparate events happening at different places at different times.

To portray either as being monolithic with respect to either location or time is misinformed at best; at worst, disingenuous.
R_R
1 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2013
No one can be trusted in this dogfight because no one has the kahunas to factor in pole shift. That is why the oceans rose 100s ft not because of the Milankovich cycle. Your foundation is rotten and your predictions will not pan out.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
No one can be trusted in this dogfight because no one has the kahunas to factor in pole shift. That is why the oceans rose 100s ft not because of the Milankovich cycle. Your foundation is rotten and your predictions will not pan out.

I don't have a foundation - or any predictions. If you have a foundation - and predictions - write a paper on it - submit it for publication - and let the wolves tear into it. That is called science.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2013
Nice response antigoracle - don't discuss the science - just post a youtube video with one person's testimony. I love the quote - "a major researcher said..."

Just to summarize - the MWP was not 'way warmer than today.' The science contradicts your lie. You have no data to support your lie - just a conspiracy theory tape from youtube.

I repeat - You are willfully and grossly ignorant - your deliberate misrepresentations are sickening.

Testimony backed by the emails from CLIMATEGATE. Obviously you haven't read those emails, otherwise you would know what a conspiracy is.
The graph of the MWP, showing that it was warmer than today, is taken right out of the IPCC report, so if anyone is mistaken or lying it is the IPCC, and that begs the question what are they mistaken or lying about now.
There is physical proof of the Vikings settlement of Greenland, during the MWP, so if it is warmer today, tell me why it is impossible to repeat what the Vikings did, today?
djr
4 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
The graph of the MWP, showing that it was warmer than today, is taken right out of the IPCC report, so if anyone is mistaken or lying it is the IPCC

And answered 1 million times - that graph was from a 1960's proxy data set from central England. Subsequent data sets updated the information - and as with any good science - the IPCC updated their report. Again - this was answered 1 million times - your insistence on bringing the same issues up over and over - shows your intent. You are not interested in science - you are interested in obstructing progress. I have the read the climategate emails. So have multiple investigative panels. The scientists involved were assholes - and guess what - the process caught them - and exposed them. Science has bad apples - and those bad apples are dealt with. Climategate did not undermine the fundamentals of climate science - it revealed some assholes for being arrogant.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
There is physical proof of the Vikings settlement of Greenland, during the MWP, so if it is warmer today, tell me why it is impossible to repeat what the Vikings did, today?

Dealt with 1 million times - a settlement in Greenland does not prove that global temperatures were warmer. Again - you bring up the same issues over and over - just to hear yourself talk - you are a spambot.

Here - do some reading on the MWP that is not off right wing echo chamber bloggs.

http://en.wikiped...m_Period
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
Subsequent data sets updated the information - and as with any good science - the IPCC updated their report.

Yes, those same data sets produced Mann's Hockey stick and we all know what a great feat of "good science" that was. Every subsequent hockey stick has proven to be fabricated and the CLIMATEGATE emails confirms why.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2013
Subsequent data sets updated the information - and as with any good science - the IPCC updated their report.

Yes, those same data sets produced Mann's Hockey stick and we all know what a great feat of "good science" that was. Every subsequent hockey stick has proven to be fabricated and the CLIMATEGATE emails confirms why.


So you are saying that ALL climatologists are in on a conspiracy to misrepresent data, and that ALL graphs of historic global temperature are wrong, and known to be wrong by all research groups around the world? Including the BEST research? Which is, to my eye anyway, hockey-stick shaped.
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2013
Yes, those same data sets produced Mann's Hockey stick and we all know what a great feat of "good science" that was. Every subsequent hockey stick has proven to be fabricated and the CLIMATEGATE emails confirms why.

No they are not - the data sets were developed independently - many different research projects - looking at many different proxies - some done very recently. See how wrong you are? See how you are invested in a nonsensical conspiracy theory - but cannot help yourself from persistently spamming the internet with rubbish? - often called a spambot.

R_R
1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
LoL dir, what colour is the sky in your world, that world where JFK is shot from behind and his head flies backwards.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
LoL dir, what colour is the sky in your world, that world where JFK is shot from behind and his head flies backwards.

I'm not the one alleging conspiracy theories R R - think you have got the world backwards - I don't believe the gubberment is is trying to kill is with contrails - maybe you want to up the meds...
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
dir, maybe you want to explain how JFK got shot in the back of the head and his head went backwards, maybe you want to explain how hairless baby mammoths wandered the arctic ocean coast of Siberia during an ice age, maybe you should reduce the meds.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
So you are saying that ALL climatologists are in on a conspiracy to misrepresent data, and that ALL graphs of historic global temperature are wrong, and known to be wrong by all research groups around the world? Including the BEST research? Which is, to my eye anyway, hockey-stick shaped.

I refer you to the EMAILS: http://wattsupwit...-emails/ and the 3% you AGW Alarmist would like to see disappear.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
I refer you to the EMAILS: http://wattsupwit...-emails/ and the 3% you AGW Alarmist would like to see disappear

Oh yes - one set of emails - that disproves millions of hours of science - an how many idenpendent investigations chastised the folks at East Anglia - but concluded that they did not in any way affect the underlying science? Keep howling at the moon...
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
dir, maybe you want to explain how JFK got shot in the back of the head and his head went backwards, maybe you want to explain how hairless baby mammoths wandered the arctic ocean coast of Siberia during an ice age, maybe you should reduce the meds.

No need R R - I am sure you have it all covered - world trade center - contrails - area 54 - Roswell - it's all yours pal.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2013
I'm thinking RR and againstseeing are brother/cousin/uncles.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
Oh yes - one set of emails - that disproves millions of hours of science - an how many idenpendent investigations chastised the folks at East Anglia - but concluded that they did not in any way affect the underlying science? Keep howling at the moon...

"Independent" really!!!
Just like the independent peer review that allowed, pure fabrications to make it into the IPCC reports. In any real scientific discipline, these men would have been sacked, instead of returning to their jobs with a pat on the back. Those were emails that tainted MILLIONS of dollars in research, but by your response it's obvious that you are blind to the fact. If they had the data that proves their claim, you'd think they would open their doors to true independent analysis. Instead they chose to:
- go into total lockdown.
- hide behind the legal safety of the IPCC.
- denigrate and persecute those of alternate opinion
Remind you of anything? Say, like a cult. I see kool-aid in your future fanatic.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
I'm thinking RR and againstseeing are brother/cousin/uncles.

Hey..hey. Look what floated up from the cesspool of their ignorance, and with such a gem. This would explain why you see AGW and Hockey sticks everywhere. Now, float back down before you see the light.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2013
Yea don't have to say much about your stuff againstseeing, its so clearly wrong, astoundingly stupid, and obviously conspiracist, that there is no need to counter.

Please keep posting, you make my case much better by opening your mouth than I ever could.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
Remind you of anything? Say, like a cult. I see kool-aid in your future fanatic

Your paranoid rants certainly do remind me of a kool-aid cult. All the scientists are out to get you - better buy some garlic - light some candles - do some incantations.

Mean time - in the real world - science moves forward....
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2013
Your paranoid rants certainly do remind me of a kool-aid cult. All the scientists are out to get you ...

better buy some garlic - They go great with avocados
light some candles - Tsk..tsk.. unnecessary CO2. What kind of AGW Alarmist are you?
do some incantations - I pray everyday that you AGW Alarmist would grow a brain... no such luck.

Mean time - in the real world - science moves forward -- Of course it does while MILLIONS are wasted on "climate science" in propagating a CO2 fallacy in pursuit of the lucrative grant.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2013
Mean time - in the real world - science moves forward -- Of course it does while MILLIONS are wasted on "climate science" in propagating a CO2 fallacy in pursuit of the lucrative grant.

Nope - that is not in the real world - as I said - in the real world - science moves forward. In the minds of the conspiracy theorists - the guberment is trying to poison us with contrails, the guberment blew up the trade center in order to cause a war (something like that), strange alien projectiles were seen over area 54, and the psychic energy over Roswell sent the psychic energy meters in Antigoracles tin hat off the chart - better call 900 psychics to figure out what is going on Antigoracle.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2013
In the minds of the conspiracy theorists

the guberment is trying to poison us with contrails - that's just CO2 aka plant food
the guberment blew up the trade center - that was global warming
strange alien projectiles - You mean flying saucers
Antigoracles tin hat - It's aluminum foil, I would have you know Mr Science
better call 900 psychics - They said they see more kool-aid in your future.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2013
So you are saying that ALL climatologists are in on a conspiracy to misrepresent data, and that ALL graphs of historic global temperature are wrong, and known to be wrong by all research groups around the world? Including the BEST research? Which is, to my eye anyway, hockey-stick shaped.
I don't normally use WUWT as a resource, but there's an interesting and related article in WUWT today about your Met Office scientists:

FOIA obtained Met Office document shows them to be clueless about what affects our climate, and, in particular, what caused the unusual weather last year

R_R
1 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2013
dir, heres the difference, when every member of the 911 commision says the gubberment lied to them and hid evidence, some start digging for answers why and some dont give it much thought. And when one of the most heavily survailed buildings in the world, the Pentagon, cant get a picture of a giant passenger plane hitting it even with an hour advance warning, some see the light and some are blinded by it.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2013
I don't normally use WUWT as a resource, but there's an interesting and related article in WUWT today about your Met Office scientists:


Excellent article ( except for the bits added in brackets ), that I suggest all read.
I note the UKMO say .."This could be due to natural variability – a bad run of coincidence, if you will – but scientific research is ongoing to investigate whether other factors are at play."

And the poster spins it by saying ...."The Met openly admit that neither they, nor climate science in general, have any real understanding about the basic processes that affect our climate."

So they are damned if they say it's GW and damned if they say they don't know. You'd only be happy if they say they know it's not caused by GW.

You really think that one of the worlds leading Met agencies doesn't understand the "basic processes" of weather/climate? I'd guess you would, thinking about it. It's a complex science and a single cause attribution often impossible.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2013
antigoracle: "They said they see more kool-aid in your future."

It is good that you are able to have a sense of humor about your condition - if you get into the right program - you may at least be able to find some respite. I understand that paranoia is very debilitating. It is interesting that you talk about kool aid - referencing the Jonestown situation. For me - that situation is one of the most prescient in terms of understanding how important it is to have a framework such as science - to protect us from the deception of weak thinking such as conspiracy theory. Read R R's post above and you will see how serious the condition can become. I am afraid RR is a lost cause. Good luck in your endeavors!
R_R
1 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2013
ok dir declare victory and go back to your hay
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2013
ok dir declare victory and go back to your hay

The victory for me will come on the day we can read a science board - and not have to be spammed with the incessant nonsense of the conspiracy community. You know - just appreciate the science for what it is - the science. I am afraid that this will not happen in my life time - we will need to major changes in our culture before we can see the end of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
R_R
1 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2013
Your victory will never come because you are the one blocking the path!!!! Wake the freak up bud
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2013
And the poster spins it by saying ...."The Met openly admit that neither they, nor climate science in general, have any real understanding about the basic processes that affect our climate."

So they are damned if they say it's GW and damned if they say they don't know. You'd only be happy if they say they know it's not caused by GW.
I'm only happy when they're objectively honest. From the WUWT article, it seems apparent they've oversold their confidence. Ergo, their objectivity is in question.

You really think that one of the worlds leading Met agencies doesn't understand the "basic processes" of weather/climate? I'd guess you would, thinking about it. It's a complex science and a single cause attribution often impossible.
Within bounds, it's chaotic. So by definition, it's difficult to predict.

cha·os
2.Behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2013
if you get into the right program - How did you escape from yours.
I understand that paranoia is very debilitating - first hand of course.
to protect us from the deception of weak thinking - don't give up, someday you'll see the light.

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2013
I'm only happy when they're objectively honest. From the WUWT article, it seems apparent they've oversold their confidence. Ergo, their objectivity is in question.


You're letting the comments from the author of that article color your perception. The UKMO's findings state with clarity that they do not understand why the regional climate has been affected they way that it has given the overall warming seen over the whole of the planet. They throw out a couple of ideas, and suggest they are studing the problem to try and determine what the direct cause is. Put differently, they are saying that although the indirect cause is likely atmospheric warming, what is directly causing the conditions seen in this particular region over this particular time period is not clear. They go on to say they are looking for the answer to that question.
Seems to me to be a pretty honest assessment yes?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2013
You're letting the comments from the author of that article color your perception.
I thought the comments were minimal and generally rather perceptive.

Put differently, they are saying that although the indirect cause is likely atmospheric warming, what is directly causing the conditions seen in this particular region over this particular time period is not clear.
Please point to where you feel this is stated, or implied. The only reference to warming I see clearly states any possible link to causation is categorically uncertain.

Seems to me to be a pretty honest assessment yes?
So why did it take a Freedom of Information Act request to come by this?

"In Summary

The Met openly admit that neither they, nor climate science in general, have any real understanding about the basic processes that affect our climate.

It is surely time that they, DEFRA and others admitted this in public..."

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2013
This would explain why you see AGW and Hockey sticks everywhere. ......


Sure do....http://berkeleyea...summary/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2013
This would explain why you see AGW and Hockey sticks everywhere. ......


Sure do....http://berkeleyea...summary/

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

http://online.wsj...348.html

deepsand
3.2 / 5 (13) Apr 14, 2013
"A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that ..."

Watt's is NOT meteorologist; his claims to being so credentialed are fraudulent.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2013
Antigoracle: Both the following have been made by you on this thread...
This would explain why you see AGW and Hockey sticks everywhere. ......
Sure do....http://berkeleyea...summary/


And...
Yes, those same data sets produced Mann's Hockey stick and we all know what a great feat of "good science" that was. Every subsequent hockey stick has proven to be fabricated and the CLIMATEGATE emails confirms why.


Right - are these two statements of yours really compatible?
In one, you say/admit the world is warming, then below that say. "Every subsequent hockey stick has proven to be fabricated". Is the BEST graph NOT a hockey-stick? Certainly looks like one to me in that the uptick is there from around the 1960's. Or do we come back to the LIA and the MWP again?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2013
Is the BEST graph NOT a hockey-stick? Certainly looks like one to me in that the uptick is there from around the 1960's. Or do we come back to the LIA and the MWP again?
-- runrig
The entire contention with Mann's hockey stick was the MWP and their claim that the current warming is unprecedented. I live in the land of hockey and if you see a hockey stick in BEST, then you know a different hockey from me. I find it "interesting" that they would couple CO2 and volcanism in their study/graph when the influence of volcanism is quite evident by the dramatic short term cooling. There conclusion that solar variability had no influence is also quite disconcerting, makes me question their conclusion, so I'm still looking at this.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2013
"The entire contention with Mann's hockey stick was the MWP ..."

Which, as has been repeatedly noted, was not a global event.

"There conclusion that solar variability had no influence is also quite disconcerting ..."

Only to those who fail to grasp the exceedingly small variability of solar radiation.