Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[nightrider]

the fact they found it doesn't work in certain circumstances doesn't mean the theory doesn't work when those circumstances aren't in play.

 

Newtonian mechanics for example works perfectly well for engineers despite it not working at quantum or cosmological levels.

 

So long as they use the data for the period it works there is no problem.

 

Thats the whole point - how can they know it works for pre-thermometer days! You cannot know circumstances which cause it to fail post 1960 are not present at other times.

 

Presumably one can check it follows some more reliable proxy or proxies, but then then if you had a more reliable proxy or proxies presumably you would just use that instead anyway...

[Wildcat]

Depends which trees.

 

The trees which show global warming are good to use.

 

The trees that show global cooling arn't.

 

Thats the 'Trick' Tree ring proxies 'diverge' from the 1960's.

 

"We Can't account for the lack of warming at the moment"

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/cc_top.png

 

If you had looked at Funky Gibbon's video, just a couple of posts preceding yours you would have seen why the graphic you have used is a blatant lie.

 

 

"Have you guys heard a word I have said?"

 

"Errr yeah Anus huh huh huh"

Edited December 7, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Thats the whole point - how can they know it works for pre-thermometer days! You cannot know circumstances which cause it to fail post 1960 are not present at other times.

 

Presumably one can check it follows some more reliable proxy or proxies, but then then if you had a more reliable proxy or proxies presumably you would just use that instead anyway...

 

It depends, if you need to make sure your claims are as robust as possible and work from all areas of the globe then you need to make use of things like tree ring data. The arguments around the MWP for example use them alot.

[truman]

It depends, if you need to make sure your claims are as robust as possible and work from all areas of the globe then you need to make use of things like tree ring data. The arguments around the MWP for example use them alot.

 

The thing about tree rings is that they can't represent the whole of the globe...

[Wildcat]

The thing about tree rings is that they can't represent the whole of the globe...

 

They can do a better job for the past than direct temperature gauge readings, or readings from satellites.

[truman]

They can do a better job for the past than direct temperature gauge readings, or readings from satellites.

 

I suspect trees can't represent much more than 15% of the world..do you think this is enough when we are talking about "global" temperatures?

[nightrider]

It depends, if you need to make sure your claims are as robust as possible and work from all areas of the globe then you need to make use of things like tree ring data. The arguments around the MWP for example use them alot.

 

hmm...so you are saying the only proxy that has wide enough geographic coverage is tree proxies? So how can you verify the post-1960 problem does not affect these proxies for earlier time periods? If the answer is you validate against other proxies - then why do you need the tree ring proxy? Just use the other proxies which do not have this calibration problem.

[Wildcat]

hmm...so you are saying the only proxy that has wide enough geographic coverage is tree proxies? So how can you verify the post-1960 problem does not affect these proxies for earlier time periods? If the answer is you validate against other proxies - then why do you need the tree ring proxy? Just use the other proxies which do not have this calibration problem.

 

What else are you going to use for periods prior to modern technology for measuring temperature?

 

you can use Ice Cores or Corals.... but not where there are trees.

[I1L2T3]

What else are you going to use for periods prior to modern technology for measuring temperature?

 

you can use Ice Cores or Corals

 

Or ocean cores

 

But the science needs to be improved. People over the last 1100 years or so have been pretty good at recording climate variations, maybe not through 'precise' modern measuring equipment but through written records.

 

A question. Could you get a more reliable picture of the climate over the last 1100 years through current scientific methods or through written records? Why do CRU climate scientists struggle so much with the MWP? It was very real so why can't they model it? And if they can't model beyond that point, given that even a thousand years is a mere heartbeat in the history of the planet, the how reliable are their findings in general?

 

Strange as it may seem we've been here before and not so long ago either.

But look at the mess scientific consensus on CFCs could have gotten us into:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

Edited December 8, 2009 by I1L2T3

[Wildcat]

Or ocean cores

 

But the science needs to be improved. People over the last 1100 years or so have been pretty good at recording climate variations, maybe not through 'precise' modern measuring equipment but through written records.

 

A question. Could you get a more reliable picture of the climate over the last 1100 years through current scientific methods or through written records? Why do CRU climate scientists struggle so much with the MWP? It was very real so why can't they model it? And if they can't model beyond that point, given that even a thousand years is a mere heartbeat in the history of the planet, the how reliable are their findings in general?

 

Strange as it may seem we've been here before and not so long ago either.

But look at the mess scientific consensus on CFCs could have gotten us into:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

 

I am not clear why CRU should have a problem with the MWP that isn't the same problem shared with all researchers. In that the evidence for it is not as uniform as it was earlier thought to be and that the evidence for the little ice age globally is even more flimsy globally.

 

It has always however been acknowledged and current thinking on the topic reflected in each of the IPCC reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

 

I think this New Scientist article sums up current thinking on the WMP and little ice age fairly well and discusses some of the causes.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645

 

See also the relevant page from the IPCC report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.2.html

 

Confidence in the predictions is discussed here:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html