[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Since when does amazon.com count as peer review? </rimshot>

When they got in the book selling biz I suppose. Humor aside, a cursory glance shows at least 12 books for sale on peer review alone.

Seriously though, by all that I can tell, Wallace O. Sellers is a Natural Gas company executive, the Hudson Institute is one of the leading conservative think tanks with a pro-industry anti-environment agenda, and this document for sale at amazon is just a way to rile up their loyal conservative base and make a buck off them at the same time.

Certainly this point has merit, but the fact remains that the study itself did not contract those from any corporations. This is an examination of peer-reviewed material that, at its very core challenges many of the suppositions regarding man's contribution to warming. I've already indicated in the prior posts how fallacious the "consensus" notion is on this issue and it has a lot to do with what you say in your last statement below...

I'd be happy to see some of these examples of peer-reviewed studies challenging "man-made" hype, but I'm certainly not going to pay Wallace O. Sellers for the list. Is there any indication this list is real, or references to any of the papers on it?

I suspect if the list will come under scrutiny, it'd be those cited in the list most offended by their name appearing. Some time should tell. It is my understanding that the list is simply a compilation of those scientists who've published peer-reviewed data illustrating a much more logical, well-rounded summary of all contributing factors. More to the point below...

ebuddy, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that often times the language of actual scientific discoveries is much more tame and reserved than the language of those partisan characters who try to include it in lists that supposedly support their cause...

Absolutely. We both know that everyone's got an iron in the fire for any one of a number of interests not exclusive to those of the oil industry. While I've not read this book, it's entirely plausible little tidbits like GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS DEBUNKED are inside, but if it can be illustrated by one side that there is much peer-reviewed data suggesting more major contributing factors to warming are being conveniently ignored by the other side; you still have fruitful discourse regarding the subject itself. While the connections to corporate interests should not be ignored, neither should the data itself if it has integrity. The book is not challenging whether or not our climate is warming, it is challenging the "consensus" chest-pounding prevalent in conversations of warming. I've often been extremely skeptical of this argument and find the study intriguing, but also am not willing to throw the money down just yet. I'm looking to get my hands on that list and I'd like to read some of the other material those scientists published for a stare and compare to see if they jive.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I know it. I would be truly happy to see a long list as this book describes, of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies downplaying the threat of global warming (as I would to see evidence downplaying any threat; threats are bad). But I'm having a hard time believing this one, and I'll tell you why.

It could be that Wallace O. Sellers is right, and that the scientific community has been pushing these papers under the carpet because they're embarrassed for backing the wrong horse all these years. Or it could be that Wallace O. Sellers is wrong, and his interpretation of 500 papers is overly biased by his own backing of the wrong horse all these years, mixed with the usual deception and greed we see so tediously often from the various dino fuel industries. Or it could be someplace in between. But honestly the fact that he wants you to pay just to see the list strongly suggests that it's the latter, not the former. 1, he already has a known interest in debunking global warming. If this list was so convincing, he'd want everyone to see it. He'd be shouting it from the mountaintops. If he wanted to only preach to the converted, charging $20 just for the list is the perfect way to do that. 2, Publishing the list freely would be the good-faith thing to do. He can still sell his commentary and analysis if he wants to make money off it too, but the fact that he would forgo the good-faith thing to do and instead try to make some quick cash up front calls his honesty into question, big time. 3, It's just all too cliché. Boy who cried wolf and all that, except now you have to pony up some cash just to hear the cry? Please.

Like I said before, peer review gives the "concensus" (such as it is) the benefit of the doubt. *Claiming* to have peer review support but refusing to show it (and trying to sell it!), is still subject to doubt; in fact it's a reason to doubt in and of itself. Again, I want to see the list, and I want it to be legit, but I _doubt_ it is in this case.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Seriously though, by all that I can tell, Wallace O. Sellers is a Natural Gas company executive, the Hudson Institute is one of the leading conservative think tanks with a pro-industry anti-environment agenda, and this document for sale at amazon is just a way to rile up their loyal conservative base and make a buck off them at the same time.

I'd be happy to see some of these examples of peer-reviewed studies challenging "man-made" hype, but I'm certainly not going to pay Wallace O. Sellers for the list. Is there any indication this list is real, or references to any of the papers on it?

See, ebuddy, this is why the Iraq comparison is valid. Fools who can't judge sources use the same low standards in all their decisions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

See, ebuddy, this is why the Iraq comparison is valid. Fools who can't judge sources use the same low standards in all their decisions.

Of course you realize that Uncle Skeleton and I are essentially in agreement that we're not dropping any money down on this book and uh... Iraq still has nothing to do with Global Warming tie. Not even on page 18.

Please respond to me after you've read my post. Thanx.

[ebuddy]

The full text (pdf) of the study's abstract and a partial list of the scientists available here;
Unstoppable Global Warming

Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles have since been found in seabed and lake sediments, ancient tree rings, boreholes, cave stalagmites, glacier movements, and archeological artifacts all over the world. We rejoice that their work is now supported by hundreds of peer-reviewed research reports, with more than 1,000 authors and co-authors, from research institutions around the world.

This partial listing is derived primarily from the citations in our book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years. As the time of our small staff permits, we will publish additional studies and their authors to support the very important view that the Modern Warming is natural and no more dangerous than were the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming and the Holocene Warming before it.

Quick to defend an inept messenger when he happens to agree, quick to attack the messenger when he does not.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;
5) Fewer humans death are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the earth is always warming or cooling;

I haven't read the entirety of your link and with my current workload I'm unfortunately not likely to, but I have some grave reservations just based on the given list at the beginning. Essentially, it seems like a catch-all denounciation of the most visible environmental issues of our day.

Furthermore, I have not seen any evidence at all to indicate that the first one I quoted (#4) is correct. My undergrad was in biology, focusing on environmental biology and ecology, and I have read nothing which indicates that a significant portion of our wild species isn't declining. This is even moreso true if you consider truly "wild" species, and not species which have thrived as a result of human prescence (eg. some types of birds, rats, some ungulates like deer, yadda yadda). For example, if you consider large mammals, I don't think there is any question that they have seen a precipitous drop-off in numbers and range. Finally, the statement that they are "increasing the biodiversity of our wildlife" is so ambiguous as to be deliberately misleading. What does it even mean?!? I know of no scientific body that feels that current wildlife diversity is in fact increasing over most regions.

Finally, the fifth statement is similarly ambiguous and almost laughable when you consider it logically. How exactly is cold "far more dangerous than heat"? This statement seems absurd. Both are equally dangerous in their respective ways. If one imagines an average temperature of a region as 20 degrees C, variations +- 20 degrees would put you at 0 and 40 degrees C, both of which are enough to cause "danger" in any number of measures. One could even argue that cold is in fact more dangerous than heat, since humans have provided clothing and shelter and fire against cold for thousands of years, and yet methods of "cooling off" are far more difficult to obtain. (This is by no means one-sided; the argument can flow the opposite way, but it's just one example.)

My initial prognosis based on this quick look is that the article is ill-prepared and unprofessional. From that flows an unlikelyhood of it having gone through any peer review process. Has it been published in any sort of scientific journal? I do not have time to follow the entire thread, so please let me know where it's from. Thanks....

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Greg, your argument from personal authority is no more valid than Kosh's argument from an unnamed authority. If you're really qualified to make those judgements, though, it should be easy for you to marshal some evidence to support your intuitions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

My initial prognosis based on this quick look is that the article is ill-prepared and unprofessional. From that flows an unlikelyhood of it having gone through any peer review process. Has it been published in any sort of scientific journal? I do not have time to follow the entire thread, so please let me know where it's from. Thanks....

greg

A. I told you where it's from.
B. If you admittedly don't have time to read a link which details all works included therein as well as book titles and page numbers of the peer-reviewed studies cited, what's the purpose in asking for their source?
C. The study is a compilation of peer-reviewed works that, at their core, challenge the degree of and in some cases any reference to anthropogenic warming.

D. Your prognosis doesn't really matter. The study is what it is. If you're interested, you'll make time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

C. The study is a compilation of peer-reviewed works that, at their core, challenge the degree of and in some cases any reference to anthropogenic warming.

That's not really a fair description. What this compilation is of seems to be peer-reviewed works that, *in Wallace O. Sellers' opinion*, make findings which are opposed to his understanding of anthropogenic warming. Having perused the titles but gone no further, it seems that he is just trying to build evidence that "similar" warming has occured in the past, that "similar" warmings have been due to solar irradience, and that "similar" warmings have been better rather than worse as far as human prosperity. I don't see any indication he's making an effort to demonstrate that the current warming actually is related to previous warmings. Again, based just on the titles. But none of the titles seem to be about anything which explicitly refutes any claims about warming being anthropogenic. In other words, even if he is able to draw some bigger picture out of these articles that everyone else has missed (which remains to be seen), I don't see this compilation as evidence against a concensus, as none of these papers seem to intentionally refute the concensus position.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's not really a fair description. What this compilation is of seems to be peer-reviewed works that, *in Wallace O. Sellers' opinion*, make findings which are opposed to his understanding of anthropogenic warming. Having perused the titles but gone no further, it seems that he is just trying to build evidence that "similar" warming has occured in the past, that "similar" warmings have been due to solar irradience, and that "similar" warmings have been better rather than worse as far as human prosperity. I don't see any indication he's making an effort to demonstrate that the current warming actually is related to previous warmings.

The study seems to center around the Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles discovery from the 80's and the subsequent peer-reviewed data showing in fact how this cycle applies to what we're seeing now. If you can show thousands of years of unstable climate due to various natural means that seem also to apply to what we witness today, this leaves little need for attributing the lions' share of today's warming to mankind and mandate massive change in policy. If there have been multiple warming/cooling events throughout all of history, why extrapolate that man must be the primary cause today? I think the debate itself has been hijacked to a degree and I'll show you what I mean below...

Again, based just on the titles. But none of the titles seem to be about anything which explicitly refutes any claims about warming being anthropogenic. In other words, even if he is able to draw some bigger picture out of these articles that everyone else has missed (which remains to be seen), I don't see this compilation as evidence against a consensus, as none of these papers seem to intentionally refute the consensus position.

This, IMO is the hijacking; If you insist on seeing peer-reviewed articles that expressly oppose anthropogenic warming, you won't see it. So far as I can tell, this would not be effective science for a host of reasons. The way to indicate the true nature of warming isn't necessarily to claim unequivocally what you believe it isn't and risk further publication, peer review, and alienate a substantial chunk of climate scientists, but to show what you believe it is. For example;

- “North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep
Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity

- “Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr
ice-core record,” Nature 364

- “A 150,000-Year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice," Nature

- “Climatic Variability in the Eastern U.S. over the past Millennium from
Chesapeake Bay Sediments", Geology, Vol. 28, p 3-6, 2000

There are many more scientists involved in studying the above anomaly than have been suggested form the consensus for anthropogenic warming. So far as I can tell from a cursory glance, their focus from the titles I'm reading center on what they believe this issue is; cyclical climate change and the evidences thereof. Again, as with any subject of discussion presupposition applies. If your criteria is adversarial statements of certainty, you're likely looking for an article claiming "Anthropogenic Warming Debunked" and if you do in fact find it, you've likely not found it in a peer-reviewed science journal.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Greg, your argument from personal authority is no more valid than Kosh's argument from an unnamed authority. If you're really qualified to make those judgements, though, it should be easy for you to marshal some evidence to support your intuitions.

*sigh*

Unfortunately, as you know, the general nature of the statements made means it would take hours and hours of digging through online databases in order to come up with anything approaching a decent list of rebutting papers. I'd like to say I'll be able to do that in the next week, but as you know I generally don't follow through on my promises - I've got about 200 pages of reading to do for this week alone plus a small assignment, and I don't even have my own computer as of yet so internet access is sporadic at best! I've also let my subscription to Science expire since I won't be needing it as much, and I've switched schools so I don't exactly know how the online databases work here.

Bottom line is, I don't see how the few articles I saw listed really change the nature of climate science. Notwithstanding the fact that a significant number of them seem to be quite old, and therefore have certainly already been addressed, the titles don't seem to invalidate current science. For example, eBuddy just listed

Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record

A 150,000-Year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice

Climatic Variability in the Eastern U.S. over the past Millennium from Chesapeake Bay Sediments

which, as I'm sure you appreciate, are hardly new papers (22, 16, and 7 years old; our knowledge of past climatic instability now runs far beyond those numbers). That past climates have been unstable is a core doctrine of climate science, not anything "new" or "challenging."

Furthermore, as I said, the paper "looks" patently unprofessional. Is there any structural regularity in ordering the listed papers anyone else can see? It's not by date, or alphabetically as is custom. Little things like that make me sure it's not peer-reviewed.

EDIT: FOUND THE EARLIER DISCUSSION. WALLACE SELLERS AND THE HUDSON INSTITUTE? FOR SALE ONLINE. MY MIRTH KNOWS NO BOUNDS. NO WONDER EBUDDY WAS SO EVASIVE.

Regarding the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, I have seen some debate over their remarkable regularity (I think it was slightly less than 1500 years or something), but as far as I knew they haven't applied to temperature variations since the last ice age or thereabouts. I'll do my best to try and find out where I got that, and maybe update my knowledge a little.

. I told you where it's from.
B. If you admittedly don't have time to read a link which details all works included therein as well as book titles and page numbers of the peer-reviewed studies cited, what's the purpose in asking for their source?
C. The study is a compilation of peer-reviewed works that, at their core, challenge the degree of and in some cases any reference to anthropogenic warming.

A. Sorry, I don't really have the time to follow this thread from the last time I left off. Your posted link included a little blurb which didn't indicate at all where it was from, and I didn't see anything else in my quick scan of few posts before that. My previous observations and the fact that you suspiciously won't tell me where it's from makes me almost sure it's some internet-linked anti-global-warming site. Correct me if I'm wrong?!

B. Laughable at best. I suppose another misdirection while avoiding telling me the awful truth?

C. I would be shocked if such a large number of studies from the 80s and 90s just suddenly up and challenged anthropogenic warming. On a similar note, your statement

If you can show thousands of years of unstable climate due to various natural means that seem also to apply to what we witness today, this leaves little need for attributing the lions' share of today's warming to mankind and mandate massive change in policy. If there have been multiple warming/cooling events throughout all of history, why extrapolate that man must be the primary cause today?

completely ignores the point that if those past "natural means" don't apply today, then we have an issue, hmmm? Thus if we can show that past cyclical climate has been linked to things like solar cycles, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, CO2 variations and the like...then why shouldn't man be the primary cause today if we can show that we have significantly disrupted CO2 levels, and that solar and Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are no longer applicable to today's climate?!?

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you can show thousands of years of unstable climate due to various natural means that seem also to apply to what we witness today, this leaves little need for attributing the lions' share of today's warming to mankind and mandate massive change in policy.

It does if those natural means (like releasing CO2 for example) are something that humans are doing right now. If we can identify and quantify a mechanism of how something we know we're doing is capable of creating warming, especially if we can see that same mechanism has caused past warmings, why shouldn't we try to stop it?

This, IMO is the hijacking; If you insist on seeing peer-reviewed articles that expressly oppose anthropogenic warming, you won't see it.

Why not? There are peer-reviewed studies that expressly support the warming theory, why wouldn't there be ones that expressly oppose it?

The way to indicate the true nature of warming isn't necessarily to claim unequivocally what you believe it isn't

And rightly so. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about evidence. If you have evidence to support your conclusions, whatever they are, you'll do just fine.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Little things like that make me sure it's not peer-reviewed.

Not being peer-reviewed doesn't make it wrong. IMO we can't judge this piece one way or the other until we see it. It's possible to take data from peer-reviewed studies and integrate it into a larger picture. Without peer-review, it's harder to tell whether the data was properly weighted, or whether they are comparing like with like (harder, but not impossible). Many of those references are only about local events; local fluctuations in different places don't mean anything unless they all coincide.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Not being peer-reviewed doesn't make it wrong. IMO we can't judge this piece one way or the other until we see it. It's possible to take data from peer-reviewed studies and integrate it into a larger picture. Without peer-review, it's harder to tell whether the data was properly weighted, or whether they are comparing like with like (harder, but not impossible). Many of those references are only about local events; local fluctuations in different places don't mean anything unless they all coincide.

Agreed, of course. I'm not arguing the validity of the paper based purely on its peer review status; I just think that in today's internet-democracy world where people can find anyone saying anything, discussing scientific ideas without a shred of background evidence on the author(s), or cross-referencing by other people in that field, seems highly illogical. When an informed but non-expert person like myself can immediately point out seeming inconsistencies or errors after a quick scan, then red flags have to go up.

Still working on the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, we'll see how it goes....

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

What inconsistencies and errors? All I see you've said is that the papers are more than 6 years old.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

which, as I'm sure you appreciate, are hardly new papers (22, 16, and 7 years old; our knowledge of past climatic instability now runs far beyond those numbers). That past climates have been unstable is a core doctrine of climate science, not anything "new" or "challenging."

Exactly as the study seems to suggest. I'd also like to know how your last sentence here does not entirely contradict your first sentence in this statement.

Furthermore, as I said, the paper "looks" patently unprofessional. Is there any structural regularity in ordering the listed papers anyone else can see? It's not by date, or alphabetically as is custom. Little things like that make me sure it's not peer-reviewed.

The study itself is likely not peer-reviewed, but I'd be willing to bet if there are any names at all included in the study that the scientists themselves don't want to see there, it'll be peer-reviewed real quick as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

EDIT: FOUND THE EARLIER DISCUSSION. WALLACE SELLERS AND THE HUDSON INSTITUTE? FOR SALE ONLINE. MY MIRTH KNOWS NO BOUNDS. NO WONDER EBUDDY WAS SO EVASIVE.

I wasn't being evasive at all. I was asking you honest questions about why if you don't have time to read the link I gave you which not only detailed the name of the study, but the authors themselves as well as a list of the scientists therein, what other data you could possibly want that you'd make time for. Now you're calling me evasive? You want their phone numbers and bra sizes or something???

A. Sorry, I don't really have the time to follow this thread from the last time I left off. Your posted link included a little blurb which didn't indicate at all where it was from, and I didn't see anything else in my quick scan of few posts before that. My previous observations and the fact that you suspiciously won't tell me where it's from makes me almost sure it's some internet-linked anti-global-warming site. Correct me if I'm wrong?!

You're wrong. It's a book on Amazon.com that is a compilation of peer-reviewed articles by a long list of scientists that seem to maintain more natural causes for fluctuation in climate.

B. Laughable at best. I suppose another misdirection while avoiding telling me the awful truth?

You might want to stick that tongue back in your mouth, you're slobbering on yourself. I've not been evasive nor suspiciously-anything regarding this topic. I gave you a link that names a study, and its authors with a list of scientists' works that have been peer-reviewed and suggest natural explanations for climate variation.

C. I would be shocked if such a large number of studies from the 80s and 90s just suddenly up and challenged anthropogenic warming. On a similar note, your statement
completely ignores the point that if those past "natural means" don't apply today, then we have an issue, hmmm? Thus if we can show that past cyclical climate has been linked to things like solar cycles, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, CO2 variations and the like...then why shouldn't man be the primary cause today if we can show that we have significantly disrupted CO2 levels, and that solar and Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are no longer applicable to today's climate?!?

You're all over the place. You seem to be chest-pounding above, but a little less convinced below. Which is it?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Still working on the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, we'll see how it goes....

Why don't you go ahead and put your stick away 'til you're done with your homework on the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. I suppose I could just assume this is the dishonest practice of being evasive greg, but in fairness I'll give you some more time.

In the meantime;
- You're missing all of the articles in that link dating to 2003,4, 5, and 6.
- Don't claim someone else is being evasive when you're just being intellectually and physically lazy.
- Don't make knee-jerk arguments based on what you think I'm trying to say instead of what I'm saying.
- Go do the homework you admittedly need to do on the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and I'll see you in the next Global Warming thread where you throw around more unsubstantiated BS.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What inconsistencies and errors? All I see you've said is that the papers are more than 6 years old.

Which is wrong of course.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It does if those natural means (like releasing CO2 for example) are something that humans are doing right now. If we can identify and quantify a mechanism of how something we know we're doing is capable of creating warming, especially if we can see that same mechanism has caused past warmings, why shouldn't we try to stop it?

Look, without question humans contribute to the release of C02. There are a host of reasons why it would be good for us to decrease our use of politically bloody, expensive, and potentially harmful substances. However, it has been said that controlling human use of CO2 is not an effective means of addressing global warming. Instead, scientists are researching ways to decrease solar radiation by 0.3%-0.5% by using stratosphere-based aerosols. They work diligently while popular media and political interests hack the issue all to bits. Anthropogenic warming became law before it had any info to back it up and anyone who denies it is relegated a holocaust denier. This is not science. This is dogma and zealotry.

Even if real, any such change in policy needs to be tempered with discipline, correct information, reasonably certain accuracy, and with respect for all related complexities such as employment, livelihood, equitable encouragement/enforcement globally and unfortunately geo-politics. I don't see this kind of discipline in this debate. I see "either you're for us or you're against us" with very little substance other than "consensus" (which I've challenged repeatedly) and "you Republicans!" People wonder why I think there's a political axe to grind in this.

Why not? There are peer-reviewed studies that expressly support the warming theory, why wouldn't there be ones that expressly oppose it?

Because there's an overwhelming degree of information on all contributing factors to warming. There's absolutely nothing that I've seen to date to suggest any change in man's contribution to the release of C02 would make even the slightest difference at all in cyclical climate change. Change that is much more well-documented than any anthropogenic supposition by the way. So... when you say; "If we can identify and quantify a mechanism of how something we know we're doing is capable of creating warming, especially if we can see that same mechanism has caused past warmings, why shouldn't we try to stop it?", it is clear to me that we're not talking about the same mechanisms if it is evident that humans could not have contributed to warming in the Holocene period. Assuming we witness a similar compilation of data regarding warming today. At best it could be correlative, not causal and any massive change in policy to "fix" the correlative will be in vain. A perfect example of this sort of backward thinking is the fact that Canada has spent over $3.7billion dollars in the past 5 years on climate change using the lions' share of it on nothing more than propaganda while closing valuable weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution control goals. It's just nonsense, the whole lot of it... and it's big business make no mistake.

And rightly so. Science isn't about beliefs, it's about evidence. If you have evidence to support your conclusions, whatever they are, you'll do just fine.

I've not yet read the supporting articles. My guess is that you won't find "Anthropogenic Warming debunked". You may find "recent findings suggest human contribution less than previously accepted" or you might find one like Yuri Izrael, Russian vice chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say; "There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist." To be clear, he does not deny warming, but I mean c'mon. He's not the only highly accomplished scientist saying this. Do we just claim they're all in the pockets of big oil, lying and/or just stupid and call it a day? It just doesn't hold up.

I don't think Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, bloated government panels, and numerous lobbyists for research grants somehow hold the lock on integrity while anyone on any payroll of any oil company or any dissenting opinion itself is by necessity a liar. It's just too easy for me personally. We may have to agree to partially agree.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hmmm, I posted this morning but it got deleted; does anyone else have problems with being logged out while typing a response?! Very annoying.

In any case, I do love how I make the statement "a significant number of papers are older" and give the first three papers as examples, in making the point that we now know a lot more than what those papers indicate...and both of you reply with "you said the papers are more than six years old!" (and of course eBuddy goes on to disparage my comments because of this).

Come on. Both of you should be above such sophomoric debate tactics, and that kind of treatment is plain insulting. I will stand by my comment that it seems to me, in my quick scan, that a significant number of the papers listed are quite old, especially by climate-science standards. I guess my overall point is twofold:
1. is this list "padded" with outdated papers?
2. why do climate-change skeptics, who love to point out (often with valid reasons) that current knowledge of climate science is too incomplete to consider making social/economic/political changes based on it...always bring up out-of-date scientific material to justify their skepticism?! Seriously, doesn't that seem weird?!

Finally, in answer to eBuddy, as I stated I do have some background knowledge of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles - in fact, I would care to wager more probably more background knowledge than most people on this board before you posted this "paper." However, I've been a little out of the loop for the past 8 months, so I didn't know whether new information had been brought to light on the matter. I don't see too many papers in that list very close to 2007 material so I have my doubts, but I'll keep those to myself until I double-check for sure, alright?

My new laptop is stuck in customs clearance in Manitoba (damn you Apple and Fedex) so we'll see when that happens, but again: your continued claim, eBuddy, of "unsubstantiated BS" seems particularly humorous here, considering your seeming inability to read what I've actually written....

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

In any case, I do love how I make the statement "a significant number of papers are older" and give the first three papers as examples, in making the point that we now know a lot more than what those papers indicate...and both of you reply with "you said the papers are more than six years old!" (and of course eBuddy goes on to disparage my comments because of this).

Wrong. You said;

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

which, as I'm sure you appreciate, are hardly new papers (22, 16, and 7 years old; our knowledge of past climatic instability now runs far beyond those numbers).

I reminded you that you failed to notice the articles dating to 2003, 4, 5, and 6. Later on of course you suggest that you're looking for something from 2007 and next I suppose you'll be asking for something yesterday. After all, our understanding of climate change has increased exponentially since January.

I will stand by my comment that it seems to me, in my quick scan, that a significant number of the papers listed are quite old, especially by climate-science standards. I guess my overall point is twofold:
1. is this list "padded" with outdated papers?

If you've taken all of 30 seconds to browse the link and want to be argumentative for the sake of it then sure. Otherwise, I suspect this is subject to opinion. After perusing the papers to find a great many from 2000 to 2006 and considering that climate science, not unlike other disciplines of science, often build upon prior conclusions as further evidence affirms them; I'm inclined to think not. The only thing that retards this process is if conclusive new evidences overturn or severely challenge the old. The problem is, you've not offered anything other than incorrectly stating that what I've provided you is antiquated and littered with big oil. This may be an effective argument for the choir. It is not for me.

2. why do climate-change skeptics, who love to point out (often with valid reasons) that current knowledge of climate science is too incomplete to consider making social/economic/political changes based on it...always bring up out-of-date scientific material to justify their skepticism?! Seriously, doesn't that seem weird?!

I'll tell you what's weird to me. You tried to qualify your original statement with "significant number of papers are older"; then acted as if you hadn't been corrected by continuing on with the very point you had to back-peddle from in the first place. Now you're saying; "always bring up out-of-date scientific material"??? Seriously greg, this is like talking to a used car salesman who acts like he didn't hear you say; "I'd like to stay under $16k"

I'm starting to think you may not be reasonable enough to talk to. Again, there's no rush greg. Take as much time as you need in order to effectively express yourself. With all due respect, you're all over the place here.

Finally, in answer to eBuddy, as I stated I do have some background knowledge of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles - in fact, I would care to wager more probably more background knowledge than most people on this board before you posted this "paper." However, I've been a little out of the loop for the past 8 months, so I didn't know whether new information had been brought to light on the matter. I don't see too many papers in that list very close to 2007 material so I have my doubts, but I'll keep those to myself until I double-check for sure, alright?

Alright. In the meantime, please consider;
A. It's only a partial list.
B. There are papers dated there to 2006. In your haste to claim I was evasive in withholding information, you really didn't invest any time on the information I did give you to know that what you wanted was available.
C. You've admittedly not availed yourself of any material less than 8 months old. If there have been some sweeping advancements on this issue since 2006, you wouldn't know. It doesn't make sense to claim we've come a long way since the papers in question when some of them date to where you claim you left off. That said, I do appreciate your honesty.
D. You chest-pounded; "the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles don't apply today!! HMMM?!?" in one breath then in the next say; "I'm looking to find some information on the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles."
E. You claimed the material is antiquated. When corrected you tried to give yourself some wiggle room with "a significant number of them ", then go right back to railing on how antiquated the papers are. Worse, you've given absolutely no information to show me how or why you feel this way.

To your last point; Your claim of "expertise" doesn't mean anything to me greg. No disrespect intended, but this is an internet forum and you could be 8 years old for all I know. The merit of your arguments are only limited by what you bring to the table. You chest-pound an argument, then ask for more time to muster evidence to support your argument? Fine, but for future reference you may want to save the exclamation points, tongue faces, stick-poking, and chest-pounding 'til you've availed yourself of a counter point.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wrong. You said;

I reminded you that you failed to notice the articles dating to 2003, 4, 5, and 6. Later on of course you suggest that you're looking for something from 2007 and next I suppose you'll be asking for something yesterday. After all, our understanding of climate change has increased exponentially since January.

I don't have time for such BS. You've quoted half of what I said, while leaving out the part where I explicitly mentioned "significant" and then gave the first 3 papers as an example. I will now quote that in its entirety, against my own wishes but since you continue to mis-quote me:

Originally Posted by me

Bottom line is, I don't see how the few articles I saw listed really change the nature of climate science. Notwithstanding the fact that a significant number of them seem to be quite old, and therefore have certainly already been addressed, the titles don't seem to invalidate current science. For example, eBuddy just listed

Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record

A 150,000-Year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice

Climatic Variability in the Eastern U.S. over the past Millennium from Chesapeake Bay Sediments

which, as I'm sure you appreciate, are hardly new papers (22, 16, and 7 years old; our knowledge of past climatic instability now runs far beyond those numbers). That past climates have been unstable is a core doctrine of climate science, not anything "new" or "challenging."

(emphasis added for clarity, since apparently just alluding to it doesn't work)

There you go. I am not "qualifying" my original statement; this is my original statement.

Once again, your inability to read what I've clearly written, despite my attempt to point out your error, is giving me more grave doubts as to your ability to even be debating this topic.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I don't have time for such BS. You've quoted half of what I said, while leaving out the part where I explicitly mentioned "significant" and then gave the first 3 papers as an example. I will now quote that in its entirety, against my own wishes but since you continue to mis-quote me:


(emphasis added for clarity, since apparently just alluding to it doesn't work)

There you go. I am not "qualifying" my original statement; this is my original statement.

Once again, your inability to read what I've clearly written, despite my attempt to point out your error, is giving me more grave doubts as to your ability to even be debating this topic.

greg

Honestly Greg, it hardly does your point any justice to back-peddle from an argument then return to the argument you had to back-peddle from in the first place. I apologize if I've taken you out of context and that by "old" you were only referring to three of the numerous articles listed there including those from 2003, 4, 5, and 6. I did so based on the fact that you continue on with the point even after having been corrected. Let's take a look at "context" for a clearer understanding;

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

1. is this list "padded" with outdated papers?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

2. why do climate-change skeptics, who love to point out (often with valid reasons) that current knowledge of climate science is too incomplete to consider making social/economic/political changes based on it...always bring up out-of-date scientific material to justify their skepticism?! Seriously, doesn't that seem weird?!

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

C. I would be shocked if such a large number of studies from the 80s and 90s just suddenly up and challenged anthropogenic warming.

I'll say it one more time in case you missed it; there are articles dating to 2003, 4, 5, and 6. Your statement about the "80's and 90's" doesn't apply. Your statement about them being "out-of-date" does not apply. Your statement about them being "padded with outdated papers" doesn't apply. There are a couple of reasons why they don't apply;

1) There are several articles dating to 2003, 4, 5, and 6.
2) You've not indicated why a discovery of 1500-year climate change cycles that have produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age, earned two scientists the scientific-equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize in the mid 80's, and has been affirmed by at least 300 peer-reviewed scientists since it's discovery does not apply to what we see today or how it is any different now.

Of course, I'm flattered by the fact that you'd parrot some of my stylings. Forget whether or not I'm qualified to discuss this issue because I'm likely not, but then I'm a humble guy. What's amusing is that while you chest-pound expertise, you've not indicated how you're any more qualified than a know-nothing internet forum schlep like me. Instead of determining whether or not I'm qualified to be debating this topic or back-peddling from hasty sentiment, weren't you supposed to be showing me how the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles magically stopped applying to warming today?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Jesus H. Christ.

1. You keep carefully insisting on the fact that "there are articles" or "there are several articles" dating to 2006. My reply (or rather, my original statement) is: but are there a significant number that are much older, and does this indicate that these papers are
1. out-of-date and are not entirely appropriate given today's new knowledge, or may even have been shown as incorrect
2. "padding" the given list. You seem to forget that the purpose of this list is to show that there are "500 scientists" which do not believe in, or support alternate theories of, "global warming" or climate change. The number "500" is much easier to reach if every paper since 1962 is included, hmmmm?

Whether there are papers from 2003, 2004, 2005, and/or 2007 is irrelevant. How many of these papers make up the "500" that is so boldly claimed??

greg

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Really, are we going with "they're old, so they must be wrong?" Really?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Of course not - and once again, that's certainly not what I said.

It's certainly true, however, that "climate science" as an umbrella topic has seen a significant increase in interest in the past 20+ years, and along with that an associated increase in numbers (of funding, peers, papers, you name it). As I clearly demonstrated in that post which has been so unjustly maligned and mis-quoted, at least some of these older papers refer to a knowledge base which has been enormously expanded since that time (eg. 150k ice-core records vs. today's 650k+, more-comprehensive records).

So, no, being old doesn't mean being "wrong" - although there's nothing to indicate that inferences taken by those authors on that "old information" haven't since been corrected as new information was collected. For all I know some of those "old" papers may also be legitimate landmark studies in the field and still apply today. As I indicated, though, in such an emerging field as "global climate science" there's the very real possibility that older papers may have limited applicability in today's scientific field.

I for one don't want to be the person going through all those and determining that, though....

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

But why I brought it up in the first place was that that's all you've said about them. You basically said "well for one thing they're not current," then didn't say any other things, then referred to your own debunking of the whole list. I just asked what you were referring to. Namely: do you contribute anything to this thread other than looking at publication dates? I know you are capable of more insight than that, but are you producing any?

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...8/#post3485489

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Argh. Once again I've been logged out while writing a long post, and once logging in again it doesn't show. This is getting ridiculous.

I've got to run, but how about I start with this: the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years mentioned by the report authors was written by Dennis Avery and Fred Singer.

I know eBuddy has used Fred Singer at least a couple times to show a "scientist" who rejects global warming. I know I've also shown those times what a partisan, for-hire contrarian hack he is as well. Look him up if you want a good laugh! (For example, he loudly and publicly denied the existence of global warming during the late 90s and regularly up to 2005...and then in 2006, declared Unstoppable Global Warming! If that doesn't raise alarm bells, nothing will.)

Finally, a word about D-O cycles: if you accept the claims that they were responsible for the Medieval Warm Period, and the warm period around 300-500 BC, and that the "Little Ice Age" was a result of their old-period...then no matter how you cut it, with their impressively regular 1470-year cycle we are still waaaay too early to be seeing another warm D-O period. I had a couple papers linked, so I'll try to find those again in the next day or so.

Sorry it's so brief, but this was much more in-depth. This forum is really starting to piss me off...I get logged out whenever I spend more than 10 minutes typing a post I imagine....

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

you should type them in textedit and paste them in when you're ready. it lets you see more in a bigger window too.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, I'll probably end up doing that, but I've been using various random computers for short periods of time so it hasn't really been a viable option. My Macbook Pro just arrived today, so once I get caught up on transferring my first two weeks' worth of notes over, I should have some more time!

Publication on startling D-O cycle regularity

Unstoppable Global Warming Explanation (Note how professional things sound!)

How can the "Unstoppable" claim of "1500 years...plus or minus 500 years" be reconciled with the fact that as best we can tell, D-O cycles seem to occur with impressive regularity (of a less-PRish sounding 1470 years) in our available data? Take a look at the graph they've produced...see how they've cleverly made it look like the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" was warming than it is today? This is of course incorrect.

Finally, note the bullshit about English winemaking in this article. It's also wrong. English winemaking has by all accounts enjoyed a thoroughly successful renaissance since the mid-20th century.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Here's a short blog by a British Antarctic Survey climate modeller about the D-O cycle paper found above...once again, he doesn't have much in the way of a conclusion, although he seems skeptical as a rule of thumb (he seems to think the data is a little "noisier" than Rahmnstorf claims). He notes that Rahmstorf's conclusion that D-O cycles are surprisingly regularly spaced is at odds with what he considered conventional wisdom, ie. that it was responses to Laurentide glacial ice sheet instability.

I guess the big problem with the theory that the D-O cycles are in fact very, very regularly spaced is that it would require some sort of external influence to do this so precisely. Both use orbital effects as the best possible answer, but no one has been able to identify an astronomical event of this period as of yet.

It would seem that the real key here is that, once again, the skeptics have been quite clever in choosing a "global warming cause" that is ambiguous enough to withstand casual probing. From the response by eBuddy I think it works as effectively as the rest of the classic "arguments": it throws in some correct buzzwords like "the climate has always changed" and mixes it with incorrect "facts and graphs" which have been manipulated to support the argument, and requires a solid bit of background research in order to disprove - or as is more the case, prove that it's "highly unlikely," which generally isn't good enough for the naysayers.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Once again, I'd like to point out that Rahmstorf's paper on the 1470-year cycle was published in 2003 I believe. His seems to be one of the more defining works on whether the D-O cycles are in fact precise enough to be true "cycles" (and not climatic responses to glaciation, as noted...remember, I don't see any indication that these cycles have been identified outside of the recent glacial period). I guess my point is that I'd again like to bring up the "500 scientists" claim in the article (I won't say paper any longer, since it's obviously just a Climate Skeptic PR piece). How many of these papers actually support the D-O cycle theory, I wonder? How many build on Rahmstorf's work (I assume they'd have to be one of the "serveral" papers after 2003 that eBuddy keeps bringing up). Furthermore, how can the veritable multitude of listed papers from the mid-90s right on down to the 80s or perhaps earlier support the notion that D-O cycles were/are in fact a regular, externally-influenced cycle if Rahmstorf's 2003 paper was the first to identify it as such?

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

2) You've not indicated why a discovery of 1500-year climate change cycles that have produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age

I didn't notice this part before. I'm curiously as to exactly what you meant here. Are you saying that the D-O cycles have produced a "dozen global warmings" since the last Ice Age...ie. the MWP, etc.? Because I'm curious how that could be so, considering that the last Ice Age ended anywhere from 10000-13000 years ago, which would mean that a "dozen global warmings" would have to have a pattern of...less than 1000 years, far below the 1500 years claimed.

Just curious to hear your explanation on this bit of factual evidence you have produced.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I didn't notice this part before. I'm curiously as to exactly what you meant here. Are you saying that the D-O cycles have produced a "dozen global warmings" since the last Ice Age...ie. the MWP, etc.? Because I'm curious how that could be so, considering that the last Ice Age ended anywhere from 10000-13000 years ago, which would mean that a "dozen global warmings" would have to have a pattern of...less than 1000 years, far below the 1500 years claimed.

Just curious to hear your explanation on this bit of factual evidence you have produced.

greg

You seem to be viewing climate cycles in very simplistic terms and this is likely the product of too many charts. I have to take some blame here too as having further confused the issue by referring to them as simply "warming" cycles. D-O is a climate cycle or climate oscillation, not necessarily a warming cycle. It's not as simple as "we're warming", "now we're cooling", "now we're warming again". For example; we appear to be on an up-slope of a current warming cycle having started in 1850 however, it is important to remember that temperature also fluctuates within these cycles. If I recall, these are Bond cycles discovered by Gerard Bond in 97. He found abrupt shifts within our "previously thought" stable Holocene or our current period. These abrupt shifts combined make up a series of climatic shifts with a cyclicality remarkably similar to the proposed D-O cycles of 1,470 years. Bond concluded that our Holocene events occur entirely independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. i.e. The D-O cycle is significant enough to drive warming events even through an Ice-Age and cool during warm interglacial periods.

The evidence presented by Unstoppable Global Warming (as I understand it) is merely a compilation of peer-reviewed data (like Bond's research cited above published in Science in 97) that suggest a more natural, cyclical nature to climatic events. Bond has gone on to research warming-cooling cycles as they relate to solar activity using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 as proxies for solar warming and cooling and these subsequent studies have also been published in peer-reviewed articles.

The problem I have with all this greg is "hype". I don't like it. Scientists themselves warn against it. This notion that Avery and Singer are the only ones who challenge anthropogenic hype is dishonest. A vice-chair for the IPCC himself made the claim that there is no need to dramatize the affect of human contribution and the nature of climate change is cyclical as I quoted above. He is on no oil-production payroll nor is he some industrialist quack. It is simply too easy to make these claims and move on as if these significant number of people are either bought or stupid. I just don't buy the hype. In the meantime, scientists busily work on aerosols to reduce irradiation while researching other sources of climatic influence, challenge the lack of cloud reflectivity analysis in future projections models, C02 concentration lag, among a host of other challenges to "consensus" theory. We just cast it off as quackery because we don't like the fact that there is legitimate, scientific discourse and dispute over this stuff? IMO, there is nothing more dogmatic and zealous than referring to this as "denial" as if it somehow equates to holocaust denial.

I'm in favor of letting scientists do what scientists do. I would certainly expect authors like Singer and Avery, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and a plethora of other organizations, including the wealth of research grant requests by lobbyists for GW interests and popular media to do what they do, but I refuse to buy off on the fact that only the dissenting opinions have agendas and lack credibility.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Heh. I'm viewing climate cycles in simplistic terms? You talked around and around the arguments against D-O cycles since the last glacial period, ie. that we can't find them, and the trends that we can find don't match with their periodicity. You claim that we're on the "upslope of a warming trend that start around 1850"...which not only does not match with any D-O cycle anyone can identify, but would mean that we should be nowhere near the peak of that cycle at this point, meaning it'll probably be one incredibly hot peak.

Any evidence presented by Unstoppable Global Warming is buried within the overwhelming amount of FUD and outright lies also presented in it. That you seem to find no embarrassment in endorsing a book authored by some of the most shameless for-hire contrarians in scientific history makes me cringe a little. One perfect example is your mention of Gerard Bond. Just as an FYI, when you bring him up...next time, please note that Mr. Bond (who died a few years back) did not view his work as casting any doubt on the possibility of anthropogenic warming. He helped show that solar variability was a large driver of climate changes since the last ice age. His work has since been illegitimately highjacked by the selfsame for-hires to try and prove something it did not – namely that anthropogenic forcings haven't since become a larger climate driver – but even he did not agree with this view.

So...nice try. Once again, you can ignore such devastating rebuttals to yet another "anti-global warming champion" and return to your tired exposé on "hype" and "dissenting opinions" – unfortunately, what you consistently fail to realize is that you've never produced something worth being a dissenting opinion. I've said this time and time again - it doesn't matter who disagrees with what; it's what has been published that counts, and unfortunately for you, using Fred Singer just won't cut through that hype.

I'll say it again: you want "your side" to be heard, then come up with something worth looking at. Otherwise, you're just some dude on the internet speculating about fake moon landings: lots of talking points, but no evidence that can't be easily dismantled.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Heh. I'm viewing climate cycles in simplistic terms? You talked around and around the arguments against D-O cycles since the last glacial period, ie. that we can't find them, and the trends that we can find don't match with their periodicity.

This entire statement makes absolutely no sense at all greg. The trends we find do match with their cyclical periodicity and directly apply to our Holocene period and yes; you are viewing (or at least discussing) climate cycles in very simplistic terms. For one, you seemingly have yet to acknowledge that there are abrupt shifts in climate that when taken in series; correlate to these D-O cycles.

You claim that we're on the "up-slope of a warming trend that start around 1850"...which not only does not match with any D-O cycle anyone can identify, but would mean that we should be nowhere near the peak of that cycle at this point, meaning it'll probably be one incredibly hot peak.

As a matter of fact, it is suggested that this up-slope of warming will continue for another 200 years. The good news is there is absolutely no consensus on catastrophic warming.

Any evidence presented by Unstoppable Global Warming is buried within the overwhelming amount of FUD and outright lies also presented in it.

So... really what you're saying here is;
- I haven't read the study nor viewed any of the research in it. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't like it.

Tell ya what instead of reading the book itself, just browse the studies cited in the book as I have suggested earlier.

BTW; Singer challenged "warming" in general (along with a number of others) because at that time in 1995 there was no empirical satellite evidence of warming and while science does what it does in advancing; anything said prior must be regarded as a "lie!" Your frame of thought is so off the mark greg that I'm going to conclude what I felt earlier, you are one of those unreasonable hype-ministers of doom.

That you seem to find no embarrassment in endorsing a book authored by some of the most shameless for-hire contrarians in scientific history makes me cringe a little.

If by endorsement you mean my statement; "I'm not going to drop money down for this book" then maybe I could understand your point. Somehow I'm pretty sure this is not the ringing endorsement Singer and Avery were looking for. This is beneath even you greg. I'm not endorsing the book. I'm intrigued by the data within it and don't immediately cast it off as quackery. In this we may differ.

One perfect example is your mention of Gerard Bond. Just as an FYI, when you bring him up...next time, please note that Mr. Bond (who died a few years back) did not view his work as casting any doubt on the possibility of anthropogenic warming.

While I cannot find this clarification made by Bond anywhere, this disposition would not surprise me in the least bit. Scientists aren't generally this ideologically adversarial and emotional. This is the plight of the emo-science zealots and ministers of doom who must relegate everything to either all black or all white incapable of addressing any potential notion of grey.

He helped show that solar variability was a large driver of climate changes since the last ice age. His work has since been illegitimately highjacked by the selfsame for-hires to try and prove something it did not – namely that anthropogenic forcings haven't since become a larger climate driver – but even he did not agree with this view.

Again, I can't find anything online anywhere to suggest that Bond disagreed with those who believe solar variability was a more profound driver of climate change than any anthropogenic supposition. Do you have a link? I guess I'm auditing whether or not you're kind of making this stuff up as you go along. Bond, like most other scientists don't feel the need to say unequivocally; "I accept/deny anthropogenic warming". This is what ideologues and lobbyists need, but science is not in business to give these types fodder for discourse. The fact that the focus of his life's work was climate oscillation relating directly to solar activity is evidence enough for me what he felt was the primary driver of not only past climatic variation, but the driver of our Holocene events. If you can find a conclusion in any one of his studies that refutes this, by all means post it.

So...nice try. Once again, you can ignore such devastating rebuttals to yet another "anti-global warming champion" and return to your tired exposé on "hype" and "dissenting opinions" – unfortunately, what you consistently fail to realize is that you've never produced something worth being a dissenting opinion. I've said this time and time again - it doesn't matter who disagrees with what; it's what has been published that counts, and unfortunately for you, using Fred Singer just won't cut through that hype.

Again, if you are this dogmatic in your approach to science, there is no zinger that will dislodge you from your stupor. I've cited more than Singer, I've cited a Vice Chair of the IPCC among others, but you want to continue down this road because you think you've got dirt. Fine, what about the wealth of others cautioning against the over-dramatization of anthropogenic warming? Are they all quacks of the oil industry? Are you capable of considering anything not framed in some "us against them" fashion? This is simpleton thinking to the nth degree greg. Seriously.

I'll say it again: you want "your side" to be heard, then come up with something worth looking at. Otherwise, you're just some dude on the internet speculating about fake moon landings: lots of talking points, but no evidence that can't be easily dismantled.

Of course you realize the biggest problem is that you've not dismantled a thing greg. The evidence I've given you is science greg. The "side" I'm on is the side of science. I am not a climatologist and neither are you. You've slandered sources based on your own misinformation, you've slandered me using a host of straw-men indicating a lack of counter-point, and you continue on with this tired, us/them simpleton mentality prevalent among ideologues. I'm sorry you feel it necessary to compartmentalize complex subject matter greg, but I don't have to contribute any more.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This entire statement makes absolutely no sense at all greg. The trends we find do match with their cyclical periodicity and directly apply to our Holocene period and yes; you are viewing (or at least discussing) climate cycles in very simplistic terms. For one, you seemingly have yet to acknowledge that there are abrupt shifts in climate that when taken in series; correlate to these D-O cycles.
...
As a matter of fact, it is suggested that this up-slope of warming will continue for another 200 years. The good news is there is absolutely no consensus on catastrophic warming.

Do you even read what I write anymore?

No, there are not climatic trends during the Holocene period that match with D-O periodicity. Once again, since you've apparently missed this the last couple times I've said it, not to mention when it was mentioned in every paper/article I posted regarding D-O cycles:
WE CANNOT IDENTIFY CYCLIC CLIMATE PATTERNS THAT MATCH D-O PERIODICITY SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE.
(That isn't to say they aren't there; there has been some suggestion that they may just be very very weak during this period, but that doesn't change the fact that no one's identified them.) I challenge you, read scientific papers - like the one I posted, natch - about D-O cycles, and read how they always note that the data set ends around the same time as the last Ice Age.

Once again: I just spent the last 5 or so posts pointing out that the D-O cycles identified by those authors don't match D-O periodicity without some massive rearranging of our historical data. Once again: can you please back up your claim that D-O cycles have been responsible for over a dozen warm periods since the last Ice Age - even though that only covers a 10-13 thousand year period, and D-O cycles have been identified with 1,470-year periods? Once again: can you please explain why this "climate upslope of the next 200 years" does not match with the 1,470-year D-O cycle? After all, according to the graphs supplied, the MWP lasted from 1000AD to ~1375AD. Does it make any sense to you that you're claiming the next warming period to have an "upslope" of 450 years starting in 1850? I challenge you to make a graph of that, and then take a look at it. In fact, I've found one on Realclimate.org: Curve Manipulation: Lesson 2. You might recognize the author - he's the guy at the forefront of identifying the startling 1,470-year D-O cycle. Notice how he also mentions that D-O cycles can't explain Holocene processes.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

BTW; Singer challenged "warming" in general (along with a number of others) because at that time in 1995 there was no empirical satellite evidence of warming and while science does what it does in advancing; anything said prior must be regarded as a "lie!" Your frame of thought is so off the mark greg that I'm going to conclude what I felt earlier, you are one of those unreasonable hype-ministers of doom.

*snort*

Your poor reading comprehension fails you again. As I said, Singer publicly challenged global warming right up until 2005. He said it wasn't happening. Just like he, you know, opposed claims that CFCs cause the ozone hole and cigarette smoke causes cancer.

What, I suppose you don't think think there was sufficient satellite data in 2005 either?

And for the record, I've hardly been a "hype-minister of doom" around here. I think the earth's warming will have a significant effect on the way we humans go about our business, but I think that's a pretty mainstream view whether you support anthropogenic global warming or no. What I do protest is the completely unreasonable and un-factual claims people constantly bring up regarding this topic.

Originally Posted by eBuddy

I'm not endorsing the book. I'm intrigued by the data within it and don't immediately cast it off as quackery.

What data?! The only thing you've brought forward thus far has been about D-O cycles, and no matter how I (and climate scientists) point out that they don't match the climate data we have available, you won't stop bringing them up as if you never read a thing I wrote.

I'll say it again: Please, by all means, give me some data that casts doubt on anthropogenic warming. Please!

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, I can't find anything online anywhere to suggest that Bond disagreed with those who believe solar variability was a more profound driver of climate change than any anthropogenic supposition. Do you have a link? I guess I'm auditing whether or not you're kind of making this stuff up as you go along. Bond, like most other scientists don't feel the need to say unequivocally; "I accept/deny anthropogenic warming". This is what ideologues and lobbyists need, but science is not in business to give these types fodder for discourse. The fact that the focus of his life's work was climate oscillation relating directly to solar activity is evidence enough for me what he felt was the primary driver of not only past climatic variation, but the driver of our Holocene events. If you can find a conclusion in any one of his studies that refutes this, by all means post it.

Huh? You've confused two entirely different trends in your mind: D-O cycles, and solar activity. There's no question that solar variation has been correlated significantly with climate change throughout the Holocene. D-O cycles, on the other hand, have not been identified. Stefan Rahmstorf notes last year in response to a question on whether some current warming trends could be D-O cycles on this climate forum that

Originally Posted by Rahmstorf

My answer to that is a clear “no”. There is no DO events in the Holocene - that’s an observational fact, if you look at the ice core data - the last one in my view is the end of the Younger Dryas. Since then we are in a permanently warm state, which already is like a permanent DO event. Convection is in the Nordic Seas in the Holocene, so if convection starting in the Nordic Seas is the mechanism of a DO event as our theory has it, then you can’t get a DO event any more. -stefan

Back to your quote: Bond's work on solar variability (and even Heinrich events) are not visibly linked to the cyclical nature of observed D-O events (especially since his solar work was concentrated in the Holocene).

What you (and PR pieces like The Great Global Warming Swindle) consistently fail to recognize, however, is that solar variability has not seen any trend related to climate in the past 20 years, if not since the 1960s. A 2007 paper on oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and global surface temperatures is merely one of many papers that indicate that solar variability has not been correlated with global temperatures in some time.

(This is of course why those impressive contrarian graphs "disproving" anthropogenic warming by plotting solar output and temperature always stop at around 1985...because that seems to be when the "proof" stops.)

I will have to try and find you a link in the next day or so, but I was told by a professor that Bond in no way argued against this point - and why should he?! No one is trying to refute his impressive work regarding solar variability - people are just pointing out that it no longer matches with global temperatures. To do as you and other "climate skeptics" are doing, and apply Bond's work on past climate(s) to current and future climates, is a patent misapplication of science.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Do you even read what I write anymore?

No, there are not climatic trends during the Holocene period that match with D-O periodicity. Once again, since you've apparently missed this the last couple times I've said it, not to mention when it was mentioned in every paper/article I posted regarding D-O cycles:
WE CANNOT IDENTIFY CYCLIC CLIMATE PATTERNS THAT MATCH D-O PERIODICITY SINCE THE LAST ICE AGE.

You're wrong. The very reason why D-O cycles are so intriguing is that there are elements to climatic events that are measurable and in some cases predictable. We're finding many of these same elements in our Holocene. Study after study after study have invoked D-O in their research of Holocene climate change because of these elements. I don't understand why you challenge this with such tenacity. That said, I don't have the time to start at square one. The amount of information necessary in order to explain Bond's discoveries, Heinrich events, and D-O cycles is frankly daunting and would only give you a thousand more points to nitpick with neither one of us conceding a thing. Suffice it to say scientists are looking for relationships in our Holocene period based on a wealth of historical evidence for natural, cyclical climate change. This was my point at the outset and has since been lost entirely. Why assume there is some entirely unique mechanism for climate change today when our globe has endured numerous changes prior to our industrialization? I've seen the evidence you'll no doubt provide more of and while it is intriguing, it does not convince me that any change in human activity (other than lacking discipline) would influence the course of climatic change.

Are Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and multicentennial cycles of the Holocene and the last glacial interconnected?

A statement by Gerard Bond when awarded the Ewing Medal in 2003;
"In this new field I was surrounded by a baffling array of machines with flashing red lights, toxic chemicals, and coworkers who spoke the languages of chemists, physical oceanographers, and modelers. Fortunately, in North Atlantic deep-sea cores, the first I worked on, I saw something familiar. The assemblages of lithic grains dropped by melting icebergs were much the same as those in sedimentary rocks, the petrology of which was one of my first geological specialties. With only a petrographic microscope as my ‘machine,’ I found fascinating changes in the petrologic composition of the ice-rafted grains. Those changes documented the remarkable extent of Heinrich events in the North Atlantic, revealed a series of rapid, climate-related iceberg discharges that matched Greenland's Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles, and most recently led to the possibility that changes in solar activity might underlie a series of rapid oscillations punctuating virtually all of the North Atlantic's Holocene climate record.
http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/bond_geraldc.html

During the 2000 field season, chemical analyses have been done using a Continuous Flow Analysis (CFA) system at the North Greenland Ice Core Project (North GRIP) site (75.1°N, 42.3°W, accumulation rate 17 g cm-2 yr-1), resulting in high-resolution records for ammonium, calcium, sodium, nitrate, sulphate, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, conductivity and dust. The resolution achieved ranges from approximately 0.2 yrs in the early Holocene to 0.7 yrs in the LGM. This allows a detailed investigation of the timing of changes at the onset and the end of various Dansgaard-Oeschger events. During these events, not only temperature showed rapid changes, but also aerosol related species.
High-Resolution Chemical Record of Dansgaard-Oeschger Events in the North GRIP Ice Core: Timing of Events

(That isn't to say they aren't there; there has been some suggestion that they may just be very very weak during this period, but that doesn't change the fact that no one's identified them.) I challenge you, read scientific papers - like the one I posted, natch - about D-O cycles, and read how they always note that the data set ends around the same time as the last Ice Age.

I read a study recently showing that while it is suggested the cycles are weak, they are strong enough to warm through Ice-Age glacial periods and cool through warm inter-glacials. To your point below, I've also read that D-O cycles may be more sporadic/chaotic during warm inter-glacials.

Once again: I just spent the last 5 or so posts pointing out that the D-O cycles identified by those authors don't match D-O periodicity without some massive rearranging of our historical data. Your poor reading comprehension fails you again. As I said, Singer publicly challenged global warming right up until 2005. He said it wasn't happening. Just like he, you know, opposed claims that CFCs cause the ozone hole and cigarette smoke causes cancer.

What, I suppose you don't think think there was sufficient satellite data in 2005 either?

This is unfair greg. I'm not near as concerned with Singer as I am the studies cited in the book. You wanted papers from 2007 and went on to rail about the outdated nature of the papers in the book. A book I've not advocated purchasing. I reminded you of several things;
- Singer is not the only one making this claim
- Singer, in this capacity is an author. He is also an intriguing figure in the debate because he does have a wealth of education on such matters. Perhaps the evil in him is intriguing eh? Suppose he knows for certain that we're fastly approaching a tipping point and humans could have a significantly positive or negative impact on it, but instead he would place all of humanity on the table of a high-stakes game of kickbacks to his non-profit.

And for the record, I've hardly been a "hype-minister of doom" around here. I think the earth's warming will have a significant effect on the way we humans go about our business, but I think that's a pretty mainstream view whether you support anthropogenic global warming or no. What I do protest is the completely unreasonable and un-factual claims people constantly bring up regarding this topic.

I don't think either one of us are qualified to make the judgment of what is completely unreasonable and un-factual a claim. I really don't. What I protest are the zealots.

What data?! The only thing you've brought forward thus far has been about D-O cycles, and no matter how I (and climate scientists) point out that they don't match the climate data we have available, you won't stop bringing them up as if you never read a thing I wrote.

You continue trying to get me to defend a book and a couple of authors. I'm not interested in defending books and authors. I'm interested in information that I believe explains natural occurrences for climate change. I did not advocate the purchase of the book and in fact claimed I wouldn't be. I like the fact that there are a compilation of peer-reviewed studies detailing natural climate change events. I'm trying to explain to you why I still regard both sides of this issue.

... and at the end of all this I'm always left wondering; what is it those who oppose other explanations for climate change want from me? I mean, I don't have that big a carbon footprint. I'm not rolling about throwing cigarette butts out the window or racing muscle cars, or rolling over small busses at the truck and tractor pulls. I oppose hype. I don't like it. I try to illustrate it and point it out when I can. You must understanding it gets difficult to discern the hype from the facts. I'm doing the best I can, but with people screaming the sky is falling, it only drowns out my thought process. If you are not a minister of doom, please disregard the above.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're wrong. The very reason why D-O cycles are so intriguing is that there are elements to climatic events that are measurable and in some cases predictable. We're finding many of these same elements in our Holocene. Study after study after study have invoked D-O in their research of Holocene climate change because of these elements. I don't understand why you challenge this with such tenacity.

I'm challenging this with such tenacity because you have produced no proof. I have linked to multiple papers and/or articles by doctorates working and/or producing papers in the field of climatology or historical climatology who state that D-O cycles are apparent only within the ice age(s). You have linked to a Fred Singer article. (The link you have provided with Bond's last paper is dead, and I can't find the paper elsewhere.) You keep insisting that the papers are out there somewhere, but vague assertions about how complicated the subject is do not take the place of provided links. I have recent courses in historical and physical geology, atmospheric science, global climate science, and environmental ecology and biology under my belt...I'm sure I'll be able to get the gist of what's going on, so hit me.

Furthermore, I'd like to go back to your "source" then and bring out an article listed there: "Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record" with Dansgaard himself as the lead author (from 1993 I believe). The abstract is as follows:

RECENT results1,2 from two ice cores drilled in central Greenland have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation, suggesting that climate in the North Atlantic region is able to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades. Here we present a detailed stable-isotope record for the full length of the Greenland Ice-core Project Summit ice core, extending over the past 250 kyr according to a calculated timescale. We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper3) and during the previous Saale–Holstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule. The last interglacial seems to have lasted longer than is implied by the deep-sea SPECMAP record4, in agreement with other land-based observations5,6. We suggest that climate instability in the early part of the last interglacial may have delayed the melting of the Saalean ice sheets in America and Eurasia, perhaps accounting for this discrepancy.

Emphasis is mine, of course. Tell me, how does this study help "prove" the existence of cyclical climate in the Holocene? It notes right there that it has been an "extremely stable" period, "the except rather than the rule." As I said earlier, evidence of past climate cycles is an integral part of modern climate science – after all it gives us an opportunity to study what may have caused these climate shifts.

Once again, I'll make the request: rather than merely using "talking points" and vague assertions from this person or that person, please supply some evidence in the form of scientific papers, or articles from non-hack scientists. It's hardly a rebuttal on your part when you contradict my argument by using "you're wrong because many people say this and are working on this and looking for that, it's very complicated and you'll nitpick it"...well no **** Sherlock. There's a way out of that – it's called doing what I did, and posting articles from respected scientists within their fields who have relevant articles and study on the subject at hand, and who refute your statements. You've ignored every point I've made, because after all there's not much you can say in return...except "you're wrong." Well, by saying "you're wrong," you said that this guy is wrong (after all, I quoted him)...and in taking a look at that page, I'm pretty sure you're going to need to provide a source to back yourself up when you tell me that he's wrong.

The Bond article was a good start, but the link does not seem to be working so I can't say much about the article. I just did a quick Google search and couldn't come up with much either. I don't have a heck of a lot of time right now though, so I'll see what I can find as days go by.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You must understanding it gets difficult to discern the hype from the facts. I'm doing the best I can, but with people screaming the sky is falling, it only drowns out my thought process. If you are not a minister of doom, please disregard the above.

I'm not screaming that the sky is falling. I'm still quite undecided about how climate change will affect our current civilization, but in studying historical trends I think it's apparent that those who severely overstepped their ecological boundaries paid for it. After all, if there's one thing that has characterized human civilization it's the base dependency on natural resources, and I think it seems obvious that a finite planet can't indefinitely support the types of population growth developing nations have shown over the past couple hundred years.

So, yeah, I read about the possibilities arising from abrupt climate change, and many of them seem fairly reasonable. I do think it is quite immoral that the nations that have by and large been responsible for the enormous emissions of the past couple hundred years have used their "early lead" to best protect themselves from any harm that might arise from climate change. I do see the logic in trying to minimize the enormous financial burden possibly arising from unstable climate-related "disasters" – after all, mounting repair costs related to our immense construction booms of the past 100 years are starting to show us that it's ridiculously expensive to maintain the standards we have set (the Egyptians or Romans could have told us that!), let alone with Mother Nature becoming ever more surly.

But am I a "minister of doom?" Of course not. Humans will get through, one way or the other...we're resourceful like that, generalists and whatnot.

greg

[Buckaroo]

Back in 1971 NASA Scientists claimed that mankind would bring the next Ice Age because of dust and fossil fuels.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news


Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

[OldManMac]

Another Buckaroo paste and run. As I've said before (if not in this thread, somewhere here), one would like to believe we've learned a little more about climate science in the past 36 years.

[Tiresias]

I do the cha-cha like a sissy girl.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

one would like to believe we've learned a little more about climate science in the past 36 years.

WRONG!!!!!

The scientists are using 99% faulty data. They don't have all the data. They only have 1% of the data. The rest are guesses and assumptions.

[Tiresias]

I lika. Do the. Cha-cha.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm challenging this with such tenacity because you have produced no proof. I have linked to multiple papers and/or articles by doctorates working and/or producing papers in the field of climatology or historical climatology who state that D-O cycles are apparent only within the ice age(s). You have linked to a Fred Singer article. (The link you have provided with Bond's last paper is dead, and I can't find the paper elsewhere.) You keep insisting that the papers are out there somewhere, but vague assertions about how complicated the subject is do not take the place of provided links. I have recent courses in historical and physical geology, atmospheric science, global climate science, and environmental ecology and biology under my belt...I'm sure I'll be able to get the gist of what's going on, so hit me.

Already did. Clear your cache, you're obviously having trouble with your browser with the log-outs and inability to view the links I've given. I just clicked my link above on Are Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and multicentennial cycles of the Holocene and the last glacial interconnected? and it worked fine. It's a PDF so you might have to wait a minute. In fact, not sure which link you claimed didn't work, I tried all three and they worked fine. Which, I'm not sure really matters because I've also given a highlight of each to establish my point that there are shared elements in climate change during our Holocene that were also evident throughout D-O cycles. The fact that you're still questioning this makes me believe you don't need another "hit".

Furthermore, I'd like to go back to your "source" then and bring out an article listed there: "Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record" with Dansgaard himself as the lead author (from 1993 I believe). The abstract is as follows:

It has always been thought the Holocene is stable however, there are several studies challenging this notion;
Unstable Holocene climate in the northeastern East Sea (Sea of Japan): evidence from a diatom record

The Variability of Holocene Climate Change: Evidence from Varved Lake Sediments

Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period

Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core

Similarity of vegetation dynamics during interglacial periods

Emphasis is mine, of course. Tell me, how does this study help "prove" the existence of cyclical climate in the Holocene? It notes right there that it has been an "extremely stable" period, "the except rather than the rule." As I said earlier, evidence of past climate cycles is an integral part of modern climate science – after all it gives us an opportunity to study what may have caused these climate shifts.

After all the railing you did on the antiquated nature of the papers, you understand I was surprised to see you cite a study from 1993. I'm curious though, did you read it? We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper3) and during the previous Saale–Holstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule.
Why should we take advantage of the opportunity to study what may have caused past climate shifts greg? What type of period are we in now? What does the first sentence imply? You notice the words they use greg? Words like "may be", "suggesting", etc... These words imply sobriety greg, a thought detached from emotion.

Once again, I'll make the request: rather than merely using "talking points" and vague assertions from this person or that person, please supply some evidence in the form of scientific papers, or articles from non-hack scientists. It's hardly a rebuttal on your part when you contradict my argument by using "you're wrong because many people say this and are working on this and looking for that, it's very complicated and you'll nitpick it"...well no **** Sherlock. There's a way out of that – it's called doing what I did, and posting articles from respected scientists within their fields who have relevant articles and study on the subject at hand, and who refute your statements. You've ignored every point I've made, because after all there's not much you can say in return...except "you're wrong." Well, by saying "you're wrong," you said that this guy is wrong (after all, I quoted him)...and in taking a look at that page, I'm pretty sure you're going to need to provide a source to back yourself up when you tell me that he's wrong.

A. You're wrong in implying the evidence I've provided is all produced by "hack scientists". This is preposterous. I've quoted a Vice Chair of the IPCC. I've quoted numerous articles by numerous scientists all with a particular expertise in climate change and related subjects.
B. You're wrong in implying I've not provided evidence. Clear your cache, reset Safari, and/or try again.
C. I've not ignored every point you're trying to make. In fact, I'm having a hard time determining what your point is. That there are no similarities between warming today and historical warming? You're wrong. I've indicated why you're wrong. I've given you legitimate studies, legitimate scientists, and legitimate links.

I started off by saying I couldn't care less about GW, particularly AGW and I've now spent way more time than I initially wanted to in bickering with you. I'm content to say you're right and I'm wrong greg. If we don't stop emitting C02 into the atmosphere, we're all going to die. We must all stop driving right now and we need major, global, de-industrialization. We need to stop farming livestock, farting, etc... or whatever else it is you're championing here. I agree 100%.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Already did. Clear your cache, you're obviously having trouble with your browser with the log-outs and inability to view the links I've given. I just clicked my link above on Are Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and multicentennial cycles of the Holocene and the last glacial interconnected? and it worked fine. It's a PDF so you might have to wait a minute. In fact, not sure which link you claimed didn't work, I tried all three and they worked fine. Which, I'm not sure really matters because I've also given a highlight of each to establish my point that there are shared elements in climate change during our Holocene that were also evident throughout D-O cycles. The fact that you're still questioning this makes me believe you don't need another "hit".

The Cosis site did not work last night (didn't in Google either), but it's fine now. I haven't had the log-out problems since I got the new laptop, so I wonder if it was problem with Windows browser(s)?

1. You have two papers here, neither of which contains the full paper. I cannot see where either of these abstracts claims that D-O events are found in the Holocene. In fact, the Röthlisberger paper specifically does not:

The resolution achieved ranges from approximately 0.2 yrs in the early Holocene to 0.7 yrs in the LGM. This allows a detailed investigation of the timing of changes at the onset and the end of various Dansgaard-Oeschger events.

Uhhhhhh...do you know what that means? It means that the data set doesn't include the Holocene, but runs from it up to the last glacial maximum (LGM). How can you possibly post this as "evidence" of D-O events in the Holocene is beyond me.

The Bond paper furthermore does not say that D-O cycles are present in the Holocene, but notes instead that another cycle seems to be in sync with D-O cycles when they can be found. Once again, neither of these papers "proves" what we were talking about – the existence of D-O cycles in the Holocene as an explanation for current climate trends – but instead hint at other cycles which may be present and which may be related to D-O cycles found within the glacial period(s). Hmmmm, nothing there that changes our current explanation of current climates however.

2. With regard to the article, it doesn't say that D-O cycles are found in the Holocene at all, and in fact you quoted this!

Those changes documented the remarkable extent of Heinrich events in the North Atlantic, revealed a series of rapid, climate-related iceberg discharges that matched Greenland's Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles...

This part does not deal with the Holocene; neither D-O cycles or Heinrich events are identified in the Holocene. The farthest they can be said to extend is to the Younger Dryas period.

...and most recently led to the possibility that changes in solar activity might underlie a series of rapid oscillations punctuating virtually all of the North Atlantic's Holocene climate record.

This part deals with Bond's work in solar variability within the Holocene. This is a different topic which focuses on a different time period (ie. within the Holocene). You seemed to have confused the two, demonstrating once again that your lack of careful reading of this subject material leads you to make incorrect assumptions.

Soooooo...once again, more proof that "climate is variable but there may be patterns of some sort." The patterns haven't been identified in any convincing fashion, or with any convincing regularity, or within the Holocene period. Hardly "proof" that D-O cycles are causing the current warming trend, as your original Singer/Avery article stated.

It has always been thought the Holocene is stable however, there are several studies challenging this notion;

Everyone who knows anything about the current climate debate knows that the Holocene isn't "stable." It is, however, relatively more stable on a worldwide basis than the Ice Ages which proceeded it. Note the "worldwide basis": note also that most of the articles you have provided are on an individual-site basis. Trust me, no one is denying that individual locations don't have climate variability.

After all the railing you did on the antiquated nature of the papers, you understand I was surprised to see you cite a study from 1993. I'm curious though, did you read it?

You're making me laugh. As I said when I "cited" it, it came from the Singer & Avery list that you already produced. It was one of the first papers cited there.

A. You're wrong in implying the evidence I've provided is all produced by "hack scientists". This is preposterous. I've quoted a Vice Chair of the IPCC. I've quoted numerous articles by numerous scientists all with a particular expertise in climate change and related subjects.

You've posted a "quote" – not a peer-reviewed paper – by an important but noted anthropogenic climate-change skeptic. Congratulations. They are out there. They have good ideas, too. But this debate is about the science, not about what some important guy thinks. What has Izrael published recently regarding climate change? What is his scientific evidence in presenting the claims that he does? (He's a big name, so I assume he has some.) I've said time and time again: presenting "numbers of scientists who agree" is simply not a valid argument; that's why Singer and any number of bogus scientists have been able to get attention. You have to show that their opinions are backed by work within the field.

B. You're wrong in implying I've not provided evidence. Clear your cache, reset Safari, and/or try again.

As I said, none of the papers or articles you provided could be used as evidence that Holocene cyclic patterns are a result of D-O (or Heinrich, etc.) cycles.

C. I've not ignored every point you're trying to make. In fact, I'm having a hard time determining what your point is. That there are no similarities between warming today and historical warming? You're wrong. I've indicated why you're wrong. I've given you legitimate studies, legitimate scientists, and legitimate links.

1. Where is your proof that D-O cycles (ie. 1500-year climate cycles) have been responsible for over a dozen warming periods similar to today's since the last ice age? You have provided not a single shred of evidence to back this claim.

2. How can D-O cycles be responsible for current warming trends if their 1500-year periodicity doesn't match with our previous Holocene warm cycles?

3. Even further, where is any evidence that D-O cycles, or Heinrich events, have been discovered in the Holocene?

4. How can we trust a source which claims that the MWP was warm enough to support English winemaking, which makes it warmer than today's climate...even though today's English winemaking business has seen unprecedented success since the middle of the last century?

5. How can solar variability explain current warming climate trends, when there has not been a similar trend in solar output?

I think those are some questions that you've been eager to avoid. After all, my "point" is simply that the evidence you're presenting...is either wrong, or not even evidence.

I'm content to say you're right and I'm wrong greg. If we don't stop emitting C02 into the atmosphere, we're all going to die. We must all stop driving right now and we need major, global, de-industrialization. We need to stop farming livestock, farting, etc... or whatever else it is you're championing here. I agree 100%.

Yes yes, you're taking your toys out of the sandbox and going home, I get it.

No matter how much I empirically show that your arguments are incorrect, and your "facts" are wrong...I'm sure you'll be back for more punishment.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

The scientists are using 99% faulty data. They don't have all the data. They only have 1% of the data.

Where did the other 99% of the data go?! Did someone steal it?

greg

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Where did the other 99% of the data go?! Did someone steal it?

greg

You must have missed this part:

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

They only have 1% of the data. The rest are guesses and assumptions.

[Buckaroo]

And the issue that turns it into LIES is that they won't divulge the programming and data with anyone. They don't want anyone to challenge their BS.

[Buckaroo]

Just like when the scientists claimed that the 80's were the hottest years this century. BS. The 1930's were much hotter. The US plains turned into a dust bowl during those years. Then guess what every thing changed to nice weather.

Everything changes. Including the weather. Nothing the scientists are saying have any facts to back them up. All their conclusions are based on assumptions.