Hi Jennifer,
I have devoted the best part of the last 20 years to reading, commenting and preparing objections to the many voluminous science reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Besides the actual comments as an “Expert Reviewer” I have published numerous articles in a variety of Journals, many of them in New Zealand, and a book “The Greenhouse Delusion: a Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001′”, currently still available from the publishers at
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/greendelu.htm
I visit the local University library about once a month and monitor “Nature” “Science” Journal of Geophysical Research”, “Geophysical Research Letters”, Journal of Climate” and copy signficant articles. I receive several daily or weekly Email summaries of publications and I monitor all the most useful websites. I possess a large library of photocopies, pamphlets and books which is tending to get out of hand. I maintain contact with a large number of local and international correspondents. I have lectured frequently, both locally and internationally.
I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored. I assumed that they would never see the light of day. Owing to a change of location of the head office of IPCC to the USA it has become subject to an Official Information Act, and largely owing to the efforts of Steve McIntyre of
They have now published all the comments on the current 4th IPCC WGI (Science) Report at
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
They are rather tedious to wade through but they show at once that many of the scientists listed as supposed supporters of the report have serious doubts about it. A friend of mine, John McLean, has done a summary of the names of the reviewers and the number of comments they made.
I was rather surprised to find that I made far more comments than anybody else, 1,878 of them, 16% of the total. You will find that nearly all of them were rejected, allegedly, because “I gave no reason for them” The reasons were usually obvious, and when I elaborated them, they still claimed I had not given any.
It is difficult to understand any of the comments if you do not have the full report. The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it.
The “Summary for Policymakers” might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.
Cheers,
Vincent Gray
New Zealand
“The urge to save humanity is always a false
front for the urge to rule it”:
H. L. Mencken
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If you read McIntyre’s comments, they are more to do with his ignorance of science than anything else.
How many of Grays’ comments are
“Delete “change”. The word has an unfortunate commotation, as it is defined legally by the
Framework Convention on Climate Change as restricted to” human activity that alters the
composition of the global atmosphere”. The IPCC tries to alter this definition by a
footnote to the “Summary for Policymakers” (page 3) but this leads to confusion as the
public may not notice this and assume that you are referring only to the redtricted
definition. You should therefore avoid using the term”climate change” altogether to avoid
this confusion
[VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 88-28)]”
Did he make the same comment for every time the phrase was used?
Answering my own question, it appears he did. No wonder he has the most comments. I would note that most of Gray’s comments are tedious, repetitive, and nit picking so far, with almost nothing to do with the pages and pages of science described that demonstrates AGW. It’s amazing, really, since he appears to tacitly admit most of it is true, given this silence on 99% of it. If there really was something to object to on the AR4, I would have thought it was the science that is being presented, not the use of language.
Vincent,
Given the size of the report, I too was surprised how few comments there actually were – your comment:
“The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it.”
goes to the core of this, and like you said at CA, gives an insight into what goes on at the IPCC.
On a side note: TS-69 A 5:1 5:9
COMMENT: The text should also point out that there are changes in solar insolation over the course of the 11 year solar cycle.
RESPONSE: Yes, there are variations, but this is not considered significant for the long-term change in solar irradiance. Rejected because this would be misleading in the context here.
I’m arguing just this point elsewhere here and because it’s not in “The Manual” it’s not an issue – LOL. Oh well…
Thanks for the effort that at least you put into the review.
cheers
Arnost
I enjoyed Vincent Gray’s motto
“”The urge to save humanity is always a false
front for the urge to rule it”:
H. L. Mencken”
Neville Chamberlain said the same thing. Thankfully, Winston Churchill begged to differ.
Arnost,
please direct me to some data that supports your proposal that solar activity, of whatever kind, is sufficient to cause observed increase in warming.
cheers
4 billion
Vincent Gray, M.A.,Ph.D., F.N.Z.I.C. has something to say.
SJT: says, “tedious, repetitive, and nit picking.” Wow, SJT, thanks for sparing us an insightful critique involving *facts* which you apparently have little time for–except to call them “tedious, repetitive, and nit picking.”
SJT, you must be one a them “big picture” guys who don’t need to deal with facts and, ahem, people who know light-years more you’ll ever know.
I’m glad the Anthro Global Warmers have you on their side, it makes them all look like idiots. They are, but it’s good to have a true idiot making their case.
Schiller
that is exactly my problem, he pretty well completely ignores the facts the papers deal with, and concentrates, instead, on noting every single occurance of the phrase ‘climate change’, asking for the word change to be deleted. There are whole swathes of science there that he ignores. How much of the actuall criticisms are to do with the science behind the 4ar? Bit hard to see the trees for the wood.
And thanks for the kind words, again, Schiller, they demonstrate what a lovely person you are.
Stoat had an interesting discussion on the AR4 comments issue.
[Anyone can be an “expert reviewer”; curiously it’s only the contrarians who use it to puff their status -W]
and a comment on an Editor’s comment –
“We thank Vincent for his diligence in writng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion. …” ROTFL !!
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/ar4_comments_now_available.php#comments
Still ROTFL – the NZ guys are really having themselves on. Check out the NZ Coolation web site – an unscientific indiscriminate bitch-fest. All good fodder for neocon nutters like Schiller though. Great stuff for the cheer squad.
For those equipped with a crucifix and garlic – http://www.nzclimatescience.org/
Bitch bitch bitch whinge whinge grizzle conspiracy theory fraud world govt grizzle – how about some science guys. zzzzzzzz .. ..
SJT,
You arouse my curiosity. Are you a scientist? If so, which field? Can you refer me to any publications by your good self?
Davey
I am a humble punter. My only publication, IIRC, was a poem I wrote for the children’s corner in the local rag, many years ago.
The first few lines were
Spring is a lovely time of the year
Birds sing songs we love to hear.
Dr Gray,
I think your friend under-estimated how prodigious your effort actually was.
I put the all the names and quantity of comments for each of the drafts into spread-sheet format. By my count you made 836 of 17212 comments in the first draft and 2217 of 14331 in the second draft.
I commend you on your effort. I’m sure it consumed an enormous amount of your time.
Luke would have us believe that this report at the http://www.nzclimatescience.org/ site is not by a scientist and has no substance.
SWEDISH SCIENTIST SAYS RISING SEA LEVEL CLAIM IS A TOTAL FRAUD Science Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
What I would like to know is, who were the Australian “scientists” who attempted to destroy the evidence of the tree that could not possibly be there if their claimed sea level rise had taken place?
Some might suggest that SJT’s standards have declined since his trite little effort at poetry.
Hey Ian..still waiting for your explanation of the Green house effect..seems you are pretty free with giving it out but turn tail and run when caught sprouting crap.
Fair go Ian, I was only 8 years old.
“Neville Chamberlain said the same thing….”
What?
Get a job Mel, you are wasting your energies chasing tumbleweeds.
Ian – well I heard it was a bunch of Australian foresters that did it – they thought a single tree left looked untidy. The whole story is utter bumkum and your evidence = zero point zero. I reckon Mörner wouldn’t have a clue – maybe he planted the there ! Who knows.
What I would like to know what bunch of shonks are spreading a totally unsubstantiated vile rumour. We now have one – YOU !
4 billion – you should talk to Nir Shaviv:
“Solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940’s and 1970’s (as can be seen in the ion chamber data), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period. Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2 C out of the observed 0.6±0.2 C global warming.”
“There are two reasons why the temperature should rise from the 1970s. First, there is a decrease in the average cosmic ray flux*. If we look at the average of each cycle there is an increase in the average cosmic ray flux until about the cycle of 1970, and then a decrease in the following two cycles. The last cycle was not as strong, so the average CRF increased. This can explain why the temperature stopped warming from around 2000.
Second, one has to realize that the temperature response of Earth’s climate is a ‘low pass filter’ due to the high heat capacity of the Oceans. This implies that:
The temperature variations over the 11 year cycle are highly damped (but they are there at a level of 0.1 deg).
There is a delay time in the system’s response. This means that the 11-year cycle will lag the solar forcing (and it does by 1-2 years). Over the centennial time scale, the Sun’s activity significantly increased until the middle of the century, then it slightly decreased and somewhat increased from the 1970’s with a peak in 2004. If you pass this behavior through the climate “low pass filter”, you will find that because of Earth’s heat capacity, the temperature at 2000 should be higher than the temperature in 1950’s even if the decrease until the 1970’s is similar to the increase afterwards.”
The hypothesis of a CO2 induced climate catastrophe suffers from a number of problems including; Antarctic temperatures plus troposphere and stratosphere temperatures not following climate model predictions, a warm bias in flawed surface temperature stations, cooling from the 1940’s to 1970’s with an attempted explanation using sulphate aerosols that doesn’t stack up, urbanisation and land use change may well be larger human effects than CO2, peer reviewed and empirical evidence against a significant positive feedback, and against a high climate sensitivity to CO2, etc.
The IPCC rate the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance as ‘low,’ and solar eruptivity as ‘very low.’
In my part of the world, if we look at a long meteorological series in a rural setting, we can look for trends and cycles:
http://star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/2007/494.pdf
TRENDS AND CYCLES IN LONG IRISH METEOROLOGICAL SERIES
C.J. Butler1, A. García-Suárez2 and E. Pallé3
ABSTRACT
We have analysed the trends in four long meteorological time series from Armagh Observatory and compared with series from other Irish sites where available. We find that maximum and minimum temperatures have risen in line with global averages but minima have risen faster than maxima thereby reducing the daily temperature range. The total number of hours of bright sunshine has fallen since 1885 at the four sites studied which is consistent with both a rise in cloudiness and the fall in the daily temperature range. Over the past century, soil temperatures at both 30cm and 100cm depths, have risen twice as fast as air temperature.
Wavelet analysis has found significant cycles with periods of 7-8 years, 20-23 years and 30-33 years in the seasonal and annual meteorological series from Armagh. Some of these cycles are clearly linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
DISCUSSION
………Wavelet analysis has shown that some of the same periodicities seen previously in rainfall and temperature are also present in sunshine and soil temperature for Armagh. The 6-8 year period, which is clearly seen in at least one season in all four meteorological series, is most likely associated with a similar periodicity in the
North Atlantic Oscillation. However, it is evident from a comparison of Figures 6 and 7, that the periodicities are often more clearly seen in the wavelet plots for Armagh meteorological data than in those for the NAO
and SOI where they form a broad spectrum of periodicities rather than a sharply defined peak.The physical nature of the driving force behind these oscillations remains unclear, however the fact that one of them occurs near 22 years, the period of the solar magnetic (Hale) cycle, suggests that, in this case at least, solar activity may be involved………
Paul Biggs – “Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940’s and 1970’s (as can be seen in the ion chamber data), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period.”
So where is the work connecting cosmic rays with global warming?
“you will find that because of Earth’s heat capacity, the temperature at 2000 should be higher than the temperature in 1950’s even if the decrease until the 1970’s is similar to the increase afterwards.””
Where is the work that shows a recent upswing solar irradience consistent with recent warming?
The bits that Paul didn’t tell you:
(1) So we have a flawed set of surface stations yet the cosmic ray hypothesis simulates 5/6ths of this non-existent warming – huh ? having it both ways.
(2) Shaviv does believe in the greenhouse properties of CO2 – but he thinks the effect is small
(3) If we don’t like the surface record – be a bit careful or you won’t have anything to argue about – but what do boreholes, SSTs and other proxies tell us – also recent post at RC
(4) the analyses on day/night temperatures fail to find any significant UHI effects.
(5) there are good reasons why the Antarctic tmperatures are still cold – circumpolar vortex – but perhaps Antarctic temperaures are also now starting to move.
(6) fails to mention the paleo evidence for CO2 driving climate – PETM and Royer’s work – at least 1.5C and probably 2.9C for 2x CO2.
(7) a huge field of CO2 radiative physics and all the measurements – so exactly what’s wrong with that science – recent 2 posts at RC – surely they must have forgotten to divide by 2 somewhere – have heard no coherent explanation as to what’s wrong with it
(8) Philipona’s work showing greenhouse flux very close to radiometer surface measured values. Also CO2 warming driving water vapour feedback.
(9) lack of a decent cloud database to prove the cosmic ray hypothesis – how convenient
(10) Occam’s razor
AND
“that the periodicities are often more clearly seen in the wavelet plots for Armagh meteorological data than in those for the NAO
and SOI where they form a broad spectrum of periodicities rather than a sharply defined peak”
ummm – yep – that’s because they’re having themselves on !! Statistical bunkum. Which is the whole problem with the solar stuff – enough wiggles in any climate data to find spurious correlations.
So, does the number “4 billion” have anything to do with the number of faecal cells in a blustering moron?
Note how Luke avoided the issue of the destruction of evidence with a bout of froth and spittle. Morner is a specialist in sea level, the head of a CRC equivalent study centre, that Luke claimed was not a scientist. Morner has repeated local testimony that some Australian “scientists” destroyed an important piece of evidence that shows the Maldives to have experienced minimal sea level change over the past half century. And our own little piece of departmental pond life attacks a legitimate inquiry as to it’s veracity as “vile rumour”.
Next Luke will be telling us, “trust me, I’m from the government”. We know, Luke, thats why we don’t believe a word you say and why anything you attack with venom needs further investigation.
And notice how the dumb turd continues to portray our healthy scepticism of the scale and significance of the warming as if it were a complete denial of the warming. That, coupled with the way he felt the need to pad out his list of points above to 10, highlights his dearth of substance.
SJT,
I liked your poem, especially from one only 8 years old. Don’t think I regard lack of certification as important in intellectually rich fields. Noam Chomsky was invited to address some mathematicians, but had no qualifications in maths. He said
“In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.” (Language & Responsibility 1979)
He was quoted in another excellent book by Alan Sokal (mathematician) and Jean Bricmont (physicist). Sokal submitted a hoax paper to a refereed post-modernist journal. It was accepted. He then revealed it was complete nonsense, but based on actual quotes from ‘leading intellectuals’ (Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science 1998)
So is this seemingly endless debate on climate about mathematics and physics, or is it just a species of ‘postmodern’ gobbledygook? Perhaps an exasperating mix of the two? Who belongs in which camp? Do some operate a shuttle service? Are you out there Alan Sokal?
Ian Mott – “Morner has repeated local testimony that some Australian “scientists” destroyed an important piece of evidence that shows the Maldives to have experienced minimal sea level change over the past half century.”
And the conclusion from this is that there is a conspiracy to suppress the ‘real’ facts? Reaching for my tinfoil hat now ………..
Even if and Australian scientist did destroy a important piece of evidence does this now mean that the whole AR4 report is false??
Perhaps you should reduce the amount of insults and increase the science and/or logic content of your posts.
NOW I remember why I left this blog for so long.
So now Ian is handing out threats galore when he’s cornered – how pathetic is that. Is that your technique for closing down debates now?
See the discussion on Warwick Hughes blog – looks like pretty grim for Mörner’s story. And you have nothing in support of evidence – ZERO !!! Legitimate inquiry – what “inquiry”. All you have is an anecdote.
Don’t bung on the big appeal to authority when you have slagged off so many researchers with crudity and rudeness. If Ian doesn’t like the researchers they’re “scum”. So we have an Ian approved list of Goodies and Baddies.
And what another great try-on “healthy scepticism” – for you you mean rude, threatening, unscientific, vulgar and desperate.
And you have rammed this issue into the discussion with no support except hearsay. You have not attempted to contrast with other sea level work. Pretty unscholarly and purely a political position.
So you have the floor lay out your “Maldives tree chopping” case in some detail with tangible evidence. Like with many issues we’re waiting.
BTW “that Luke claimed was not a scientist” – where did I say that? Apology please!
However, hot off the presses concerning cosmic rays ; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf
Will be interesting to see what Nir Shaviv’s take on this is!
The info on sea level is pretty extraordinary – and I don’t think you can dismiss the good Doctor as a crank.
Is it a vain hope that his points are addressed rationally by those genuine experts in the field who have said the opposite about sea level?
Davey
reminds me of Ern Malley.
It is a real problem. The physicists are having all kinds of problems with string theory, but no one really cares, because it doesn’t really affect them directly. When we get to AGW, what are we to think?
I am fortunate enough to know a CSIRO researcher personally. He finds the controversy highly amusing, for short periods of time. He is highly dedicated, hard working and honest. He could be earning a lot more money if he worked outside the CSIRO on commercial projects, since he is also a talented programmer and analyst.
For him, the science is what counts, the substance. As far as he is concerned, nothing of substance is yet to appear from the denialist camp. There is a lot of arm waving, direct appeals to the public, etc, but nothing that is convincing in terms of substance. He wonders why I bother wasting my time in these internet debates, since he has tried it, and has ovserved that no amount of evidence will ever convince the deniers of anything. As I said, he is a very intelligent person. Having concluded that it is a waste of time trying to convince them of anything, since nothing will ever convince them, he just ignores them.
He is also a practical person, so he continues on with something worth his time, actual scientific research, and debating the topic with people who will look at what the research is revealing to us.
As for this being post-modern, we live in an age of ‘framing’. How do you present your argument so that it fits someones preconceptions, and they accept it like a cell receives a virus. It makes it very hard for the average person in the street. You think you are reasoning, when in fact the reasoning has already been done for you, and a new thought has made it’s way into your head without you even realising it.
This is an age of specialisation. No one scientist can possibly know what is happening in all the fields of science. Therefore, we have to rely on the scientific method as a means of creating objective truth.
The real question is, is the scientific method working, or has it failed us? If it has, then we are in serious trouble, Global Warming or not. It has served us amazingly well to date, with advances in science that even forty years ago we would not have considered beyond fantasy.
We lap it all up, but when it throws up something we don’t like the look of, we challenge it. Give me that LCD screen, that heart drug, google, that traction control, but I don’t want that AGW. For some reason, that one thing, out of all the others, is highly suspect.
Jim
it appears to be telling me that cosmic rays are a beat up.
“Abstract: It has been claimed by others that observed temporal correlations of terrestrial cloud cover with ‘the cosmic ray intensity’ are causal. The possibility arises, therefore, of a connection between cosmic rays and Global Warming. If true, the implications would be very great.
We have examined this claim to look for evidence to corroborate it. So far we have not found any and so our tentative conclusions are to doubt it. Such correlations as appear are more likely to be due to the small variations in solar irradiance, which, of course, correlate with cosmic rays. We estimate that less than 15% of the 11-year cycle warming variations are due to cosmic rays and less than 2% of the warming over the last 35 years is due to this cause.”
It is interesting to read what the “source” might have to say about the Maldives – “nothing”. In fact they report a net sea level decrease in the region. See Figs 5.15 and 5.16.
Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch05.pdf
Yes that’s my reading of it to SJT.
For those who propose Cosmic Rays…
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
It is hilarious that on one hand denialists say Global warming is occuring due to Cosmic rays, then they say, with equal vigor, warming is not happening due to inaccurate temp measurement etc…work it out Guys, you cannot have it both ways.
Ian Mott..the Denialist thug..hilarious.
What do you denialist have to say about the rapidly diminishing Arctic? let me guess, Penguins using fan heaters?
Sorry to be pedantic 4 billion,
Penguins live in the Antarctic. What do you think of recent work on tectonics and earthquakes? Any connection with occasional ocean warming?
I have seen proposed that increased Tectonic shifting has caused the rise in CO2 due to Methane being released from sea floor due to heating melting Methane Clathrates. Problem is we have not had a dramatic increase in Earthquakes. As for actually warming the sea, I don’t understand how that would happen significantly, and again there is the problem that there has been no significant rise of activity in the last 20 years.
I find it telling that nobody has a problem when Paleontologists propose that Global Warming due to increase of CO2, amusingly, denialists only have a problem with it in the present.
An example of uncontroversial CO2 caused Global warming>>Article about PETM>>The continental margin methane proposal presented here and previously (Vermeij and Dorritie, 1996; Dorritie, 2002) incorporates some of the undisputed facts about the end-Permian world. It accepts that Siberian Traps volcanism had a powerful effect on Permian world climate. But rather than the Traps eruptions being the sole cause of the extinctions, it sees the Traps as having had an important role, though largely as a trigger for the release of hydrate methane and the free methane below. Traps eruptions facilitated this release in two ways: first, directly, by heating terrestrial permafrost and northern continental margin sediments. This direct heating would have been by lava flows, pyroclastic eruptions (superheated, ground-hugging, volcanic dust clouds), and ash falls, and would have led to the immediate release of methane from the affected areas. Traps volcanism would also have directly heated the seawater of the PaleoArctic Ocean (the northernmost part of Panthalassa; sometimes referred to as the Boreal Ocean), and that warmed water would have heated seafloor sediments and released methane from the continental margins across which it flowed. ####In addition, by injecting vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby warming the planet and the ocean#####, Traps volcanism would have indirectly heated continental margin hydrate and released much of its methane.”
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/dorritie/methane%20catastrophe.html
Blink and you will miss the reference to CO2 caused Global warming, that is because there really is no question of it occurring.
Nasty denialists continue their anti-EcoMarxist, counterrevolutionary, “factualist” agenda. They must be denialisted!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=9860B8B0-E7F2-99DF-32AE7FF8D8922266&chanID=sa007
July 05, 2007
Proof on Ice: Southern Greenland Was Once Green; Earth Warmer
“Biologist Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen and an international team of colleagues discovered DNA from alder, spruce, pine and yew trees at the glacier’s base as well as insects ranging from butterflies to spiders. This is the “first evidence for a forested southern Greenland,” Willerslev says. And based on the tree species found, Greenland must have been warmer than 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) in summer and never colder than one degree F (–17 degrees C) in winter, much warmer than present conditions.”
“Willerslev used four measures (traces of last exposure to sunlight in minerals, how long ago the amino acids were part of a living creature, the relative levels of beryllium and chlorine isotopes, and the “clocks” contained in the DNA) to date the forest to at least 400,000—and possibly as much as 800,000—years ago, the team reports in Science. That means this area of southern Greenland has been continuously coated in ice for at least that long.
The ice sheet on Greenland, therefore, is more stable than some scientists previously believed and “has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial,” Willerslev says. “Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere.”
Glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study, agrees: “Something else,” possibly Antarctica, must have provided the water for global sea level rise “because this observation does not at all affect [that] estimate … only the estimate of where the water came from.”
For gods sake Schiller, do you even read your own links?
Thanks 4 billion,
I have skim through the “methane catastrophe” document, and will go over it in more detail when I have a chance. I found the Storegga mudlides and tsunamis off Norway, all within the last 12,00 years, very interesting. Carbon released as methane was 263 billion tonnes – about a third of the total carbon in the atmosphere. I assume such mudlides can occur anyplace, anytime. Oooerr!
Schiller,
“Nasty denialists continue their anti-EcoMarxist, counterrevolutionary, “factualist” agenda. They must be denialisted!”
Take a pill…
http://media.fairfax.com.au/?sy=age&category=Breaking%20News&rid=29647
Australian B. of Meteorology involved in Global warming conspiracy.
4 billion:
“Take a pill…”
You seem to be familiar with such a solution. Would that be Haloperidol?
“Haloperidol is indicated in the management of manifestations of acute and chronic psychosis, including schizophrenia and manic states.”
http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-h02.html
You may wish to increase your dosage.
ZZZinGGG…..
4 billion,
Does ZZZ in GGG mean snoring in Global Greenhouse Gas? Or something else? Is typing like that a side-effect of haloperidal?
Typical Schiller, waffle on about any number of conspiracies and gratuitous insults, completely ignore any scientific results that are presented here to show he his wrong. Why do you bother, Schiller?
Maybe gorebal warmering is shrinking the planet! Even the oceans are smaller! Tuvalu will be stranded on a mountain top!
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22027211-401,00.html
NEWS.com.au
July 06, 2007
“They took part in an international project to measure the diameter of the world that showed it is 5mm smaller than the last measurement made five years ago.”
4 billion,
I have now read about the Storrega mudslides (remembered the ‘s’ this time) more carefully. Golly Galoshes! As I understand it, experts say that repeats are unlikely, the originals being caused by rebound from tonnes of ice in the last Great Ice Age. But what if the earth is shrinking? (Shriller Fullkettle 2007 this blog) Might that lead to more mudslides, fumaroles etc? Or less? Is there a geographer in the house?
P.S. Don’t answer that, Luke…
Hi Davey – was just visiting to see if I could pick off a few stragglers on the trailing threads 🙂 – but looks like you guys are self sufficient. Mottsa’s back from tree killing so there’s work to be done above.