|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 11:57:35 GMT 1
Lazarus, maybe you could have a stab at this science based question: The AGW propagandists denied the MWP initially. When that position was discredited they asserted that it was a N Atlantic/European phenomenon. That position still stands as far as I can see. Could anyone explain how the planet's heat transfer systems (Ocean currents/ weather systems/ jet stream etc) shut down for hundreds of years causing this warm period to be confined to the N Atlantic/Europe?
No?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 6, 2010 12:04:03 GMT 1
Abacus, How about the Maldives' imminent demise due to sea level rise? The Maldives is especially vulnerable to rising sea levels, being one of the most low-lying countries in the world. What is so controversial about that?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 12:07:07 GMT 1
Because the "theory" is nonsense fed to us by environmental pressure groups via the IPCC. The *coral* atolls can out-grow even the worst case sea level rise. You need to question the propaganda old bean.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 12:14:47 GMT 1
From www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html"Over the course of the twentieth century, the rate of sea level rise has roughly tripled in response to 0.8 °C global warming2. Since the beginning of satellite measurements, sea level has risen about 80 per cent faster, at 3.4 millimetres per year3, than the average IPCC model projection of 1.9 millimetres per year. " Try reading the science papers - they are actually a lot more impartial than a stroll along the sea front.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 6, 2010 12:18:40 GMT 1
maybe you could have a stab at this science based question: I will have a stab at it if you ever ask one. So far all I see is your assertions with no supporting research.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 12:21:28 GMT 1
The detailed observations I have made suggest the science papers are trash. 136mm in 40 years (that I, and my father have been recording) - utter nonsense. That level of rise would be very apparent. It just isn't there. Nature? seriously? A publication with similar gravitas to the Beano.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 12:22:16 GMT 1
lazarus, C'mon, don't be frightened - I don't bite
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 6, 2010 12:28:49 GMT 1
rsmith7
We better get something straight from the off.
If any one makes any claims and expects a sensible reply from me they will have to have shown that their claims are valid by linking to credible supporting evidence.
That means peer reviewed science or news from science sites. Blogs are not acceptable unless they link directly to the science.
Can you support you growing list of assertions with any credible evidence?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 12:34:54 GMT 1
The Maldives are coral atolls, they grow with rising sea-levels. That is how a coral atoll works.
The Maldives is in no danger except from the perennial over-development and over-population of a very limited habitat that afflicts all tiny island states.
The fact that sea-levels rise is irrelevant to the matter of what CAUSES them to rise. It is certainly not CO2.
The sea-level has not undergone an increasing rate of rise recently. That is propaganda that Lazarus Havelock has all too easily swallowed. In fact in the Pacific round Tuvalu sea-level has FALLEN compared with a decade ago.
There are many factors affecting sea-leveL and I will list them again just so you get the picture:
barometric, tectonic, thermal, solar, lunar, gravitational, coastal subsidence, isostatic rebound.
If Lazarus Havelock, or his climate gurus can identify the AGW "signal" amongst that lot he is a better man than anyone else in the whole wide world!
It is sheer hubris to make claims such as his.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 12:36:31 GMT 1
Please don't cite peer review as a paragon of virtue, this has been well covered on other boards in the past and has been shown wanting. I have little time for linked "evidence". I prefer logic and my own observations. See my post regarding the MWP. Hopefully you'll agree that someone who has spent most of their life up to their eyes in the environment and climate has something to offer the debate. After all science depends on observation - and I've been on the coal face of observation for many, many years.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 12:52:07 GMT 1
Tee-hee. Has Climategate totally passed Lazarus Havelock by in his sad bedsit? He is so off the beaten track of the latest surge of climate research that is now flooding the internet precisely via the blogs like WUWT, ClimateAudit Roger Pielke Sr and Jr, Dr Roy Spencer and others that he chooses to denigrate.
Climate is not the preserve of what he calls "scientists", it is the preserve of ANY interested layman with the enthusiasm to pursue it just as Paleontology and Archeology were in the past. And MANY do pursue climate studies indpendently today. It's not rocket science. It's number crunching. These interested and informed "bloggers" outnumber the "scientists" Lazarus Havelock idolises many times and they, with their private researches are swinging the tide against the orthodoxy that has been the dead hand stifling clkimate debate ever since the IPCC was instituted with the remit to find the anthropogenic signal.
The Anthropogenic signal has not been found and a good number of the populace is now up in arms about it. Rightly so.
In a previous incarnation Lazarus Havelock would have been a Witch Hunter General or an Inquisitor. Today he chooses to protect orthodoxy by engaging in a bit of blogging himself. Welcome to the club, Lazarus Havelock!
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 6, 2010 13:01:00 GMT 1
" I prefer logic and my own observations. "
Well there is the problem staring you right in the face Mr. Smith.
This is a science forum, your own logic and observations, as entitled as you are to them, are not science.
I do not want to discuss such matters with those who are unqualified to to do so and incapable of supplying any credible evidence to support their assertions.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 13:05:23 GMT 1
Yet you cite the utterly discredited peer review system as credible evidence? Put your toys back in your pram and answer my question concerning the MWP. Blind me with your superior scientific knowledge - i don't mind, I'm a big boy.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 6, 2010 14:24:30 GMT 1
Peer review is the best system we have to keep the kooks at bay. Any credible evidence to support your mwp assertions ?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 6, 2010 15:29:32 GMT 1
The detailed observations I have made suggest the science papers are trash. 136mm in 40 years (that I, and my father have been recording) - utter nonsense. That level of rise would be very apparent. It just isn't there. Nature? seriously? A publication with similar gravitas to the Beano. I think making measurements (even over 40 years) at just one place on the globe cannot be used to illustrate what is happening on a global basis. I believe that there are quite a lot of other variables such as erosion, deposition and post-glacial rebound that could result in sea level not appearing to change much in any one place. However, if one takes global measurements, these other variables are more likely to be cancelling each other out and so an overall global effect can be seen. Nature is a publication with considerably more standing than the Beano and adding comments such as this does nothing to further your argument.
|
|