I'm Swedish. You might want to update your knowledge about other countries before having too strong opinions about them:)
(And none of it, the small parts that might be considered true, had anything to do with the fact that parents who think corporal punishment is a good thing should visit the nearest psychological clinic)
*) Correlation vs causation *) Variance *) "We're not special"
To use Socrate's debating technique: You claim a global temperature rise over decades proves (I assume) it's due to CO2. Now, short global temperature rises (and cooling) have happened many times before, just as quickly, during historic times. How can you say, scientifically, today is different?
Radiation and wavelengths would be two of the words you've apparently never managed to read about;)
(Not claiming either-or, I'm just saying that your strawman is.. well.. a strawman. The argument as to why 1 and 2 can be true without 3 is laid out everywhere, in full scientific detail)
Thankfully thanks to our technological progress we're not as vulnerable to climate change as societies throughout history. The Old Kingdom in Egypt couldn't handle a 30 year cold spell with droughts when the Nile didn't overflow as it used to.
No, we don't. We've had coral reefs bleached due to warm waters (and cold waters) and they've recovered faster than expected. The pH variance in the oceans is way way more than any slight signal we think we might've detected.
My comment to your knowledge about how research is done was about your use of the word "dated". Either it's been falsified or it hasn't. Age is completely irrelevant.
I don't understand how you can misrepresent a logic statement that badly, but let's try again:
1) Include the data, but raise the error bars. 2) Don't include the data.
Those are the only two options compatible with proper science. That is not what was done, however. Just as with the other cases I brought up, _some_ data that fit the preconceived conclusions was included. That's a big no no in statistics - and Mann has already been shown before to not understand statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
... but it hasn't happened. A bunch of models predict it will happen, but there's no data yet to show that the models are correct.
You do know how the scientific method works, I hope?
http://policlimate.com/tropical/
I'm Swedish. You might want to update your knowledge about other countries before having too strong opinions about them :)
(And none of it, the small parts that might be considered true, had anything to do with the fact that parents who think corporal punishment is a good thing should visit the nearest psychological clinic)
And in civilized countries, we outlawed it completely 30+ years ago.
http://www.nospank.net/durrant.htm
The snow on Kilimanjaro is apparently coming back. It seem very drought dependent.
http://www.eturbonews.com/21762/snow-slowly-building-mount-kilimanjaro
Is it really cheaper to rebuild cities and work on defenses of enormous scale than to spew less crap into the air?
Yes, probably. Moving humans is a predictable activity, changing climate is not.
Who could've guessed you would create another strawman.
(I've already linked to research debunking your claim, no need to do that again)
I'm not random, and I've already given you a few examples of suitable topics to read up upon.
Yes, that's why you fail basic science and statistics.
No one is claiming the Greenland mainland has been green. This must be the tenth strawman you're attacking in this article alone. Obsessing much?
(PS: We now know the MWP was global and not at all confined to the NH)
Well known concepts:
*) Correlation vs causation
*) Variance
*) "We're not special"
To use Socrate's debating technique: You claim a global temperature rise over decades proves (I assume) it's due to CO2. Now, short global temperature rises (and cooling) have happened many times before, just as quickly, during historic times. How can you say, scientifically, today is different?
You fail basic understanding of science and statistics.
(You additionally misrepresent IPCC WG2 findings)
No one claimed it was relevant over the last 100 years. Strawman much?
We're today excavating Norse settlements that have been under ice for several hundred years. Do you research topics you post about at all?
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/science/story-of-viking-colonies-icy-pompeii-unfolds-from-ancient-greenland-farm.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620095238.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Radiation and wavelengths would be two of the words you've apparently never managed to read about ;)
(Not claiming either-or, I'm just saying that your strawman is .. well .. a strawman. The argument as to why 1 and 2 can be true without 3 is laid out everywhere, in full scientific detail)
Thankfully thanks to our technological progress we're not as vulnerable to climate change as societies throughout history. The Old Kingdom in Egypt couldn't handle a 30 year cold spell with droughts when the Nile didn't overflow as it used to.
WHO cares what was 2006? When we now have 2011? And the pH value has dropped even farer?
Well, at least you're funny.
No, we don't. We've had coral reefs bleached due to warm waters (and cold waters) and they've recovered faster than expected. The pH variance in the oceans is way way more than any slight signal we think we might've detected.
My comment to your knowledge about how research is done was about your use of the word "dated". Either it's been falsified or it hasn't. Age is completely irrelevant.
I can only assume you're trolling.
No, it's not. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how research is performed.
That is one model run, yes. The biosphere reacts much more quickly, something we've already observed.
I'm of the Popperian kind when it comes to science. Models are interesting, but are always trumped by actual observation.
Your posts would make a lot more sense if you followed the links I gave.
That paper does not support your statement (quoted below). Maybe it's a simple misunderstanding on your part?
Water vapor /does/ dwarf CO2, but because water stays in the air for weeks, (and CO2 1000s of years)
Yes, it would. Peer reviewed papers please - just as the one I have you that supported all the statements I had made in this thread.
(I'm still awaiting your apology)
I don't understand how you can misrepresent a logic statement that badly, but let's try again:
1) Include the data, but raise the error bars.
2) Don't include the data.
Those are the only two options compatible with proper science. That is not what was done, however. Just as with the other cases I brought up, _some_ data that fit the preconceived conclusions was included. That's a big no no in statistics - and Mann has already been shown before to not understand statistics.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf
(Please note: The above paper _assumes_ Mann's proxies to be valid - it only tasks him on the subject of statistics)
I don't "know more" - I linked you to one such researcher and his peer reviewed paper. If you want to dispute it, feel free to publish your own.
(There's nothing in the IPCC reports to support your claim about "1000s" of years. I suspect you haven't read them)