The GP implied that the name "Greenland" was supposed to be significant regarding its climate. Apparently we agree that the name is pretty meaningless in that regard, so that's good to see.
People will smugly believe whatever they want, and eschew arguments that don't fit their worldview
Since nearly all scientific researc supports the theory AGW, it's the deniers that should be grouped together with young-earthers, and creationists, not the other way around.
No, I claim a global temperature rise over decades must have a cause, and it must be possible to identify that cause by scientific methods, without having to wait another 10,000 years for additional data.
What does this prove ? During the Viking times, it was somewhat warmer in Greenland, then it got colder, and now it's getting warmer again (except this time, the warming is global, and not just the Northern Hemisphere)
The point remains that the green edges where Greenland got its name from are still mostly green. At no point in homo sapiens history has the Greenland mainland been ice free, as GP seems to suggest.
The problem is that you can't use 100+ years of actual data to know anything about a cycle that lasts hundreds of thousands of years. It's way too short a time period. The ONLY way anyone will know for a fact that humans have disrupted a hundred thousand year cycle is after, at the minimum, ten or twenty thousand years of actual recorded data.
If the Milankovitch cycles (or other 100,000 year cycles) aren't relevant to the recent climate change, what is the purpose of waiting for thousands of years to draw a conclusion ?
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it works on the timescale of decades. On the same timescale, we see global temperatures rise.
Sure, but how is that relevant to the climate of the last 100+ years ? None of the parameters involved in the Milankovitch cycles has changed in any significant way in the last few centuries to help explain the global warming we're in right now.
No, it just happens to be the fact that nearly all published and peer-reviewed science on climate change reaches the same conclusions. Ignoring that is a disgrace to science.
NASA and CRU use different methods. The problem is that the station data around the poles isn't as dense as they would like. NASA solves this by interpolating stations a bit further away (and they show that this is a valid method). The CRU team chooses to only report averages on the earth excluding the polar regions.
Since the Arctic has shown exceptional warming, the NASA averages are a bit higher.
It was called green, because there's some grass in the south. Look on google maps, and you'll see there's still grass. Mostly, by calling it greenland they hoped to get more people there.
- It is not warming - Even if it's warming, it's natural fluctuation - Even if it's not natural fluctation, it's not due to CO2 - Even if it's due to CO2, human didn't cause it. - Even if humans caused it, it's not bad. - Even if it's bad, I don't want to act.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP implied that the name "Greenland" was supposed to be significant regarding its climate. Apparently we agree that the name is pretty meaningless in that regard, so that's good to see.
Sure, random slashdot poster who can't be bothered to include an actual argument.
Since nearly all scientific researc supports the theory AGW, it's the deniers that should be grouped together with young-earthers, and creationists, not the other way around.
No, I claim a global temperature rise over decades must have a cause, and it must be possible to identify that cause by scientific methods, without having to wait another 10,000 years for additional data.
What does this prove ? During the Viking times, it was somewhat warmer in Greenland, then it got colder, and now it's getting warmer again (except this time, the warming is global, and not just the Northern Hemisphere)
The point remains that the green edges where Greenland got its name from are still mostly green. At no point in homo sapiens history has the Greenland mainland been ice free, as GP seems to suggest.
How ?
GP claimed 100,000 year cycles were relevant:
If the Milankovitch cycles (or other 100,000 year cycles) aren't relevant to the recent climate change, what is the purpose of waiting for thousands of years to draw a conclusion ?
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it works on the timescale of decades. On the same timescale, we see global temperatures rise.
Sure, but how is that relevant to the climate of the last 100+ years ? None of the parameters involved in the Milankovitch cycles has changed in any significant way in the last few centuries to help explain the global warming we're in right now.
Show me.
Show me some of his published peer-reviewed scientific work, and then we'll talk.
You can't slowly migrate.
But you're right of course. If the problems don't affect you, it's not really a problem.
No, it just happens to be the fact that nearly all published and peer-reviewed science on climate change reaches the same conclusions. Ignoring that is a disgrace to science.
What if the country is flat, and moving nine feet up means moving 100 km sideways ? What if millions of people live and work in the affected area ?
Will the cost of relocation be shared by the rest of the world ?
That's because the only way to reach an opposite conclusion is by quack science.
Watts is not a scientist, and ignoring some wacky blog isn't science denial.
NASA and CRU use different methods. The problem is that the station data around the poles isn't as dense as they would like. NASA solves this by interpolating stations a bit further away (and they show that this is a valid method). The CRU team chooses to only report averages on the earth excluding the polar regions.
Since the Arctic has shown exceptional warming, the NASA averages are a bit higher.
The zealots are well supported by many peer-reviewed scientific articles, so no, it's not the same.
It was called green, because there's some grass in the south. Look on google maps, and you'll see there's still grass. Mostly, by calling it greenland they hoped to get more people there.
Here's a picture of an old Norse settlement, surrounded by fresh green grass:
http://www.offbeattravel.com/gree-3.jpg
The mainland has 100,000 year old ice, except for a fresh layer on top, it's still the same ice as the Vikings saw.
If you're looking for sophistication, you'd be well advised to ignore everything Watts says.
Here's their report on the urban heat effect:
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_UHI
The graph from the BBC article was drawn by the Berkeley team, not a local ass clown:
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php
What 100,000 year cycles are you talking about, and what's driving them ? Fairies ?
But if you read the pdf, you probably also saw this:
If so, why don't you point us to the manipulation in the climate model source code that's been posted on the web ?
True. A lot of climate deniers talk like this:
- It is not warming
- Even if it's warming, it's natural fluctuation
- Even if it's not natural fluctation, it's not due to CO2
- Even if it's due to CO2, human didn't cause it.
- Even if humans caused it, it's not bad.
- Even if it's bad, I don't want to act.