The whole drunken tree BS is a good example of how the whole AGW debate has deteriorated. When did the drunken tree phenomena start? Last Tuesday week? No? In fact its been observed all the way back to the 19th century. What caused it then? Natural causes?

The southern range of permafrost reached its highest levels in the LIA (17th century). Since then its been receding as the global comes out of the LIA. Quite natural. No CO2 to blame it on in the 19th century. But now the perpetual alarmed see a tilted forest and assume that it must (1) new and (2) caused by man. Its neither.

BTW ant, talking about arctic melting, are you aware that as glaciers recede they are revealing forests that previously existed and were then engulfed by the advancing glacier. So, logically, it must have been warmer at the time the forest existed than today. One such is the Mendenhall Glacier which has revealed a forest that existed around 1000AD. Its almost as though there was a Medieval Warm Period. But that can't be true, because Mr Mann's highly respected graph did away with such notions. So obviously those forests don't really exist.(sarc off).

voxUnius, commented on isoprene through his references. Sadly, mate, the science has been misinterpreted by deniers. The reference provided has been written by a scientist.

A couple of quotes from an author:

"Our study is a new brick that should help understanding our complex world, by providing new knowledge on air-sea exchanges, but it definitively does not question climate change, it just helps us understand its impact.

There is no question that the global climate will become warmer. The question is just how much, how fast and how the effects will change our lives." The point being ..."it does not question climate change...."

The other quote from Professor Piers Forster :
"The natural aerosol cooling could be 100 times bigger than our current estimate, but it would make no difference to climate change as it would stay more-or-less constant with time."

From:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/15/propaganda-trumps-journalism-in-conservative-media-climate-reporting

mhaze, what a creative answer in regard to "drunken trees" but very wrong. Where permafrost has been thawing live trees are no longer held in a stable state by their roots; through the thawing process the ground moves and the trees move as well. Buildings have become uninhabitable through the same process.
Other features of thawing permafrost in tundra areas are that shrubs begin to grow and bogs are created in low areas. A worrying feature is the amount of methane being released from bogs.

You presented a often present myth about the medieval period. The problem is that deniers are not able to keep up with current science ;and so, recycle myths.

Ant
You fail to convince with your rantings and warmist references.

Warmists erroneously place their faith in unvalidated climate models.

Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 18 or so years, .

Raycom, the Austfonna ice sheet was found to be regressing quickly through analysis of photos taken by satellites, where is the modelling?
Glaciers generally regressing, where is the modelling?
"Drunken trees" are caused through permafrost thawing, modelling involved?
Did modelling cause the methane explosions of pingos in Siberia?
Various low lying islands being inundated through rising sea levels associated with storm surges; where is the modelling?
Numerous extreme weather events happening, created through modelling?
A number of droughts in the Amazon Basin in the last decade, created through modelling?

We are meant to accept misrepresented science by deniers; eg, isoprene.

Another separate investigation into ExxonMobil; where scientist employees were interviewed, has shown management were fully aware of climate change.

Quote:
"The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times."

And

"That reasoning was backed by models built by Exxon scientists, including Flannery, as well as Marty Hoffert, a New York University physicist. Their work, published in 1984, showed that global warming would be most pronounced near the poles."

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

Strange isn't it Raycom, that Exxon used models in 1984 which have been shown to be true in 2015.

The pure evil cynicism of ExxonMobil has been disclosed in relation to hiding their climate science; now there is a possibility of an official investigation taking place.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-investigation-exxonmobil-20151015-story.html

The other extremely cynical step has been doing a cost benefit analysis as to when the best time to drill in the Beaufort Sea would be.

Quote:

Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary stated:
"The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea."

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

He was saying that if they wait there will be less ice in the Beaufort Sea being a hindrance to drilling and there would be a longer period that drilling could take place. The downside being larger waves due to a longer fetch of waves.

ant,

I get that you think the "drunken tree" meme is a winner for you and that you're not going to let mere facts get in the way of a useful story. But just tell us this:

The melting of the permafrost and the consequent 'drunken tree' phenomena has been going on since at least the middle of the 19th century. What caused that melting back then and why shouldn't we assume that that remains the cause now?

I assume you won't answer because you don't like the answer. And that will be answer enough.

ant wrote" You presented a often present myth about the medieval period."
I mentioned the fact that forest are being found under receding glaciers which date to 1000AD. Laughably you think that those trees are a myth because the models say they can't be there. But in the real world (you should join it one day) real tree stumps trump computer algorithms.