Global Warming? Apparently Not in Greenland
-
The 1950s saw the hottest Greenland in about 800 years and it is colder now than the 50s. Greenland during the Midevil Warm Period had periods warmer than any other recorded era. In the 1950s temperatures in Greenland approached those of the MWP but Greenland has been** colder ever since.*
So if the temperature is lower and the glaciers are melting anyway that would support my claim that soot, not CO2, is driving the meltdown.
*Kobashi, T., J.P. Severinghaus, J.-M. Barnola, K. Kawamura, T. Carter, and T. Nakaegawa. 2010. Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Climatic Change, 100, 733–756
** changed from grown HT Zacho
The 1950s saw the hottest Greenland in about 800 years and it is colder now than the 50s. Greenland during the Midevil Warm Period had periods warmer than any other recorded era. In the 1950s temperatures in Greenland approached those of the MWP but Greenland has been** colder ever since.*
So if the temperature is lower and the glaciers are melting anyway that would support my claim that soot, not CO2, is driving the meltdown.
*Kobashi, T., J.P. Severinghaus, J.-M. Barnola, K. Kawamura, T. Carter, and T. Nakaegawa. 2010. Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Climatic Change, 100, 733–756
** changed from grown HT Zacho
posted by Joe G @ 8:56 PM
27 Comments:
At 11:10 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Greenland has grown colder ever since
Not according to your citation:
"The observed temperature record shows multi decadal temperature variation, a rapid warming around 1930, and the warmest decades of the last 200 years around 1940. This is followed by a cooling toward 1980, and a recent warming toward the present".
A recent warming towards the present.
At 11:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Thanks- my bad. I should have said
"Greenland has been colder ever since", which is goes against what global warming claims.
At 11:40 AM,
Joe G said…
I changed it in the OP. Thanks again.
At 8:19 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"So if the temperature is lower and the glaciers are melting anyway that would support my claim that soot, not CO2, is driving the meltdown."
Does your position make any claims that can be examined against data that is yet to come in?
I.E can it be tested?
If so, how and when?
At 8:28 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Does your position make any claims that can be examined against data that is yet to come in?
Dirty glaciers and dirty ice packs will continue to melt even when the temperaure is below freezing.
At 8:40 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Dirty glaciers and dirty ice packs will continue to melt even when the temperaure is below freezing."
That's a very general statement. Can you be a bit more specific?
Which specific glacier will melt how much if the temperature is in what range over what time period? And what do people who don't support your theory predict?
That way, ya see, IOW we can tell who has the best idea of what's going on. What "model" is best, so to speak. Care to step up to the plate?
At 8:46 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
That's a very general statement. Can you be a bit more specific?
That is specific enough- clean up the glaciers, clean up the air.
As for stepping up to the plate my idea is proven. It is a fact that dirty snow/ ice melts faster than clean snow/ ice at the same temperature.
Why are you such a fucking loser?
At 8:50 PM,
Joe G said…
soot and global warming
At 8:51 PM,
Joe G said…
soot and global warming:
"New research from NASA and Columbia University climate scientists shows that more than 25 percent of the increase in average global temperature between 1880 and 2002 may be due to soot contamination of snow and ice worldwide."
anything else, bitch?
At 8:19 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"anything else, bitch?"
Just to note that the phrase "new research" appears in the text you used to support your case.
It's funny how you never support your arguments for ID with quotations that also contain the phrase "new research".
Ya see, IOW that's what science is. Supported by evidence. In this case you have actual scientists working with actual scientific equipment to generate scientific data. Data that can be used by people like you.
Ever think about why that never seems to happen with ID?
At 8:26 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Just to note that the phrase "new research" appears in the text you used to support your case.
It's from 2003, moron.
OM:
It's funny how you never support your arguments for ID with quotations that also contain the phrase "new research".
I support ID with scientific research.
OTOH your position doesn't appear to have anything for support.
OM:
Ya see, IOW that's what science is.
Then you should get started.
OM:
Supported by evidence.
ID is supported by evidence and I have presented quite a bit of that evidence on my blog. And all you can do is choke on it.
At 1:15 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"I have presented quite a bit of that evidence on my blog. "
Publish or perish. Put that evidence where experts can have at it and if it survives then it can be considered seriously.
If on the other hand you are not sure your "evidence" rises to that level then just keep posting it on your blog.
At 1:27 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Put that evidence where experts can have at it and if it survives then it can be considered seriously.
It is there. It is the scientific evidence that ID is based on you moron.
That's the whole point- if we teach biology without your position's metaphysical bullshit ID is the inference students will get.
At 2:58 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"It is the scientific evidence that ID is based on you moron."
Conclusions drawn from others work are all well and good but your tactic appears to be convincing nobody.
So perhaps doing some original work would enable the ID breakthrough it sorely needs?
"That's the whole point- if we teach biology without your position's metaphysical bullshit ID is the inference students will get."
Can you point to a specific page in any well known biology textbook that has "my position's metaphysical bullshit" on it so I can find out what that means?
Or are you just making it up, imagining what is there since it was so oh very long since you last looked at such a textbook.
At 4:37 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Conclusions drawn from others work are all well and good but your tactic appears to be convincing nobody.
But you don't have any work to draw from.
OM:
So perhaps doing some original work would enable the ID breakthrough it sorely needs?
Where is your position's original work?
And ID has enough to convince long-time atheist Anthony Flew. That means he thought your position is total bullshit.
At 4:44 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Can you point to a specific page in any well known biology textbook that has "my position's metaphysical bullshit" on it so I can find out what that means?
Any book that has natural selection and random variation, random genetic drift, etc as the drivers/ processes of evolution.
At 6:36 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Any book that has natural selection and random variation, random genetic drift, etc as the drivers/ processes of evolution."
And that promotes the idea that there is no god how exactly?
At 7:25 PM,
Joe G said…
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
---
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.
----
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
--------
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.'
From here
Dawkins agrees.
At 7:29 PM,
Joe G said…
OK so fucktard gets his lunch handed to him on global warming and soot, chokes on it and then tries distraction for damage control.
Same tactic, different tard.
At 6:53 AM,
Joe G said…
OM-
I deleted your off-topic comment.
If you cannot stay on-topic and cannot support your position then perhaps you should return to and stay at the swamp of addled tards behaving cowardly.
It is obvious that you don't have anything to add...
At 8:47 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"I deleted your off-topic comment."
Typical IDer.
At 11:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Ogre MKV deleted my on-topic comments- what does that make him?
My blog- my rules, and my rules are simple- stay on-topic and defend your position. You don't seem to be able to do either of those- typical evotard coward.
At 9:43 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Ogre MKV deleted my on-topic comments- what does that make him?"
A scientist.
At 9:53 AM,
Joe G said…
Ogre MKV deleted my on-topic comments- what does that make him?
OM:
A scientist.
Yet he has proven to be scientifically illiterate- just like you.
At 5:37 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Yet he has proven to be scientifically illiterate- just like you.
Who is teaching at a university and who is sitting in a basement waiting for people to comment on their blog.
Hint: You are in the basement right now!
At 6:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Umm I am not in a basement and Ogre obviously doesn't teach science. And you are still a moron.
At 2:23 PM,
Eocene said…
You might find this amusing. Though the subject of climate change is an interesting one for me, this subject thread over at the "Bookworm Room" and the several posters trying to figure out what the local Prussian Kaiser was trying to say without getting caught up in all that stupid netherworld lingo and definition shell games he is prone to use when side-stepping answering real world questions. Seems they and countless others are confused and perplexed by this incessant and diliberately annoying use of speaking in the 3rd person which as most people know is a diliberate attempt by a self-promoting sock-puppet intellect to elevate themselves above their perceived debate opponants as opposed to just normal folks having an interesting discussion.
Try this link for entertainment:
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2011/01/11/kind-of-like-al-gore/
Post a Comment
<< Home