253 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Well we can put the money into your massive global warming scam, or we can put into anti-aging research.

[maxwatt]

Well we can put the money into your massive global warming scam, or we can put into anti-aging research.

Who should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

Both are needed. What good long life if society and the environment are collapsing?

Link to CBS 60 Minutes Page This link is good for perhaps a week.
The Science This link should be good indefinitely

Burning fossil carbon is radically altering the planet. That those who benefit are engaging in a massive public relations campaign of denial is what we've come to expect of industry and those who perceive their wealth as dependent on the status quo. We saw it with asbestos, with cigarettes, with a host of toxic chemicals in the food chain, and now against the science warning of the effects of the indubitable global warming that is occurring before our eyes.

Closing your eyes and pretending it isn't happening is not an effective strategy nor is it a convincing argument. Alas, the Republican elephant has morphed into an ostrich.

Edited by maxwatt, 09 February 2011 - 01:46 PM.

[JLL]

Faulty argumentation on your part ("they did it with toxic chemicals, now they're doing it with AGW"). There's much more money to be made with AGW than there is with AGW denialism.

[chris w]

There's much more money to be made with AGW than there is with AGW denialism.

Because there's like, no money at all in the oil industry and there are fortunes being made on hybrid cars as we speak. You keep saying that and I would like to see some real numbers covering that statement, even from Mises.org would be fine.

[JLL]

There's much more money to be made with AGW than there is with AGW denialism.

Because there's like, no money at all in the oil industry and there are fortunes being made on hybrid cars as we speak. You keep saying that and I would like to see some real numbers covering that statement, even from Mises.org would be fine.

Oil will run out anyway, global warming or not. Who said anything about hybrid cars? I'm talking taxes, cap and trade, organized crime, all that. There's billions and billions to be made.

http://www.probeinte...-carbon-dioxide

How does it benefit the oil companies if there is no global warming? How does it hurt them if there is? You're not looking at the grand scheme of things. Even with a move towards alternative energy, there's no way the entire planet is getting rid of all fossil fuels in an instant. There is no such scenario.

The big players (including oil companies) can always bribe the government so that they're in a better position than small businesses. The big companies can afford to pay the penalties when the profits are that much greater.

[JLL]

Other ways to make money from global warming:

- Climate "research"
- Carbon offset companies
- "Green" products
- Taxes (especially energy)
- Increased bureacracy
- Government subsidies (e.g. producing biofuels -- this is a huge industry)
- Producing and then destroying greenhouse gases (China & India have perfected this one)

[maxwatt]

It's a disingenuous argument.

Academics in science have no axe to grind as a group. And they love to cut each other down. If there were a real case to be made against AGW, a group would be making their reputation refuting it. As it is. 99.9% of climate scientists accept global warming (including a few who were skeptics even 10 years ago) and 85% of real scientists accept it. Plain and simple, it is undeniable that hte earth is warming, and there is no other explanation than the burning of fossil fuels that even begins to account for it.

Nor is bringing up tobacco=cancer denialism irrelevant. The same people, publicity firms and political groups who promoted and funded that crock are the ones active in global warming denial.

CO2 = greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse effect --> warming
warming --> melting ice caps --> rising sea level
warming --> greater climate variation, increased aridity, failed crops (see drought in China, rising food prices world wide), more intense storms...

Sadly, a massive effort to construcy solar power and wind turbine facilities could provide the world's power needs within 20 years, and make the United States energy independent and militarily secure. Where's your patriotism? Such an effort is being blocked by the oil interests, including Saudis, Russia, Exxon and the Koch brothers.

As one who aims to live a long time, the ensuing dislocations, political unrest, famines et al. will happen not just in my children's life, but in mine. The grasshoppers fiddle, and the ants prepare.

[Rational Madman]

Although oft cited, I would be personally hesitant to refer to Chomsky in my research.

Using the data from the very reliable OpenSecrets.org, the following can be found concerning campaign contributions in the 2010 cycle:
-Overview: http://www.opensecre...rview/index.php
-Donor Demographics: http://www.opensecre...emographics.php
-Top Overall: http://www.opensecre...topcontribs.php
-Top Individual: http://www.opensecre...w/topindivs.php
-Top Industries: http://www.opensecre.../industries.php
-Top Sectors:http://www.opensecre...iew/sectors.php
-Business-Labor-Ideology Split: http://www.opensecre...erview/blio.php
-Top Interest Groups: http://www.opensecre...stries/mems.php
-Top PACs: http://www.opensecre...acs/toppacs.php
-Super PACs: http://www.opensecre....php?cycle=2010
-Leadership PACs: http://www.opensecre...=Q03&cycle=2010
-Foreign Connected PACs: http://www.opensecre...acs/foreign.php
-Heavy Hitters: http://www.opensecre.../orgs/index.php

And for lobbying, between the years of 1998 and 2010:
-Overview: http://www.opensecre...lobby/index.php
-Top Spenders: http://www.opensecre...php?indexType=s
-Ranked Sectors: http://www.opensecre...php?indexType=c
-Industries: http://www.opensecre...php?indexType=i
-Issues: http://www.opensecre...php?indexType=u
-Agencies: http://www.opensecre...php?indexType=a
-Bills: http://www.opensecre...php?indexType=b


Individual Contributions from the Koch Brothers, since 1990:
-Charles: http://www.opensecre...bid=U0000003477
-David: http://www.opensecre...bid=U0000003478
-Koch Industries: http://www.opensecre...p?id=D000000186

While these contributions from the the oil and gas industries, and more narrowly, Koch Industries, may seem immense, they constitute only a small portion of the total $3.47 billion that was spent on lobbying, and the total $1,091,673,034 in campaign contributions in 2010. Of these totals, the oil and gas industries threw in $146,296,424 for lobbying expenditures, and $25,006,702 of campaign contributions. While the nefarious Koch Industries managed an even $6,000,000 for lobbying expenditures, and $2,012,763 for campaign contributions.

My point is that we may have what seems like a parliament of whores, but ownership is not exclusive, and would require a higher asking price than most would be willing to pay. Additionally, we would also have to demonstrate a strong causal relationship between expenditures and positive voting behavior, which to my knowledge, hasn't been done. For instance, a politician can take your money with one hand, and still violate you with the other hand---it happens all the time. And when all is said and done, individual contributors (whom are subject to greater restrictions) still reign supreme, providing $612,812,878 in contributions for just the 2010 cycle.

So maybe, just maybe, there's something more to AGW movement than a narrative that suggests that the mood is shaped largely by evil corporations and fat cats manipulating the public. Maybe there are self-interested and philosophical motivations of several different and competing origins? Just a thought....

Anyway, please fell free to return to your joustings.

To be clear, though, I still think environmentally conscious NGOs are clearly outmatched, whom spent approximately $46 million vs. $146 million on lobbying efforts. And $4.8 million vs. $26 million in contributions. But does the oil and gas industry have a singular focus on global warming? Additionally, should clean coal advocacy be coded as oil and gas?

Edited by caliban, 13 February 2011 - 11:36 PM.
merged: Bylaw A -2 Section06 F

[niner]

So maybe, just maybe, there's something more to AGW movement than a narrative that suggests that the mood is shaped largely by evil corporations and fat cats manipulating the public. Maybe there are self-interested and philosophical motivations of several different and competing origins? Just a thought....

Such as? On the one hand, you have people and institutions who stand to lose billions if the status quo is substantially altered. On the other side, you have... scientists who stake their reputations on correct analyses, and who have little or no financial interest in the ultimate direction of policy. Other than living on Earth...

[JLL]

It's a disingenuous argument.

Academics in science have no axe to grind as a group. And they love to cut each other down. If there were a real case to be made against AGW, a group would be making their reputation refuting it. As it is. 99.9% of climate scientists accept global warming (including a few who were skeptics even 10 years ago) and 85% of real scientists accept it. Plain and simple, it is undeniable that hte earth is warming, and there is no other explanation than the burning of fossil fuels that even begins to account for it.

Plain and simple, you're wrong. There are other possible explanations, and what's more, the earth is not warming at an unusual rate. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your lies.

Nor is bringing up tobacco=cancer denialism irrelevant. The same people, publicity firms and political groups who promoted and funded that crock are the ones active in global warming denial.

Really? References please.

[maxwatt]

It's a disingenuous argument.

Academics in science have no axe to grind as a group. And they love to cut each other down. If there were a real case to be made against AGW, a group would be making their reputation refuting it. As it is. 99.9% of climate scientists accept global warming (including a few who were skeptics even 10 years ago) and 85% of real scientists accept it. Plain and simple, it is undeniable that hte earth is warming, and there is no other explanation than the burning of fossil fuels that even begins to account for it.

Plain and simple, you're wrong. There are other possible explanations, and what's more, the earth is not warming at an unusual rate. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your lies.

Tho "other possibilities" have all been explored, and found not to work. For instance, the sun is not getting warmer, there has no natural source found for the increasing CO2 in our atmosphere, and the carbon has the isotropic signature of the fuel we are burning, nor is Neptune warming either..... Either that, or you live in some alternate universe.

Nor is bringing up tobacco=cancer denialism irrelevant. The same people, publicity firms and political groups who promoted and funded that crock are the ones active in global warming denial.

Really? References please.

The fact that tobacco lobbyists are employed to deny and cast doubt on global warming is thoroughly documented in the book I reference many posts ago: HOT:Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earthby Mark Heertsguard. Though the title sounds sensationalist, it is well researched, Heertsguard is a legitimate investigative journalist. But of course you haven't looked at it, and I am sure you will not read it. May I ask what your information sources are?

@Roll - Chomsky has over the years annoyed the hell out of me on some issues. However he has described the situation very succinctly. As for the lobbyists, much of the funding is indirect, and channeled through many individual donations. Still, the UFT does appear to be the biggest lobbyist.

[mikeinnaples]

It's a disingenuous argument.

Academics in science have no axe to grind as a group. And they love to cut each other down. If there were a real case to be made against AGW, a group would be making their reputation refuting it. As it is. 99.9% of climate scientists accept global warming (including a few who were skeptics even 10 years ago) and 85% of real scientists accept it. Plain and simple, it is undeniable that hte earth is warming, and there is no other explanation than the burning of fossil fuels that even begins to account for it.

Plain and simple, you're wrong. There are other possible explanations, and what's more, the earth is not warming at an unusual rate. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your lies.

Nor is bringing up tobacco=cancer denialism irrelevant. The same people, publicity firms and political groups who promoted and funded that crock are the ones active in global warming denial.

Really? References please.

Did you just really accuse him of spreading lies? LMFAO.

The data speaks for itself and it is out there plainly for anyone to see. Volcanic emissions don't come into play because an increased amount to the point of altering global climate would actually lower temperature. The temperatures continued to rise even during periods of decreased solar activity. C02 levels, whether or not you believe them to be causative, are 30% higher than any recorded normal cyclic activity in the past 650,000 years. Not only that, the rate of increase has occured steadily and inline with global industrialization at a rate roughly 100x faster than any previously recorded natural cyclic activity. This is data that has been posted here and is available on the internet for your review. Hell ...even during periods of gross amount of human airborne particle pollution, the underlying temperature rise that was being masked made itself known via inconsistencies with evaporation rates.

So what does that data mean to you? Do you firmly believe there is global conspiracy involving the world's scientists? Or do you have difficutly applying 'normal' cyclic activity to what is occuring now as seeing the gross discrepancy?

Honestly there is no need to get into the politics of it, I think both sides of the equation are corrupt in various ways. It is the science and reality behing the situation that I am concerned about. As a rational, logical, and reasonable person I cannot look at the data, educate myself on it, and disbelieve that man is influencing global climate with our actions. As a rational person, it is no longer a question of 'if' ...it is a question of how much, how do we stop the bleeding, and how do we mitigate the impact ...however minor or severe it may be.

[mikeinnaples]

One thing I have difficutly wrapping my head around and understanding is this typical argument by AGW:

Since during normal cyclic activity, Co2 levels appear to lag behind cyclic temperature rise by several hundred years, the current Co2 levels (30% above cyclic highs) cannot be affecting current global temperatures and thus the greenhouse effect is bunk.

If I were to believe the normal AGW argument that the current trend is cyclic, then I would expect to see grossly high temperatures way above the normal cyclic averages several hundred years ago. As a logical and rational person, when I look at the historical data and fail to see anything supporting it, I have to write the argument off as bunk.

Disclaimer: yes I understand there are other viewpoints from the AGW standpoint about this other than I mentioned, but the one above seems to come up quite a bit in, ahem, discussions.

[Brafarality]

Is it not true that, according to believers, the planet has already warmed by around 1 degree Farenheit?
(I am just winging it and not looking anything up, but just going with what I kinda sorta heard or know)
I have also read that such a small amount of warming should already cause far reaching effects, shrinking the size of cold snaps and increasing and prolonging heat waves and making them more frequent, and cold waves less frequent, etc.:
Definite measurable effects should be felt from 1 degree of warming, if the data is faithful and true and not laced with inaccuracies, bias, improper measurements (near heat sources, etc.):

But, only diehard fanatics will insist that the effects ARE visible already, whereas most unbiased and neutral people will say that there is no way nothing more than typical swings in temperature are occuring, with equal numbers and intensity of cold and hot spells the world over.

So, if the planet has already warmed one degree, where are the effects felt?
Again, over remote parts of the Pacific? Northern arctic?
Everywhere where a subjective, but still relevant, impression cannot be felt or had?

Something in a believer somewhere must cause deep, powerful doubt, else that believer is not an intelligent.
There is definite cause for doubt.

[rwac]

If I were to believe the normal AGW argument that the current trend is cyclic, then I would expect to see grossly high temperatures way above the normal cyclic averages several hundred years ago. As a logical and rational person, when I look at the historical data and fail to see anything supporting it, I have to write the argument off as bunk.

It is possible that higher temperatures are one cause of higher CO2 levels. Burning carbon fuels might be another.
Correlation != Causation.

[platypus]

If I were to believe the normal AGW argument that the current trend is cyclic, then I would expect to see grossly high temperatures way above the normal cyclic averages several hundred years ago. As a logical and rational person, when I look at the historical data and fail to see anything supporting it, I have to write the argument off as bunk.

It is possible that higher temperatures are one cause of higher CO2 levels. Burning carbon fuels might be another.
Correlation != Causation.

It's abundantly clear that the rising CO2-levels are the result of burning fossill-fuels. Isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 corroborate this view. Greenhouse-gases have an effect on the planetary radiation-balance. The question is only how the different climate-feedbacks will influence the situation and what the final temperature-rise from the increased CO2-level will be.

[platypus]

So, if the planet has already warmed one degree, where are the effects felt?

Near the poles. Antarctica has lost ice-shelves that hsad been in place for thousands of years. Also practically all glaciers in the world are receding, many of them quite rapidly. As a result of glacier mass-loss and the warming of oceams the sea-level is rising continuously.

[maxwatt]

So, if the planet has already warmed one degree, where are the effects felt?

Near the poles. Antarctica has lost ice-shelves that hsad been in place for thousands of years. Also practically all glaciers in the world are receding, many of them quite rapidly. As a result of glacier mass-loss and the warming of oceams the sea-level is rising continuously.

We are seeing the effects in temperate zones too. Bird migrations, flower blooming, planting zones moving north, all are indicative of warming climate. While no one extreme weather event can be attributed to global warming, just as no one case of lung cancer can be attributed to smoking, the number and severity of such events is unprecedented. Extreme drought in Australia and China, first-ever South Atlantic hurricane, the extreme flooding followed by 163 mph Cyclone that hit Queensland, Australia are recent examples. The Indian monsoons have failed, bringing crop failure to India. El nino patterns have changed, with the center of warming water further west, near the dateline. This has resulted in drought in areas that depend on the rain, and the rain falls in mid-ocean. Of course no one of these can be attributed to AGW, but the confluence is damning.



a, An El Niño event is produced when the easterly winds weaken; sometimes, in the west, westerlies prevail. This condition is categorized by warmer than normal sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the east of the ocean, and is associated with alterations in the thermocline and in the atmospheric circulation that make the east wetter and the west drier. b, An El Niño Modoki event is an anomalous condition of a distinctly different kind. The warmest SSTs occur in the central Pacific, flanked by colder waters to the east and west, and are associated with distinct patterns of atmospheric convection. c, d, The opposite (La Niña) phases of the El Niño and El Niño Modoki respectively. Yeh et al.3 argue that the increasing frequency of the Modoki condition is due to anthropogenic warming, and that these events in the central Pacific will occur more frequently if global warming increases.

[Brafarality]

http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1314036

Ive been tracking global warming since the 1980s and only became a non-believer in the past few months. Going to actually find a few old textbooks and articles that gave dire predictions on how warming would end snow, cold winters, etc., within a short time. I remember reading them all the time.
But, now, such extreme predictions have been taken back because they are directly refutable by the lack of evidence. That is, nothing like that has even come close to happening, so a new analysis must be offered:

Instead, pretty much anything that happens in the weather, no matter how normal, cyclical or standard, global warming believers attribute to global warming.
But, when that happens, as the article linked above states, it's no longer science, it's a joke.

Update: think I know where 2 textbooks are. It will seem shockingly naive how extreme the predictions of warming were in the 1980s. NYC should have been basking in sub-tropical glory by now! Will soon dredge them up and post excerpts. It will be slightly embarassing to believers to see how quickly predictions changed from predicting subtropical winters in NYC to 'more extreme weather' overall when the subtropical winters never materialized. Changing the predictions to fit what has happened shows deeply flawed models.

Final note: Wow. How could I have forgotten this item?:
Know someone who is a canine chauffer (I think that is the title) and who lets dogs out on parks, corporate lawns, fields, etc. so they can chase away geese.
Pretty uncool, but, supposedly, they never hurt the geese and just make sure they dont soil up certain places. OK, here is why its interesting:
He has been doing it for like 15 years and says that in recent years, there is no doubt winters have become more severe and the geese more desperate: they are starving more often due to lack of food from unusualy long spells of freezing cold and snow cover and will persistently return to cleared areas or any area where food is present.
He says he deals with this all the time and its definite.
Again, this is only the northeastern US (NYS/NJ in particular), but according to 1980s predictions, NYC should have been nearly devoid of winters by now, or have had winters where temperatures never dipped below freezing, and yet, according to someone who is intimate and tied to the weather like a lifeline, nothing even close is happening: there is an opposite trend. There is no doubt winters have been more severe in the last several years as opposed to years before that.
Nothing big to take from it, but it is an interesting direct observation that is far more than anecdotal and from a random, careless impression.
It is from someone whose livelihood is directly affected by the weather every single day.

And, final link:
http://www.ajc.com/n...ver-834178.html
Apparently, it isnt just NYC experiencing one of the coldest winters ever. Yes, there will still be fluctuations and not every place will warm evenly, but a huge swathe of land, including NE US, SE US and, if I remember correctly, Europe and Russia, all having one of the coldest winters ever???
We should expect variation, but we shouldnt be getting too many more 'coldest winters ever' over huge areas on an almost annual basis in a period of supposed global warming.
As an example, it would be reasonable to expect snowy, average winters contrasted with hot, record setting summers. Or something where there is more heat related extreme than cold related extreme. Maybe very mild winters and average summers. Something like that.

Edited by Brafarality, 12 February 2011 - 06:27 AM.

[platypus]

We're just coming out from a rather severe solar minimum that might have bought us a lull of a few years in global warming. My gut feeling is that when this solar cycle really picks up speed the old global temperature records will be blown right out of the water.

[maxwatt]

Most of the "facts" in Braf's article from the Boston Herald by Michael Graham are plain wrong, and Braf's reasoning is based on faulty givens. Michael Graham is a conservative columnist and Boston Radio personality, and in no way qualified to evaluate anything scientifically. He is however a skilled polemicist.

Just for starters, the increased snow cover we are seeing is exactly what is predicted; increased heat = increased moisture int he atmosphere = increased precipitation where it rains or snows. One reason ocean levels have not increased more than they have is that the glacial melt has been absorbed by the atmosphere. We don't know when that sink will reach capacity, but when it does sea levels will rise more quickly. Temperatures will fluctuate more widely, because the latitudinal bands of wind that circle the globe are mixing, becoming fewer, EXACTLY As predicted. This results in colder winters in temperate zones, and wider temperature fluctuations, exactly what this winter has brought to the Northeast.

I could go on, but there is little point. I am disappointed the Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right with its anti-science and anti-reason agenda, in service of the oil and coal lobbies. We ignore science at our peril.

Consider a thought experiment: Take a bottle, with some nutrients, put in one bacterium, and seal the bottle. After a minute, the bacterium divides in two. Each subsequent minute, the resulting bacteria divide in two. After an hour, the bottle is completely full, the food exhausted, and the bacteria all die.

Question: when is the bottle half full?

Most people guess the answer is 30 minutes, but this is wrong.

The bottle is half full after 59 minutes. A scientific bacterium would be issuing dire warnings, but the bactia in denial would say "there's still plenty of room, and lots of food. The dire warnings are not happening."

The science is clear. They've realized this in Australia after their disastrous summer, the Dutch realized it decades ago, and are planing accordingly. They can handle 3 to 12 feet of sea level rise, and just spent 30 years building the necessary dikes. Above 12 feet, their backup plan is abandoning the country.

[platypus]

Actually the trend in Northern hemisphere snow mass is down during the past 30 years:

http://www.globsnow....newsletter8.pdf

[Brafarality]

Most of the "facts" in Braf's article from the Boston Herald by Michael Graham are plain wrong, and Braf's reasoning is based on faulty givens. Michael Graham is a conservative columnist and Boston Radio personality, and in no way qualified to evaluate anything scientifically. He is however a skilled polemicist.

Just for starters, the increased snow cover we are seeing is exactly what is predicted; increased heat = increased moisture int he atmosphere = increased precipitation where it rains or snows. One reason ocean levels have not increased more than they have is that the glacial melt has been absorbed by the atmosphere. We don't know when that sink will reach capacity, but when it does sea levels will rise more quickly. Temperatures will fluctuate more widely, because the latitudinal bands of wind that circle the globe are mixing, becoming fewer, EXACTLY As predicted. This results in colder winters in temperate zones, and wider temperature fluctuations, exactly what this winter has brought to the Northeast.

I could go on, but there is little point. I am disappointed the Republican party has been taken over by the extreme right with its anti-science and anti-reason agenda, in service of the oil and coal lobbies. We ignore science at our peril.

Consider a thought experiment: Take a bottle, with some nutrients, put in one bacterium, and seal the bottle. After a minute, the bacterium divides in two. Each subsequent minute, the resulting bacteria divide in two. After an hour, the bottle is completely full, the food exhausted, and the bacteria all die.

Question: when is the bottle half full?

Most people guess the answer is 30 minutes, but this is wrong.

The bottle is half full after 59 minutes. A scientific bacterium would be issuing dire warnings, but the bactia in denial would say "there's still plenty of room, and lots of food. The dire warnings are not happening."

The science is clear. They've realized this in Australia after their disastrous summer, the Dutch realized it decades ago, and are planing accordingly. They can handle 3 to 12 feet of sea level rise, and just spent 30 years building the necessary dikes. Above 12 feet, their backup plan is abandoning the country.

True, there should be more precipitation, but due to the slight warming that has supposedly already taken place, shouldn't more of that precip be in the form of rain than snow? Even in the dead of winter, on average, 1 degree Farenheit should result in enough of a cumulative effect of warmth in the atmosphere to cause slightly more rain events.
That is, what happened in the entire NE USA and Europe and Russia should not have happened as it did: should have been more rain than snow, overall, or at least replace 1 or 2 snowstorms with rain storms, as probability would suggest given the slight temperature increase and how its like having slightly loaded dice.

Also, what is the current consensus on how warm we are and when was the last time it was as warm as it is now?
Some say it hasnt been this warm in 1000s of years, others say it was warmer in the warmup of the middle ages.

Whatever the answer:
Compare the temperature data of the past 15 years and find the closest era to ours in terms of temperatures and do a tree ring analysis or something and see how many winters were as severe as the ones we are having:
Even check out the medieval warmup. Even if it was COOLER than we are supposedly now, I am willing to bet without having done any analysis that a tree ring analysis would show that temperatures and snowfall in american and european winters then was milder than now.
Nothing resembling the severity of winters of the 21st century would have been experienced so regularly in any other warmup.

Summary: check out tree rings, ice cores, whatever, on similar warm periods and see how many had the frequency and intensity of arctic outbreaks we are getting now.
If there is no similarity, then it is likely that today's temperature readings are biased/flawed etc.
In other words, similarly warm periods should have the severe arctic outbreaks across half the planet on a regular basis, just like we have every year now.

Or, do I wait with bated breath for someone to explain how THIS warmup will cause extremes whereas all the others caused mild winters.
If my memory serves me correctly, the medieval warmup was characterized by huge crop yields and extremely mild winters: more of what you would actually expect from global warming instead of all the rhetorical somersaults that have been made to explain all that has been occuring in the early 21st century in terms of global warming.

My prediction: a tree ring analysis will show that winters in the medieval warmup were much milder than winters in the era of global warming (1990-2011).

A link of some interest: http://sites.google....warmperiod/Home
Also, it cant be slanted analysis like contained here: http://www.ncdc.noaa...g/medieval.html
It has to be tree ring analysis or something like it, since the above link has no other purpose but to promote global warming

Final link: http://www.bellaonli...es/art37058.asp
Wine grapes grown as far north as Yorkshire England during the medieval warmup, and settlements in Greenland and Iceland due to greener pastures than exist there today.
Sounds already, on 5 min of browsing, like the winters of the Medieval Warm Period were milder than today's winters. But, according to global warming believers, it is warmer today than during the Medieval Warm Period.

Edited by Brafarality, 12 February 2011 - 02:48 PM.

[platypus]

Also, what is the current consensus on how warm we are and when was the last time it was as warm as it is now?
Some say it hasnt been this warm in 1000s of years, others say it was warmer in the warmup of the middle ages.

The consensus seems to be that it's now warmer than anytime in the last 400-1000 years:

https://secure.wikim...past_1000_years

Summary: check out tree rings, ice cores, whatever, on similar warm periods and see how many had the frequency and intensity of arctic outbreaks we are getting now.
If there is no similarity, then it is likely that today's temperature readings are biased/flawed etc.
In other words, similarly warm periods should have the severe arctic outbreaks across half the planet on a regular basis, just like we have every year now.

Your reasoning is incomplete. There's no guarantee that previous warm periods were "similar". According to the models adding GHGs to the atmosphere causes increased warming at the poles, which is what we're seeing now. It is possible that the loss of huge areas of sea-ice in the arctic might alter large-scale circulation patterns and contribute to the recent chilly winters. At the moment there is not enough data to confirm this so we just need to wait a few years and see.

[Brafarality]

Also, what is the current consensus on how warm we are and when was the last time it was as warm as it is now?
Some say it hasnt been this warm in 1000s of years, others say it was warmer in the warmup of the middle ages.

The consensus seems to be that it's now warmer than anytime in the last 400-1000 years:

https://secure.wikim...past_1000_years

Summary: check out tree rings, ice cores, whatever, on similar warm periods and see how many had the frequency and intensity of arctic outbreaks we are getting now.
If there is no similarity, then it is likely that today's temperature readings are biased/flawed etc.
In other words, similarly warm periods should have the severe arctic outbreaks across half the planet on a regular basis, just like we have every year now.

Your reasoning is incomplete. There's no guarantee that previous warm periods were "similar". According to the models adding GHGs to the atmosphere causes increased warming at the poles, which is what we're seeing now. It is possible that the loss of huge areas of sea-ice in the arctic might alter large-scale circulation patterns and contribute to the recent chilly winters. At the moment there is not enough data to confirm this so we just need to wait a few years and see.

There is always a reason why it is still warmer today than 'then' (any previous warm period), but that it just doesnt seem that way because of some statistical anomaly.
There will always be a clever manipulation of available info to promote the theory that global warming is taking place, but that it is masked or unapparent for any number of reasons.
When will global warming just be apparent for what it is, the warming of the planet?
When will all the other effects work themselves out so that all that will be left is the warming? When??
100 years? 500 years? Never?

Link of failed predictions of no-more-snow from global warming, as was the rage to predict through the 90s:
http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

Edited by Brafarality, 12 February 2011 - 03:07 PM.

[platypus]

There will always be a clever manipulation of available info to promote the theory that global warming is taking place, but that it is masked or unapparent for any number of reasons.
When will global warming just be apparent for what it is, the warming of the planet?
When will all the other effects work themselves out so that all that will be left is the warming? When??
100 years? 500 years? Never?

The warming up of the planet is clearly already happening close to the poles, there's no question about it. Glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass, mean sea level is rising, species are migrating to new areas, permafrost is starting to thaw at the southern edge etc. Data manipulation does not cause glacier shrinkage etc.

[Brafarality]

There will always be a clever manipulation of available info to promote the theory that global warming is taking place, but that it is masked or unapparent for any number of reasons.
When will global warming just be apparent for what it is, the warming of the planet?
When will all the other effects work themselves out so that all that will be left is the warming? When??
100 years? 500 years? Never?

The warming up of the planet is clearly already happening close to the poles, there's no question about it. Glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass, mean sea level is rising, species are migrating to new areas, permafrost is starting to thaw at the southern edge etc. Data manipulation does not cause glacier shrinkage etc.

When will the warming be significant enough to match the warmth of the climates of northern England, Greenland and Iceland during the Medieval Warm Period?
We are not even close to that point yet, and, according to global warming believers, we are warmer now than then.
When grapes can grow on the vine in Yorkshire, as was the case in the mild Medieval Warm Period, then it will be startling and significant.

[platypus]

When will the warming be significant enough to match the warmth of the climates of northern England, Greenland and Iceland during the Medieval Warm Period?
We are not even close to that point yet, and, according to global warming believers, we are warmer now than then.
When grapes can grow on the vine in Yorkshire, as was the case in the mild Medieval Warm Period, then it will be startling and significant.

I think we're already clearly above the medieval warm period temperatures in the named places, do you have any evidence that we aren't? Grapes grow quite nicely in the current climate of the UK:

https://secure.wikim..._United_Kingdom

Startling and significant?!? Maybe.

BTW, when talking about global issues one needs to look at the whole globe instead of tiny land areas. The area of Europe and the Continental USA put together comprise only 2.6 percent of the total surface area of the Earth.

[maxwatt]

There will always be a clever manipulation of available info to promote the theory that global warming is taking place, but that it is masked or unapparent for any number of reasons.
When will global warming just be apparent for what it is, the warming of the planet?
When will all the other effects work themselves out so that all that will be left is the warming? When??
100 years? 500 years? Never?

The warming up of the planet is clearly already happening close to the poles, there's no question about it. Glaciers and ice sheets are losing mass, mean sea level is rising, species are migrating to new areas, permafrost is starting to thaw at the southern edge etc. Data manipulation does not cause glacier shrinkage etc.

When will the warming be significant enough to match the warmth of the climates of northern England, Greenland and Iceland during the Medieval Warm Period?
We are not even close to that point yet, and, according to global warming believers, we are warmer now than then.
When grapes can grow on the vine in Yorkshire, as was the case in the mild Medieval Warm Period, then it will be startling and significant.

Wrong again,Braf, you are quoting inaccurate and long-refuted "factoids" from the irrational right-wing spin machine. The medieval warm was largely confined to the North Atlantic due to ocean circulation patterns.

During the medieval warm, wine was made in southern England; once again wine is being made in Southern England. Some of the vintages have been quite good.

The Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, the conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

[JLL]

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.

There's no way you can know that.