Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exhibit A: How to rid the thread of the AGWCult, just ask them a real science question
Frank,
Get 2 square fish(glass) tanks ~14X6X14"
Buy two sensitive Thermometers. Even better, both that records the temperature in real time on your computer software.
Get a heat lap(as the sun). You know the one that's warms the eggs for baby birds!
Estimate how much co2 you'd need to make up 1/100 of the air volume
Lastly, put the co2 into ONE of the tanks and quickly put the lid on.
Turn on the heat lap
Come back in 1 hour and check your data....
LOL. Trying to teach brainwashed denier cult retards to do lab experiments is like trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle.
But hey...lot of luck with that....
LOLOLOL.....you are such a funny little denier cult retard.....what I just posted is actually 'more good science and intelligent analysis from a real climate scientist at RealClimate', and it is entirely correct. There were some vineyards in England during the MWP and their numbers shrank during the LIA (so what?), but there are far more vineyards in England now, and it is also warmer now, than during the Medieval Warm Period. Those are the only important points in all this denier cult whoop-de-doo over nothing. The rest of your post is just incoherent pointless twaddle. Which pretty much describes all of your posts, Walleyed.Oh looky, more "real climate" propaganda BS. How completely unsurprising. And how wrong it is....typical for a ignorant blowhard like trolling blunder....Perhaps they will be able to grow grapes in northern England again someday...
LOLOL......oh please, not that moldy old denier cult myth again.....try growing a brain someday...
Medieval warmth and English wine
RealClimate
Dr. Gavin Schmidt
12 July 2006
Never let it be said that we at RealClimate dont work for our readers. Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, Ive been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a Medieval Warm Period was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you dont get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. Ill examine each of these propositions in turn (but Ill admit the logic of the last step escapes me). Ill use two principle sources, the excellent (and cheap) Winelands of Britain by geologist Richard C. Selley and the website of the English Wine Producers.
Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasnt a match for that!
However, for the sake of argument, lets assume that climate is actually the dominant control so what does the history of English vineyards show?
The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively frenchified, the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lambs 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.
Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there werent many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, its probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they dont necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.
Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in Punch (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.
Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate
Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one rather improbably located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesnt count, it not being in England n all ), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.
So what should one conclude from this? Well, one shouldnt be too dogmatic that English temperatures are now obviously above a medieval peak the impact of confounding factors in wine production precludes such a clear conclusion (and I am pretty agnostic with regards to the rest of the evidence of whether northern Europe was warmer 1000 years than today). However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a counter-proof to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not . well, why talk about them in this context at all?
There is a bigger issue of course. For the sake of argument, lets accept that medieval times were as warm in England as they are today, and even that global temperatures were similar (thats a much bigger leap, but no mind). What would that imply for our attribution of current climate changes to human causes? . Nothing. Nowt. Zero. Zip.
Why? Well, warm periods have occured in the past, and if not the medieval period, then probably the last interglacial (120,000 years ago), certainly the Pliocene (3 million years ago), without question the (Eocene 50 million years), and in particular the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), and so on. Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether todays temperatures are unprecedented. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution.
Understanding past climate changes are of course also very interesting they provide test cases for climate models and can have profound implications for the history of human society. However, uncertainties (as recently outlined in the NAS report) increase as you go back in time, and that applies to our knowledge of the climate drivers as well as to temperatures. So much so that even a medieval period a couple of tenths of a degree warmer than today would still be consistent with what we know about solar forcing and climate sensitivity within the commonly accepted uncertainties.
LOLOLOL.....you are such a funny little denier cult retard.....what I just posted is actually 'more good science and intelligent analysis from a real climate scientist at RealClimate', and it is entirely correct. There were some vineyards in England during the MWP and their numbers shrank during the LIA (so what?), but there are far more vineyards in England now, and it is also warmer now, than during the Medieval Warm Period. Those are the only important points in all this denier cult whoop-de-doo over nothing. The rest of your post is just incoherent pointless twaddle. Which pretty much describes all of your posts, Walleyed.Oh looky, more "real climate" propaganda BS. How completely unsurprising. And how wrong it is....typical for a ignorant blowhard like trolling blunder....LOLOL......oh please, not that moldy old denier cult myth again.....try growing a brain someday...
Medieval warmth and English wine
RealClimate
Dr. Gavin Schmidt
12 July 2006
Never let it be said that we at RealClimate dont work for our readers. Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, Ive been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a Medieval Warm Period was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you dont get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. Ill examine each of these propositions in turn (but Ill admit the logic of the last step escapes me). Ill use two principle sources, the excellent (and cheap) Winelands of Britain by geologist Richard C. Selley and the website of the English Wine Producers.
Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasnt a match for that!
However, for the sake of argument, lets assume that climate is actually the dominant control so what does the history of English vineyards show?
The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively frenchified, the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lambs 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.
Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there werent many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, its probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they dont necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.
Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in Punch (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.
Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate
Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one rather improbably located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesnt count, it not being in England n all ), English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.
So what should one conclude from this? Well, one shouldnt be too dogmatic that English temperatures are now obviously above a medieval peak the impact of confounding factors in wine production precludes such a clear conclusion (and I am pretty agnostic with regards to the rest of the evidence of whether northern Europe was warmer 1000 years than today). However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a counter-proof to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not . well, why talk about them in this context at all?
There is a bigger issue of course. For the sake of argument, lets accept that medieval times were as warm in England as they are today, and even that global temperatures were similar (thats a much bigger leap, but no mind). What would that imply for our attribution of current climate changes to human causes? . Nothing. Nowt. Zero. Zip.
Why? Well, warm periods have occured in the past, and if not the medieval period, then probably the last interglacial (120,000 years ago), certainly the Pliocene (3 million years ago), without question the (Eocene 50 million years), and in particular the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), and so on. Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether todays temperatures are unprecedented. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution.
Understanding past climate changes are of course also very interesting they provide test cases for climate models and can have profound implications for the history of human society. However, uncertainties (as recently outlined in the NAS report) increase as you go back in time, and that applies to our knowledge of the climate drivers as well as to temperatures. So much so that even a medieval period a couple of tenths of a degree warmer than today would still be consistent with what we know about solar forcing and climate sensitivity within the commonly accepted uncertainties.
Particularly pointless this time because it actually would not matter if the MWP had been warmer than the present. Scientists understand the natural factors that caused the MWP to occur. Those factors are not causing this current warming. Scientists have identified what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and it is the 43% (and still rising fast) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has caused. As Dr. Gavin Schmidt said in that article I quoted:
"Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether todays temperatures are unprecedented. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution."
***
You have yet to actually even try to refute anything thar Dr. Schmidt said with any counter evidence, Walleyed. As usual. Because, of course, you have no actual counter evidence, just bloviation and bluster, completely lacking in substance.No, it's not. It is just more denier cult bullshit from a clown who's professional life is wrapped up in the fraud.LOLOLOL.....you are such a funny little denier cult retard.....what I just posted is actually 'more good science and intelligent analysis from a real climate scientist at RealClimate', and it is entirely correct. There were some vineyards in England during the MWP and their numbers shrank during the LIA (so what?), but there are far more vineyards in England now, and it is also warmer now, than during the Medieval Warm Period. Those are the only important points in all this denier cult whoop-de-doo over nothing. The rest of your post is just incoherent pointless twaddle. Which pretty much describes all of your posts, Walleyed.Oh looky, more "real climate" propaganda BS. How completely unsurprising. And how wrong it is....typical for a ignorant blowhard like trolling blunder....
Particularly pointless this time because it actually would not matter if the MWP had been warmer than the present. Scientists understand the natural factors that caused the MWP to occur. Those factors are not causing this current warming. Scientists have identified what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and it is the 43% (and still rising fast) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has caused. As Dr. Gavin Schmidt said in that article I quoted:
"Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether todays temperatures are unprecedented. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution."
***
LOL. No they haven't. The climate scientists have carefully and fully examined all of the evidence and determined that the MWP was not a global phenomenon, like the current warming trend. They also found that while it may (or may not) have been slightly warmer in certain specific areas than it is today, it was definitely not warmer than the present global average temperatures. Of course, the most important point that you're in deep denial about is that it doesn't make any difference to the current scientific understanding of what is happening to our temperatures and climate patterns today, whether on not the MWP was warmer and global or not. What you imagine is 'proof' of some idiotic conspiracy theory nonsense is really just vacuous drivel.They have ignored huge quantities of information that prove beyond doubt that the MWP was warmer and global in nature.
They have ignored huge quantities of information that prove beyond doubt that the MWP was warmer and global in nature.
LOLOLOL.....you are such a funny little denier cult retard.....what I just posted is actually 'more good science and intelligent analysis from a real climate scientist at RealClimate', and it is entirely correct. There were some vineyards in England during the MWP and their numbers shrank during the LIA (so what?), but there are far more vineyards in England now, and it is also warmer now, than during the Medieval Warm Period. Those are the only important points in all this denier cult whoop-de-doo over nothing. The rest of your post is just incoherent pointless twaddle. Which pretty much describes all of your posts, Walleyed.Oh looky, more "real climate" propaganda BS. How completely unsurprising. And how wrong it is....typical for a ignorant blowhard like trolling blunder....LOLOL......oh please, not that moldy old denier cult myth again.....try growing a brain someday...
Medieval warmth and English wine
RealClimate
Dr. Gavin Schmidt
12 July 2006
Never let it be said that we at RealClimate don’t work for our readers. Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I’ve been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a ‘Medieval Warm Period‘ was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you don’t get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. I’ll examine each of these propositions in turn (but I’ll admit the logic of the last step escapes me). I’ll use two principle sources, the excellent (and cheap) “Winelands of Britain” by geologist Richard C. Selley and the website of the English Wine Producers.
Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes – changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn’t a match for that!
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that climate is actually the dominant control – so what does the history of English vineyards show?
The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) – an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively ‘frenchified’, the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb’s 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.
Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren’t many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it’s probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don’t necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England.
Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in ‘Punch’ (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it – one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.
Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate…
Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits. So with the sole exception of one ‘rather improbably’ located 12th Century Scottish vineyard (and strictly speaking that doesn’t count, it not being in England ‘n’ all…, English vineyards have almost certainly exceeded the extent of medieval cultivation. And I hear (from normally reliable sources) they are actually producing a pretty decent selection of white wines.
So what should one conclude from this? Well, one shouldn’t be too dogmatic that English temperatures are now obviously above a medieval peak – the impact of confounding factors in wine production precludes such a clear conclusion (and I am pretty agnostic with regards to the rest of the evidence of whether northern Europe was warmer 1000 years than today). However, one can conclude that those who are using the medieval English vineyards as a ‘counter-proof’ to the idea of present day global warming are just blowing smoke (or possibly drinking too much Californian). If they are a good proxy, then England is warmer now, and if they are not…. well, why talk about them in this context at all?
There is a bigger issue of course. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that medieval times were as warm in England as they are today, and even that global temperatures were similar (that’s a much bigger leap, but no mind). What would that imply for our attribution of current climate changes to human causes? ……. Nothing. Nowt. Zero. Zip.
Why? Well, warm periods have occured in the past, and if not the medieval period, then probably the last interglacial (120,000 years ago), certainly the Pliocene (3 million years ago), without question the (Eocene 50 million years), and in particular the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), and so on. Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether today’s temperatures are ‘unprecedented’. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution.
Understanding past climate changes are of course also very interesting – they provide test cases for climate models and can have profound implications for the history of human society. However, uncertainties (as recently outlined in the NAS report) increase as you go back in time, and that applies to our knowledge of the climate drivers as well as to temperatures. So much so that even a medieval period a couple of tenths of a degree warmer than today would still be consistent with what we know about solar forcing and climate sensitivity within the commonly accepted uncertainties.
Particularly pointless this time because it actually would not matter if the MWP had been warmer than the present. Scientists understand the natural factors that caused the MWP to occur. Those factors are not causing this current warming. Scientists have identified what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and it is the 43% (and still rising fast) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind has caused. As Dr. Gavin Schmidt said in that article I quoted:
"Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether today’s temperatures are ‘unprecedented’. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution."
***
The proof question on the 400PPM raises temperature. I asked the same thing on another message board, and the dude said you can't prove science. It just is. How about that, never have to prove a theory or validate a model. neat business model I suppose.Exhibit A: How to rid the thread of the AGWCult, just ask them a real science question
And like evidenced here, they can tell you how to do the experiment, yet, they never have? Too funny.
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
The proof question on the 400PPM raises temperature. I asked the same thing on another message board, and the dude said you can't prove science. It just is. How about that, never have to prove a theory or validate a model. neat business model I suppose.Exhibit A: How to rid the thread of the AGWCult, just ask them a real science question
And like evidenced here, they can tell you how to do the experiment, yet, they never have? Too funny.
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
They have ignored huge quantities of information that prove beyond doubt that the MWP was warmer and global in nature.
Only denier cult cherrypickers try to pass off that bullshit. When you see someone try, you know you've got an acolyte of the "CO2 Science" dedicated cherrypicking website.
How does the cherrypicking scam work? The cherrypickers find a study at one location that shows a single warm year or two somewhere during the MWP. Then find a different study for a different location that shows other warm years, but a century before or after. And so on. They keep piling on studies that show a warm year or two at various spots, but at all kinds of different times.
Now, to people who aren't 'effin retards, that's just statistical variation. In order to show the MWP was global, you'd have to show warm years nearly the whole time over all locations. Since that's absolutely not seen, we thus know 100% the MWP was not global. Only cultists still try to pretend otherwise, which is why everyone just laughs at them.
The proof question on the 400PPM raises temperature. I asked the same thing on another message board, and the dude said you can't prove science. It just is. How about that, never have to prove a theory or validate a model. neat business model I suppose.
And like evidenced here, they can tell you how to do the experiment, yet, they never have? Too funny.
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
Second Request. Where's the experiment?
The proof question on the 400PPM raises temperature. I asked the same thing on another message board, and the dude said you can't prove science. It just is. How about that, never have to prove a theory or validate a model. neat business model I suppose.
And like evidenced here, they can tell you how to do the experiment, yet, they never have? Too funny.
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
Let's see the experiment. You claim it exists so produce such video!!!!
They have ignored huge quantities of information that prove beyond doubt that the MWP was warmer and global in nature.
Only denier cult cherrypickers try to pass off that bullshit. When you see someone try, you know you've got an acolyte of the "CO2 Science" dedicated cherrypicking website.
How does the cherrypicking scam work? The cherrypickers find a study at one location that shows a single warm year or two somewhere during the MWP. Then find a different study for a different location that shows other warm years, but a century before or after. And so on. They keep piling on studies that show a warm year or two at various spots, but at all kinds of different times.
Now, to people who aren't 'effin retards, that's just statistical variation. In order to show the MWP was global, you'd have to show warm years nearly the whole time over all locations. Since that's absolutely not seen, we thus know 100% the MWP was not global. Only cultists still try to pretend otherwise, which is why everyone just laughs at them.
the latest HockeyStick, Neukom2014
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2174.html
I doubt that this latest hockeystick will get retracted like Gergis2012 (same batch of authors BTW) because it is more honest in describing how they cherrypick proxies to get a hockeystick shaped graph.
would you like to see the 100+ proxies that are already screened to produce a predetermined result?
all data is from the SI at Nature.
and of course the mean, with Neukom's results added
as I have said before, be careful of proxy reconstructions. especially the estimated standard deviations of error.
thanks to Willis. Neukom?s Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?. Duke Neukom?s Secret Sauce | Watts Up With That?
and of course to Steve. Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti « Climate Audit
it doesnt matter if you are a warmer or a denier. if you read those links you will know more about the process of producing a proxy reconstruction.
And you never can show a lab experiment showing how 400PPM CO2 raises temperature because...?
And you never answered my "how much CO2 must you add to a liter of water to drop the pH from 8.25 to 8.15" because...?
In any event, if I were a scientist, I'd dedicate my life to getting you AGWCult fuckers booted from every campus and lab in America because you're a disgrace to real science
Exhibit A: How to rid the thread of the AGWCult, just ask them a real science question
Frank,
Get 2 square fish(glass) tanks ~14 length x 6 width x 14" height
Buy two sensitive Thermometers. Even better, both that records the temperature in real time on your computer software.
Get a heat lamp(as the sun). You know the one that warms the eggs for baby birds!
Estimate how much co2 you'd need to make up 1/100 of the air volume
Lastly, put the co2 into ONE of the tanks and quickly put the lid on.
Turn on the heat lamp
Come back in 1 hour and check your data....
The proof question on the 400PPM raises temperature. I asked the same thing on another message board, and the dude said you can't prove science. It just is. How about that, never have to prove a theory or validate a model. neat business model I suppose.Exhibit A: How to rid the thread of the AGWCult, just ask them a real science question
And like evidenced here, they can tell you how to do the experiment, yet, they never have? Too funny.
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat energy that is trying to leave Earth and keeps it inside the atmosphere. That's established physics, CrazyFruitcake, and none of your dimwitted denial will change that.
The proof question on the 400PPM raises temperature. I asked the same thing on another message board, and the dude said you can't prove science. It just is. How about that, never have to prove a theory or validate a model. neat business model I suppose.
And like evidenced here, they can tell you how to do the experiment, yet, they never have? Too funny.
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
If one of those experiments was the fish tank experiment you mentioned, you got duped. Did the good professor doing it mention that the temperature increase in the closed tank was due to the heat of compression or did he simply let you believe it was CO2 behaving as it does in the atmosphere?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat energy that is trying to leave Earth and keeps it inside the atmosphere. That's established physics, CrazyFruitcake, and none of your dimwitted denial will change that.
Actually it isn't. It is a failed hypothesis. Damned near 20 years of no warming in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2
I watched a couple experiments...One being from Professor Richard Muller at Berkley(in one of his physics for future president webcast). Let's just say it worked out the way science says it should. You'd have to throw out a ton of science to prove otherwise(Stafan boltsman, etc).
Honestly, our atmosphere is far more complex then a fish tank...Complex as in it has negative and positive forcings.
If one of those experiments was the fish tank experiment you mentioned, you got duped. Did the good professor doing it mention that the temperature increase in the closed tank was due to the heat of compression or did he simply let you believe it was CO2 behaving as it does in the atmosphere?
I dont remember the experiment but if it was heat of compression then the effect would be immediate and the tank would lose heat until it equilibrated with its surroundings. if it slowly increased and stayed at a higher temp, what would be your explanation?
