Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/09/2010 1:44:03 PM PDT by SloopJohnB
[Snip]...Why all these concerted efforts? Very simple, the very existence of the medieval warming period (not to speak of the Roman Warming Period), made mockery of their Global Warming Hysteria.
How can you blame the humans for this when the temperature was much higher and have risen faster during this medieval period. So it officially “disappeared”.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailybayonet.com ...
The site has a wealth of information for you Globaloney Warming fans.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Possibly pingable.
“(not to speak of the Roman Warming Period”
I blame the extra farting horses those four wheeled chariots required.
We’re not going to die? Dang! I just sold the Buick...
The last 10,000 years has been remarkably steady and no sign of breaking in either direction.
Their conclusions are based upon extrapolations out to 3310 data points from 2 or possibly 3 observeable, recorded real time-acquired data points going back at most 50 years.
The global warming premise is complete baloney, but one cannot assume that because one can observe ice depth accumulation over 50 years that the mass of ice which exists goes back 422,700 years.
Far too many unscientific assumptions.
The first time a party of men spent a winter season on Antarctica was the year 1821. No one was doing any scientific measurement of ice thickness depths then, and if they did certainly not in support of any of the 4 papers to be published 175 years later. Antarctica wasn't even fully determined to be a continent until 1840.
Still even if all the custody of data were perfectly preserved and fit the mode of interpretation of data and experimental control such as was published, one has at best 8-9 data points.
One cannot credibly, nor scientifically extrapolate any meaning from these core samples, because outside of observed science, no one can credibly account for the history of an artifact without knowing the custody of that artifact.
A scientist may credibly say that Antarctica has added 3 meters of ice in 50 years. It has been observed and recorded over that time.
No scientist can stand there and say that on the basis of 50 years' observation that 3310 meters of ice on Antarctica was added at a rate of 1 meter per year.
Global warming is baloney, but the data interpretation these 2 publication sources make unfortunately must be subjected to skewering for its equal level of cluelessness.
FReegards!
Headline: 422,700 Years of Canine Temperature Data has been obtained by a Russian Scientist Imbibing Absolut Vodka with an Ice Cube in a Study Involving Dogs on the Volga [data is in Dog Years]
“No scientist can stand there and say that on the basis of 50 years’ observation that 3310 meters of ice on Antarctica was added at a rate of 1 meter per year.”
Nor is any scientist saying that, as far as I can see. You have set up a straw man and knocked him down.
Did they have SUVs in ancient Rome? Didn’t Nero and Cesear and the boys all drive Hummers?
So you're saying the data source for the graphs provided by (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) in my link actually came from there?
How about “Inaugural” instead of “1st annual” for the Freeper Tea Party announcement?
It's clear you didn't even bother to look at any of the data links.
No surprise to anyone that you didn't see anything.
The Antarctic ice core data now goes back 800,000 years - same story as the first 422,000 years.
Reasonably reliable CO2 and temperature estimates go back 570 million years and more. No climate model with 3.0C per doubling of CO2 built in could match the temperature record (800,000 years or 570 million years) except in a few very short periods of time.
Agamemnon replied:
It's clear you didn't even bother to look at any of the data links.
No surprise to anyone that you didn't see anything.
marktwain replies:
From your link on post 16, the first meter of ice was deposited in 17 years, the 10th meter took 21 years, the 20th meter took 24 years, the 30th meter took 31 years, the 40th meter took 31 years, the 50th meter took 34 years, and the 100th meter took 44 years.
Thus, I conclude that your statement from post 11;
“No scientist can stand there and say that on the basis of 50 years’ observation that 3310 meters of ice on Antarctica was added at a rate of 1 meter per year.”, is a strawman, because the scientists in the article are not saying what you attributed to them.
As anyone will recognize that attended the 1st Annual Free Republic Tea Party Convention in Arligton, VA Sept 11-13, 2009, what I have reproduced as my standard posting signature block is my ID tag from that event, minus my personal name, and showing only my FR screen name.
The 1st (i.e., "inaugural") Tea Party coincided with the 9-12 March on Washington.
FReegards!
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.