|HMS Climate Change|
From Liz Klimas at The Blaze:
NEW EVIDENCE SUGGESTS ‘MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD’ WAS GLOBAL: PROOF OF NATURALLY-OCCURRING GLOBAL WARMING?
A new study from researchers at Syracuse University might call into question man-made global climate change as it is related to cyclical warming and cooling periods.
The study establishes a new, reliable metric for analyzing past climate conditions, and in doing so suggests that a period of warming once thought isolated to Europe, known as the Medieval Warming Period, may not have been so isolated after all. It may have been global.
Forbes provides some background on the Medieval Warming Period and why this study is important for today’s climate science:Read the whole thing. The 21st century's biggest hoax is sinking at an astonishing speed.
To give a little background: we know very well that Europe was as warm if not warmer than it is now some 800, 900 years ago. Grapes grew further north than they do now for example, Greenland (the warmth extended that far at least) could be used in part to grow wheat and so on. So many have been saying, well, if it was this warm or warmer before, what’s all the fuss about this climate change then?
The zoology, botany and archaeology studies done near the Norse settlement in Northern Newfoundland convinced me of this years ago (2000).ReplyDelete
There was an entirely different climate in that North American region (including Labrador and Nova Scotia) just 1000 years ago. Much warmer with much different types of local flora and fauna.
The science at the site indicates this may be due do solar or oceanic influences, but does not leave out the possibility of it being global. Seems the latter is growing in it's potential ever since.
PS. Hey Mike, if the HMS Climate Change is sinking when is the wolf pack of logic going to take out the HMCS Global Warming and the USS AGW? :P
I should also note the many oral traditions of the local indigenous peoples (great lakes region) that relate a more 'bountiful' time in their distant past, as well as contact with other cultures thought to be European or Middle Eastern prior to the colonial period.ReplyDelete
There are studies under way to confirm or deny these traditions.
I suspect we will find many of them accurate as well.
The amount of stupidity required to believe that the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is somehow a "hoax" could power a small city. But then, that's what you get if you get your climate science from Forbes.ReplyDelete
Most scientific theories in human history have been wrong in substantial ways. "The world is ending" theories have always been wrong. Eugenics, overpopulation, DDT hysteria were all consensus science, and were all crap.Delete
Add AGW to that list.
It must be difficult for you to comment on climate science, since you claim that you're not a climate scientist and therefore not qualified to comment on it.
It's an interesting study. I haven't read the full paper. The publishers want $40 for the privilege. Using ikaite sediments as a temperature proxy is new to me. From my reading it has been around since about 2001. Having more proxies is good.
Like all studies, it has to be replicated and verified before it's accepted as true. I'm not certain as to how this proves that the MWP was global not regional. Or that the MWP, if global, was warmer than today. Temperature proxies by necessity are limited in areas sampled, compared to the hundreds of stations we have today.
The concern about DDT wasn't hysteria. DDT is a nasty chemical, with undesired effects on wanted insects, such as bees, and birds and undesired insects, such as malaria bearing mosquitoes, quickly acquire resistance.
Its use in proximity to humans needs to be on a risk- benefit analysis. It was very useful for delousing to prevent typhus during WWII. Rachel Carson in 'Silent Spring' excluded DDT in a malaria control program in her criticism of it.
However, a malaria eradication program similar to that for smallpox is impossible, because there are no healthy carriers of smallpox, but there are for malaria. Countries which attempted one, and then stopped, because they thought it had succeeded, or because the population affected complained too much, inevitably had malaria return. But they didn't ban DDT outright. It was still free to be used without restriction in agriculture, with all its propensity to cause damage and resistance in insects.
I see now what Chris Mooney means in his latest book 'the Republican Brain'. It's impossible to debate a conservative, particularly a smart one, because to a conservative, there are no nuances, everything is black or white. To a liberal, like me, everything is nuanced, nothing is absolutely certain, the world consists of shades of grey ...