A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm


The concept of the Medieval warm period is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off.

In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed.

Funny hey, is it not the same as today where global warming is primarily in the north and the south is gaining ice extent and ice gain.

What you post does not really prove anything.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm The concept of the Medieval warm period is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off. In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed.

Very interesting.

A few deniers will now have to find new lies, new lines of bullsh1t.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 12:55pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:00am: A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm The concept of the Medieval warm period is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off. In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed. Very interesting. A few deniers will now have to find new lies, new lines of bullsh1t.

Whats this at the very beginning

Glaciers usually advance during cold times and recede during warm ones. These two in western Greenland are now retreating from where they may have been when the Vikings arrived.

Oh deary me. Another fail by AGW loons.

Study shows they are still trying to erase the ‘Medieval Warm Period’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/study-shows-they-are-still-trying-to-erase-the-medieval-warm-period/

This paper makes it a bit awkward wouldn't you agree  ;D


Quote:

Conclusions The insect faunas, Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera and ectoparasites, recovered from the bishop’s farm in Gardar provide an interesting insight into the environmental history of the area. Although the samples were recovered from outside the immedi- ate environs of the farm, they indicate a mixture of synanthropic and natural faunas. During the Norse period, the natural faunas are dominated by aquatic invertebrates. In particular the wealth of the caddis flies has provided the opportunity for the first study of Trichoptera from a North Atlantic context. The synanthropic assem- blages are typical of faunas associated with the interiors of Norse farm houses and their residents. The combination of an extensive wetland and grassland insect fauna with species which must derive from the artificially warm habitats provided by the farm and its outbuildings, taken with the archaeological evidence, combine to indicate an integrated system of manuring and irrigation in order to increase yields in the extensive hayfields which surrounded the cathedral farm at Garðar during the medieval period. The abrupt nature of the contact at the base of the stratigraphic succession suggests the removal of the previous soil surface, perhaps as turves for fuel and construction. It is suggested that the exten- sive landscape modification which allowed this process to be carried out reflects the arrival of the first bishop, Arnald, in 1126, who with previous experience in Norway, was able to organize labour to construct ditches and carry farmyard and domes- tic waste out onto the fields. The change in the nature of organic accumula- tion and changes in the insect faunas in the upper part of the sequence are consistent with the aban- donment of the Norse farms in the late medieval period. The landscape then became an extensive wetland. Acknowledgements Fieldwork in Greenland formed part of projects funded by the Leverhulme Trust (UK) by a grant to Professor K.J. Edwards, University of Aberdeen, Professor A.J. Dugmore and Dr Eva Panagiotako- pulu, University of Edinburgh, and Professor I.A. Simpson, University of Stirling. The authors are grateful for the comments of Kevin Edwards and Ed Schofield, with whom the original field- work was carried out, and to Jette Arneborg and Guðmundur Ólafsson for much interesting discus- sion. Anastasios Panagiotakopoulos is thanked for drawing the map and site plan, and Laura Evans for sorting the samples. Thanks are also due to the farmer at Igaliku, Klaus Egede and to Georg Nye- gaard, then Curator of the museum at Narsaq, for facilitating the research

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234039939_Irrigation_and_manuring_in_medieval_Greenland

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 12:35pm:

Funny hey, is it not the same as today where global warming is primarily in the north and the south is gaining ice extent and ice gain. What you post does not really prove anything.

The south is getting warmer: the north just gets warmer than the south!

Can the Vikings please teach us how to grow barley in the present day Greenland. Thanks in advanced

https://ancientfoods.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/viking-barley-in-greenland/

Thank you to all the real climate know how of the WUWT people, otherwise we would all be like the brain dead indoctrinated AGW loons.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 1:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 12:35pm: Funny hey, is it not the same as today where global warming is primarily in the north and the south is gaining ice extent and ice gain. What you post does not really prove anything. The south is getting warmer: the north just gets warmer than the south!

Not true at all.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

Not true at all.

Well, you called it. So it must be true.

Marla wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 1:37pm: Not true at all. Well, you called it. So it must be true.

Equally evidenced so whats your issue.

Um, the December 2015 of Mojo?
http://freemags.cc/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1231640-425x600.jpg

I did buy Costello's book. Quite a good read.

Marla wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:29pm:

Um, the December 2015 of Mojo? http://freemags.cc/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/1231640-425x600.jpg I did buy Costello's book. Quite a good read.

I wouldn't doubt you did buy it. So I have not corresponding equal evidence against it.

And all this time the planet is getting warmer.

Marla wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:34pm:

And all this time the planet is getting warmer.

All what time?

Why this time.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 1:17pm:

Study shows they are still trying to erase the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/study-shows-they-are-still-trying-to-erase-the-medieval-warm-period/

When someone quotes the Wattsup denialist site they have ni good argument!

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 1:17pm: Study shows they are still trying to erase the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/study-shows-they-are-still-trying-to-erase-the-medieval-warm-period/ When someone quotes the Wattsup denialist site they have ni good argument!

Because you are too dumb to look at the links to scientific papers. I get it. Ill try to dumb it down for you. Just you so you feel special, because you are spetchool.

WattsUp gets debunked and refuted countless times. Only denialists use it. And the intellectually challenged.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

When someone quotes the Wattsup denialist site they have ni good argument!

Which is funded by you know who:
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/home/205/kochbrothers.jpg

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:55pm:

WattsUp gets debunked and refuted countless times. Only denialists use it. And the intellectually challenged.

You should really wait for me to dumb it down for you so you don't say the scientific papers have been debunked, out of turn.

Wait there buddy, I know your keen, but you need to wait. Can you do that for me.... ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

Because you are too dumb to look at the links to scientific papers.

There is no link on the page.  If anyone is interested, the paper is here

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full

Go nuts folks.

'But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm

So by the layout of a few traces of moraines, they could tell, without any type of dating, that they pre-dated the Little Ice Age?

"Look, look - a trace of a moraine and I can tell by the layout it pre-dates the LIA."

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

So by the layout of a few traces of moraines, they could tell, without any type of dating, that they pre-dated the Little Ice Age?

Congratulations on not even getting through the abstract Lee


Quote:

We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

'But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm So by the layout of a few traces of moraines, they could tell, without any type of dating, that they pre-dated the Little Ice Age? "Look, look - a trace of a moraine and I can tell by the layout it pre-dates the LIA."

I think it has a lot to do with the word and fail of "MAY". They have no clue, but MAY have or as we all know the fail of may not have.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

They have no clue, but MAY have or as we all know the fail of may not have.

Have you read the scientific paper the article is talking about?

On a century scale resolution?

And of course they ignore Antarctic ice cores, New Zealand proof, Chile, Peru, Japan, and China.

Is Greenland not a part of Europe? Didn't Europe have an MWP?

So one paper can demolish the MWP? Back on your medication.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

So one paper can demolish the MWP?

woah woah, I never said this.  Neither did the paper (which you obviously haven't read yet)

My issue is that you've already jumped to your own conclusion of


lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

they could tell, without any type of dating, that they pre-dated the Little Ice Age?

When if you had looked sideways at the paper out of a moving vehicle you would have realised that was a naughty fib.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances.

They could tell, by their layout, that they pre-dated the LIA. Before any testing.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

They could tell, by their layout, that they pre-dated the LIA. Before any testing.

That phrase doesn't appear in the scientific paper.  Maybe you should read it?

Besides, you still said there was no dating done, when there was.  You were wrong on that one, and shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 4:01pm:

lee wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 3:57pm: They could tell, by their layout, that they pre-dated the LIA. Before any testing. That phrase doesn't appear in the scientific paper.  Maybe you should read it? Besides, you still said there was no dating done, when there was.  You were wrong on that one, and shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

Are you sure about that Stratos???

"But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances."

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 4:09pm:

Are you sure about that Stratos???

100% sure.  That's not from the scientific paper.   The phrasing alone should clue you in that's not a scientific article.

I double checked when Lee posted it the first time.  I linked the paper in a previous post (because the WUWT one didn't actually provide one).

Here it is again, if you wish to check for yourself

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full

'But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances.'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm

That seems to be the paper Watts relied upon. So I guess that's what was said in the interview process.

'Still, archaeologist Thomas McGovern of Hunter College in New York City isn’t convinced. “We can see really clear in the archaeological record that something happened” to the climate around 1250, he says.

For instance, seal bones found around the settlements come from species more associated with sea ice, suggesting especially cold, harsh conditions. And the chemical composition of human bones shows that the Greenlanders were moving away from farming and towards a more marine-based diet—another clue that climate was shifting dramatically.

McGovern and other archaeologists are still investigating what happened to the Norse Greenlanders. They have ruled out migration to Europe, because Europeans at the time would have recorded such an occurrence. Disease is also unlikely.

And while he agrees that factors such as isolation and conflict with the Inuit may all have played a role in the settlers' decline, “the evidence suggests that climate change is very much part of the mix.” '

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-climate-change-make-norse-disappear-greenland-180957454/#S2IxfJXh25MkgmIM.99

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 4:54pm:

That seems to be the paper Watts relied upon

That's not a scientific paper ;D  I've linked it twice now Lee!

Third times the charm.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 4:59pm:

'Still, archaeologist Thomas McGovern of Hunter College in New York City isn’t convinced. “

Oh no ladies and gentlemen, the Great Thomas McGovern from the Supreme Hunter College in NY isnt convinced.

WOW that is certainly a game changer isnt it ladies and gentlemen?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

lee wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 4:59pm: 'Still, archaeologist Thomas McGovern of Hunter College in New York City isn’t convinced. “ Oh no ladies and gentlemen, the Great Thomas McGovern from the Supreme Hunter College in NY isnt convinced. WOW that is certainly a game changer isnt it ladies and gentlemen?

master Chimp knows more than Thomas McGovern.

Then again, it could have been the Press Release from Columbia University -

' But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines—heaps of debris left at glaciers’ ends—that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances. '

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events

Keep digging; you'll eventually get to the other side.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm The concept of the Medieval warm period is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off. In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed.

Exavtly.

This article support that idea - global climate is not global at all.
http://www.campusreview.com.au/2015/11/fossilised-rodent-urine-a-critical-piece-of-climate-history-puzzle/

Bobby. wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 5:23pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 5:08pm: lee wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 4:59pm: 'Still, archaeologist Thomas McGovern of Hunter College in New York City isn’t convinced. “ Oh no ladies and gentlemen, the Great Thomas McGovern from the Supreme Hunter College in NY isnt convinced. WOW that is certainly a game changer isnt it ladies and gentlemen? master Chimp knows more than Thomas McGovern.

Does Thomas McGovern refute the science that underpins AGW and its effects such as climate change, ocean acidification and rising sea levels?

Apologise and remove yourself from these proceedings if you can Jethro - if your chain is long enough

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:08pm:

Then again, it could have been the Press Release from Columbia University - ' But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines—heaps of debris left at glaciers’ ends—that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances. ' http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events Keep digging; you'll eventually get to the other side.

I love how you seem to be claiming ome kind of superior knowledge without even reading what the article is discussing.  If you bothered to actually look at the research that has been done, you would possibly be able to see why the layout of the moraines can help you to tell the past climate of the glacier.

But at this stage, I don't expect you to actually care what the science says, you're happy in your own little opinion.  I just wish you would look at the facts regarding this rather than whatever your uninformed opinion has already concluded.


Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

This article support that idea - global climate is not global at all.

I'm not sure why the article mentions global climate at all to be honest, it deals with a very specific geographical area.

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

I just wish you would look at the facts regarding this rather than whatever your uninformed opinion has already concluded.

Headline-
Stratos admits leading tertiary educator lies on the MWP. Makes up statement for Press Release, with no prior knowledge by authors. ;D ;D

edit: 'Study Undercuts Idea That 'Medieval Warm Period' Was Global'

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events

The Great Thomas McGovern ladies and gentlemen

http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg

And now you're onto ridiculous claims I haven't made.

Pretty blatant way to show your argument has nothing to it.  Thanks for playing.

hint: read the scientific literature.

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:30pm:

hint: read the scientific literature.

Read the Press Release put out by the university and repeated in good faith by various outlets.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:27pm:

The Great Thomas McGovern ladies and gentlemen http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg

You got his photo right. 3 cheers.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Stratos wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 7:30pm: hint: read the scientific literature. Read the Press Release put out by the university and repeated in good faith by various outlets.

are you apologising?

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:43pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 7:27pm: The Great Thomas McGovern ladies and gentlemen http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg http://herc.gc.cuny.edu/files/2011/10/image002.jpg You got his photo right. 3 cheers.

thanks mate - I appreciate your support

well done mate.

I see that you have been slaughtered once again in public - this time by an amateur named Stratos.

Have you apologised to him yet mate?

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

Stratos wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 7:30pm: hint: read the scientific literature. Read the Press Release put out by the university and repeated in good faith by various outlets.

I did.  If you bothered to read the article, it actually explains what you are asking, but you haven't, have you?

lol

Yes, yes. The MWP wasn't global. It just occurred in China, New Zealand Antarctica, Europe etc.  Both North and Southern hemisphere. There is no reason there is less evidence in the Southern hemisphere, merely beacause  there is less land mass means nothing.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

Yes, yes. The MWP wasn't global

Generally it appears to have been global, but had different effects over the world, as you would expect. For instance, there is evidence of very long droughts in North America.

Read the article yet?

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

Read the article yet?

I have now. And that sucks. The press release put out by Columbia bears no relation to the findings of the paper.

No mention of global at all. Just Baffin Island and Greenland compared; to show that MWP wasn't complete throughout Europe. Although other studies of grains, fleas, seals etc seem to disagree with the paper.

Why would a University do that? The only reason I can think of is that the authors gave an interview.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

I see that you have been slaughtered once again in public - this time by an amateur named Stratos.

Yes, Set up by a lying University.

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:47pm:

I have now. And that sucks. The press release put out by Columbia bears no relation to the findings of the paper.

hmm, interesting. 


Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

I'm not sure why the article mentions global climate at all to be honest, it deals with a very specific geographical area.

:P

lee wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:49pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 8:30pm: I see that you have been slaughtered once again in public - this time by an amateur named Stratos. Yes, Set up by a lying University.

Universities lie? Or are you referring to the amateur Stratos?

.... apologise and self ban

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 11:58pm:

Universities lie?

Well either the University or whoever gave them the quote for MWP. I don't know. You pick.

Sorry, what is wrong with me. People keep saying scientists and, by extension, Universities have ethics.

I see The Barnacle got taken in by the same piece.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 11:58pm: Universities lie? Sorry, what is wrong with me.

lee mate, I don't know what is wrong with you. My area of expertise is not in psychiatry or cranial surgery.

There is no need to apologise mate.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 11:58pm: Universities lie? Well either the University or whoever gave them the quote for MWP. I don't know. You pick. Sorry, what is wrong with me. People keep saying scientists and, by extension, Universities have ethics. I see The Barnacle got taken in by the same piece.

UWA came to the party when abbotts shill got told very publicly and very nationally that he was a shill and the university eventually decided it's reputation was worth more than a judas's ransom  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, I'm saying there is some hope  ;) ;) ;)

- talk about the politics of science  ::) ::) ::) ::) Hey, live that down you con-artist liberal voters  :) :)

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 3:50pm: They have no clue, but MAY have or as we all know the fail of may not have. Have you read the scientific paper the article is talking about?

progs is an alter-ego called moral support: he helps a few of the tryhard silver spooners on here to get over the memories of daddykins harsh dealings with them and their childhood friends!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

UWA came to the party when abbotts shill got told very publicly and very nationally that he was a shill and the university eventually decided it's reputation was worth more than a judas's ransom

Yes, I remember UWA, once home of Lewandowsky. :D :D :D :D

Lomborg the climate believer; just not an alarmist.

'In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

Only wiki I know; but referenced.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 1:40pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 1:25pm: UWA came to the party when abbotts shill got told very publicly and very nationally that he was a shill and the university eventually decided it's reputation was worth more than a judas's ransom  Yes, I remember UWA, once home of Lewandowsky. :D :D :D :D Lomborg the climate believer; just not an alarmist. 'In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg Only wiki I know; but referenced.

It is quite obvious why the AGW church does not want adaptation. They don't get their power and no money will ever be spent because their will be nothing to adapt to.

Stratos wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 4:09pm: Are you sure about that Stratos??? 100% sure.  That's not from the scientific paper.   The phrasing alone should clue you in that's not a scientific article.

And yet it IS still from the synopsis at 'Sciencedaily.com"...so does that mean that a (fairly) 'reputable' "science" website doesn't proof read their articles??? and allows 'non-scientific' opinions to be published...wouldn't that imply that the writers/reporters haven't got a clue as to the actually tone of the story??

sigh.

Gizmo, read the article before commenting further please.

Lee has already been through what you're saying right now, learn from his gullibility.

Stratos wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 3:56pm:

sigh. Gizmo, read the article before commenting further please. Lee has already been through what you're saying right now, learn from his gullibility.

Which article??? the OP, or the you linked (with all the jargon??).....The 'jargon' version is pretty much 'greek' to most of the people on this forum after all...

And again..why would a 'reputable' scientific website allow a reporter to publish assumptions that were NOT supported by either the article, or the actual author???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

Which article??? the OP, or the you linked (with all the jargon??).

Probably the once I've linked three times so far in this thread.  Yes the scientific paper.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

And again..why would a 'reputable' scientific website allow a reporter to publish assumptions that were NOT supported by either the article, or the actual author???

Look past the title, and you will find a very different depiction of what is actually going on....  You read past the title right?

Stratos wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:00pm: And again..why would a 'reputable' scientific website allow a reporter to publish assumptions that were NOT supported by either the article, or the actual author??? Look past the title, and you will find a very different depiction of what is actually going on....  You read past the title right?

I'm sure he did, BUT the Press Release from the University doesn't match the paper. The question is why?

Stratos wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:00pm: And again..why would a 'reputable' scientific website allow a reporter to publish assumptions that were NOT supported by either the article, or the actual author??? Look past the title, and you will find a very different depiction of what is actually going on....  You read past the title right?

Sure, I read the entire "ScienceDaily.com" article...and the whole article from "The Earth Institute at Columbia Unsiversity"...

Which DID include the comment about "But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advance"....

Which is what you seem to be claiming was never said...

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

lee wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 1:40pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 1:25pm: UWA came to the party when abbotts shill got told very publicly and very nationally that he was a shill and the university eventually decided it's reputation was worth more than a judas's ransom  Yes, I remember UWA, once home of Lewandowsky. :D :D :D :D Lomborg the climate believer; just not an alarmist. 'In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg Only wiki I know; but referenced. It is quite obvious why the AGW church does not want adaptation. They don't get their power and no money will ever be spent because their will be nothing to adapt to.

says progs who wants fossil fuels to be allowed to warm our childrens earth by 3 degrees instead of 2 because he/she/it represents foreign investors from the planet called accountant  :D :D :D :D :D

Go false profits  ;D ;D ;D ;D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:22pm:

Which DID include the comment about "But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advance".

No, the scientific paper did not.  Show me where  and prove me wrong in ten seconds.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full

Besides, based on the research, that is what it seems to indicate.  This doesn't negate the medieval warm period, it just shows that it's effects were not consistent.  This should surprise nobody.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm The concept of the Medieval warm period is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off. In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed.

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Stratos wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:28pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:22pm: Which DID include the comment about "But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advance". No, the scientific paper did not.  Show me where  and prove me wrong in ten seconds. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full Besides, based on the research, that is what it seems to indicate.  This doesn't negate the medieval warm period, it just shows that it's effects were not consistent.  This should surprise nobody.

No the science paper did not. BUT the Press Release did. Why is that?

A simple question. No need to go round the mulberry bush again with the science paper. We're talking about the Press Release. Something you seem to steadfastly ignore.

Ajax wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:50pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:00am: A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm The concept of the Medieval warm period is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off. In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed. Medieval warm period warmer than today. Dahl_Jensen et al 1998 Wagner & Melles 2001 Kaplan et al 2002 Jiang et al 2002 Moore et al 2001 Grudd et al 2002 Seppa & Birks 2002 Dansgaard et al 1975 Korhola et al 2000 Naurzbaev et al 2002 Vaganov et el 1996 Briffa et al 1998 Scweingruber & Briffa 1996 Knudsen et al 2004 Grinsted et al 2006 Besonen et al 2008 Wagner et al 2008 Vare et al 2009 Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009 Andresen et al 2004 Vinther et al 2010 Kobashi et al 2010 Kobashi et al 2008 Stuiver et al 1995 Dansgaard et al 1975 Jenings & Weiner 1996 Johnsen et al 2001 Vinther et al 2010 Larsen et al 2011 Hill et al 2001 Joynt & Wolfe 2001 Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002 Andersson et al 2003 Helama et al 2005 Mazepa 2005 Weckstrom et al 2006 Jiang et al 2007 Zabenski & Gajewski 2007 Grudd 2008 Justwan et al 2008 Scire et al 2008 Axford et al 2009 Bjune et al 2009 Cook et al 2009 Fortin & Gajewski 2010 Buntgen et al 2011 Divine et al 2011 Ran et al 2011 Velle et al 2011 D’Andrea et al 2012 Esper et al 2012

Your list is not long enough to counter one AGW supporting paper.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Your list is not long enough to counter one AGW supporting paper.

The paper you obviously still haven't read, which only covers one particular geographic area, and has nothing to do with global climate?

That one? ::) ::)

edit:  also, don't even pretend you've even looked up those papers, either of you.  I'd be amazed if you hadn't copy pasted of someone else who probably hasn't bothered to check them either.

Stratos wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:22pm:

The paper you obviously still haven't read, which only covers one particular geographic area, and has nothing to do with global climate? That one? Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

The paper that has a bogus press release?

this paper -
'For the western Greenland samples, the 1σ analytical error ranged from 3.6 to 13.1%, with an average of 7.7%. Sample 10Be concentrations ranged from ~5000 to 8200 10Be atoms g−1, and the overall batch-specific blank corrections ranged from ~3.5 to 28.4%, with an average of 14.1% (tables S1 and S2).'

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806.full

That paper?