Horrido

And that contradicts anything I've said or supported how? lol The Greenland settlements and what they had to deal with are simply a period in time, with conditions specific to that period, that undoubtedly changed over that specific period.

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

gunnut

I just saw the History Channel show on "Little Ice Age" that used the Greenland settlement as support for the warmer period one thousand years ago.

In it, the show suggested the Viking settlement was far more than a simple fishing village with a few dozen individuals. Eric the Red founded the colony in either late 900s or early 1000s. His son Leif Ericson followed his lead. The last known record from this settlement was a wedding in the 1450s.

I saw it on TV so it must be true.

Horrido

Well, guess they've done some more diggin' in the past fifteen years. lol Good to hear it. Thank you. lol

The Chap

I heard rumour of a "Cold War". I don't suppose that would had anything to do with all this?

OK sorry to all for that. We are "geologically" on the cusp of an inter-glacial warm period flipping to a rather chilly one. As it happens we are somewhat late. The Scott Antarctic Survey at Cambridge (dot com or something) has excellent records. Including all the ice cores.

For those inclined, that should settle matters.

__________________
Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

Shek

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

FREE INQUIRY

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Nagalfar

Past and CURRENT studies of gases trapped in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores have shown that Earth's temperature can sometimes change amazingly fast, warming as much as 15 degrees in some regions within a couple of decades. At the same time, there are concerns about the change of major ocean currents, such as those in the North Atlantic Ocean, that are responsible for the comparatively mild climate of much of Europe. If that thermohaline circulation pattern were to abruptly shut down, as has happened at times in the past, it could plunge much of the European continent into a climate more closely resembling that of central Canada.

At the time this data was gathered the ice cores under study were from present back apx. 650,000 years, the current thinking is they are going to get ice cores as far back as 1.2 million years from the Dome C, EPICA. During the last 400,000 years, warm periods have had a temperature similar to and far GREATER than that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer (<-- global cooling then or now?). In the last 400,000 years our grenhouse gas levels are at the highest for the last 400,000 years, but we are not at the highest levels recorded thus far.. what caused them to be higherprior to 400,000 years ago? comparing the pattern of this past climate with global environmental conditions today we could expect the present warm period to last at least another 15,000 years.

This information was gathered by Dr Eric Wolff EPICA,and Ed Brook, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State Univesrity, is part of the 10 nation team who does deep core studies.

Your Prefessor friend is only partly right, but mostly wrong, water vapor IS the heat trapping agent, without water vapor Earth would be a ball of ice in space, it is also a green house agent that will perpetuate itself to a measured level of saturation, then it will cause the a reverse action due to excessive cloud cover, the higher level ice crystals and lower level clouding will cool the atmosphere due to reduced sunlight reaching the ground, the massive amounts of water vapor (ice and water) trapped in the atmosphere will distribute it world wide, all mountain ranges, and now cooler lower areas (due to cooling) will now hold far higher levels of snow and water than previously seen in recorded history..

>IF< global warming is true, and there is NO evidence that it is, measured temps. from around the world by NOAA show a world wide change of -1 degree on average world wide for the last 103 years, global weather patterns run in 30 to 33 year cycles, those of us old enough to remember the WARNINGS OF THE COMING ICE AGE IN THE 70's, lol.. they too said this was caused by mankind.. caused by all the particulate air pollution in the atmosphere was blocking the sun, thus THRUSTING OUR PLANET INTO A COMING GLOBAL KILLING ICE AGE. The odd part of this whole story is the simple FACT, that if you do the reseach, you will find a vast majority of the global warming "experts" were once the global Ice Age "experts".

Why the switch from the "experts"?.. it's all about money.. GRANT FUNDING is really cool when you dont have or dont want a job where you actually have to perform! take a broke, need more money liberal, tree hugging, we are all going to die and its mankinds fault "experts", add that to a TV news camera or reporter, and YOU HAVE A STUNNING STORY, one that you can get a lot of mileage out of, when you are a reporter, and there is no news.. YOU MAKE IT!

__________________
Never under estimate the real power of stupidity!

Ray

Postive proof for Global Warming.

Attached Images

warming.jpg (360.0 KB, 162 views)

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Nagalfar

Now thats a heat index I can live with!

gunnut

So I heard these global warming cultists are now changing their message from global warming to "climate change" because they found out the earth is not warming as fast as they think it is. In fact, it may be getting cooler.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...t-steyn23.html

http://www.algore04.com/index.php?op...=353&Itemid=78

dalem

Very few topics enrage me as much as this one. I find that funny.

-dale

Anon

Gunnut i have found that unless one posts the entire story in a thread it generates about ZERO conversation.

Might want to keep that in mind for future consideration.

Shek

I've been guilty of that a few times. Of course, nothing like the finger and toe counting links list of Insomniac!

gunnut

You guys are too lazy to click on a simple link?

Just trying to save some bandwidth for WAB. Every single letter is a byte. They add up.

Anon

The owners of WAB are filthy rich.

Use that bandwidth like it's 1999...

gunnut

Speaking of, who is the owner of WAB?