Climate Change not so important

[d000hg]

How important people see GW as & how serious it really is are not necessarily correlated. Similarly, how much is our fault and how much we can counter it (theoretically we could try to fight entirely natural climate change in either direction)

[sasguru]

BlasterBates pwned by pjclarke.
Just like I pwned him about MRSA.

Face it BB you don't have the brains for this.

[d000hg]

BlasterBates pwned by pjclarke.
Just like I pwned him about MRSA.

Face it BB you don't have the brains for this.

Hang on, BB is arguing against GW I thought, and I thought you also were a sceptic? Are you a GW agree-er?

[BlasterBates]

There you go here's a summary of Easterbrook's view on global warming.

Global Cooling is Here


As you see he does nothing more than summarise and cite already published research.

For example checkout the temp variations from the Greenland Ice cores. They demonstrate current temperatures lower than the Medieval Warm Period (not Easterbrook's evidence, that's already published).

...also supported by glacial fluctuations in other parts of the world.

He doesn't really need to publish this he's simply summarising the work that is already out there and is being (deliberately) ignored.

Are you disputing the Greenland ice core evidence (peer reviewed research)?

are you disputing glacial variations (peer reviewed published)?

[shaunbhoy]

Hang on, BB is arguing against GW I thought, and I thought you also were a sceptic? Are you a GW agree-er?

sasguru is a GW don't-understander!!

HTH

[EternalOptimist]

All the great scientists were great, not because they were always right, but because they provided ways to disprove their theories.
They basically said, 'come and have a go'

Thats why there are no great scientists, or great science on the side of AGW.
First off, they havnt provided their peers with the tools,ideas or antithesis to prove them wrong, and if anyone does dare to come and have a go, they get labelled 'VooDoo' scientists or worse

so pj, if you are a true scientists, give us a clue, how should we set about falsifying your AGW theories ?

[BlasterBates]

Like I said, Easterbrook is not above altering a graph when it suits. Gareth Renowden points out that when presenting the Greenland ice core data, Easterbrook ignores the last 105 years. Those will be the ones that show rapid and unprecedented warming, then.



The inset is Easterbrook's graph, the blue/purple line is Easterbrook's 'current' temps, the green the actual recent Greenland temperature. No sign of a MWP warmer than today. Hope that's clear.

I am not sure I would rely on such a source for an argument. By contrast, Kaufman et al, published an analysis of Arctic temperatures last year in Science based on ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments. It looks like this



Hope this helps.

Which is of course based around tree ring data, Easterbrook´s graph is ice core data plus the satellite temperature up to the present day.

As has been published several times in peer reviewed journals, temperature records based on tree rings is flawed. I find the arguments above typical of the AGW dogma, which ignores some of the latest research, for example the recent paper that showed the tree ring analysis to be highly flawed.

[sasguru]

Which is of course based around tree ring data, Easterbrook´s graph is ice core data plus the satellite temperature up to the present day.

As has been published several times in peer reviewed journals, temperature records based on tree rings is flawed. I find the arguments above typical of the AGW dogma, which ignores some of the latest research, for example the recent paper that showed the tree ring analysis to be highly flawed.

What recent paper? When having a scientific discussion it is usual to provide links to your evidence rather than vaguely alluding to it.
HTH

[DimPrawn]

His graph is based solely on the GISP 2 ice core data, which he truncates in 1905. If he had added on the modern record it would show recent temperatures about 3C higher than the point that he labels as 'present' .

I'd be interested to see a graph showing 10,000 or more years of temperature data (from ice cores or tree rings or similar), that at least goes up to this century.

Fed up with seeing graphs that don't go back more than a few years, where it is impossible to see the extent of the "man-made" warming in context of the longer term climate.

Cheers.

[TimberWolf]

Did anyone see "Ancient Worlds" last night on BBC2? The guy presenting it had all the mannerisms of Robert Webb.