The Forum > Article Comments > The temperature trend is not as simple as Garnaut makes out > Comments
The temperature trend is not as simple as Garnaut makes out : Comments
By Tom Quirk, published 14/6/2011Professor Garnaut's latest report relies heavily on a temperature trend which is not as solid as he says.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:00:22 AM
| |
Mark Curmudgeon is using his familiar debating technique: "You don't understand what I am saying!" - to further muddy the waters. He is not doing his homework, or else getting his glacier information from tainted sources. As I mentioned, there are no less than 96 academic references to the Wikipedia glacier article, which he simply dismisses. Here's a reference, from elsewhere: Koch et al, Springer, 2009: "The advances" (of glaciers during the MWP) "cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century, which has been argued to be an analog, and likely were the result of increased winter precipitation due to prolonged La Niņa-like conditions that, in turn, may be linked to elevated solar activity."
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:39:12 PM
| |
References, please, Hasbeen, to your remarkable oceanic climate research stories: (1) that ocean acidification research has been totally discredited, and (2) that "increased levels of CO2 in sea water aids coral & shell fish."
Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:43:13 PM
| |
Nicco
despite insulting suggestion that I'm engaging in debating tricks, your post is a disguised admission that you misread (or, more likely, simply didn't read properly) my original post. The references in the Wikipedia article you cited aren't relevent to what I was saying (although you still insist I'm somehow dismissing them), so you had to search for another which you heavily adit. However, it is valuable in that your desperate search found one of the very few bits of research I've seen in some searching that even refers to the where the glaciers where at in the MWP. That guy has also raised genuine concerns about the timing of the Little Ice Age, among other matters. However, he also seems to be talking about glaciers in a certain region. I note you also had to leave a lot out, to make it say what you want. So closer that time - some part of what I said penetrated - but no cigar. If you had an exact reference to the research that would be helpful. The quote you've got at the moment is confused. I suspect you've left too much out. Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 1:47:45 PM
| |
I'm a live aboard yachtsman with a smaller carbon footprint than all of the acclaimed alarmists. I'm the ultimate enviromentalist.
I think I'd have to throw a bit of caution to both the sun and the wind for the sun provides much of my power and the wind, my sweet darling, provides some power and pretty much all my propulsion. Julia tax me if you can! I'd be miserable without an abundance of both! Oh and the ocean is my mother for it rocks me to sleep. Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 1:58:21 PM
| |
Mark Curmudgeon is insulted by my suggestion that he uses debating tricks, in a posting full of loaded language ("desperate search", "Heavily adit" (sic)). He seems unaware of the irony of his classic cry: I'm in step, everyone else is out of step! He insists that we ackowledge his starting point, based on the so-called Medieval Warm Period. If he were genuinely interested in the science, rather than ideological debating (that word again!) he would be aware of the well-researched and shaky foundation provided by the MWP.
The reference for Koch et al: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a42l382370422365/ and another: "The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally," http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf Posted by nicco, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 2:36:50 PM
|
VK3AUU, David, if we could only harvest all the red herrings you warmests pull out of the ether we could feed the poor of the earth for a million years.
The research used to promote that one about acidification has been totally discredited. Using ridiculous levels of CO2 is a con, not science.
In fact the latest results show that slightly increased levels of CO2 in sea water aids coral & shell fish. Must have been a slip up somewhere, the research got published.
If there is anyone who will not see, & hopes like hell they can con the rest of us, it's the AGW crowd , but like our Julie, you don't have much time left.