Global Warming
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Thursday, November 8, 2007 20:27
VIEWED: 4667
PAGE 2 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I note for the record that ever since 'Hero' went over the line with his 'every tasering is amusing' post (I'm sure his bosses would be interested in that one - bet his butt puckered when it was pointed out) his posts have been much more circumspect and covered with plausible deniability.
I note for the record that I said every tasering I've ever seen was amusing. That some tasering is not amusing is likely. I further note that tasering vidoes are common on YouTube and even on network TV (where they are presented for entertainment purposes) which indicates I am not alone in this sentiment.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm - yes. I see some defensive butt-covering.
There are a LOT of things on YouTube - plane crashes, bridge collapses, car-wrecks ... do you presume that they're also on YouTube b/c people find them 'amusing' ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I just noticed that its extremely cold outside and snowing...in Ohio...in November. Clearly the work of Global Warming.
ALGore needs to get involved (we need all the hot air we can get this time of year).
H
No, not Global warming.
The Jews did it.
Personally, I blame the Bush administration for the burning of fossil fuels en toto.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently it's an argument against global warming. I did a quick Google and found this analysis.
Medieval warmth and English wine
Filed under:
Paleoclimate
Climate Science
— gavin @ 10:00 AM
Never let it be said that we at RealClimate don't work for our readers. Since a commenter mentioned the medieval vineyards in England, I've been engaged on a quixotic quest to discover the truth about the oft-cited, but seldom thought through, claim that the existence of said vineyards a thousand years ago implies that a 'Medieval Warm Period' was obviously warmer than the current climate (and by implication that human-caused global warming is not occuring). This claim comes up pretty frequently, and examples come from many of the usual suspects e.g. Singer (2005), and Baliunas (in 2003). The basic idea is that i) vineyards are a good proxy for temperature, ii) there were vineyards in England in medieval times, iii) everyone knows you don't get English wine these days, iv) therefore England was warmer back then, and v) therefore increasing greenhouse gases have no radiative effect. I'll examine each of these propositions in turn (but I'll admit the logic of the last step escapes me). I'll use two principle sources, the excellent (and cheap) "Winelands of Britain" by geologist Richard C. Selley and the website of the English Wine Producers.
Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes - changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn't a match for that!
However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that climate is actually the dominant control - so what does the history of English vineyards show?
The earliest documentation that is better than anecdotal is from the Domesday Book (1087) - an early census that the new Norman king commissioned to assess his new English dominions, including the size of farms, population etc. Being relatively 'frenchified', the Normans (who had originally come from Viking stock) were quite keen on wine drinking (rather than mead or ale) and so made special note of existing vineyards and where the many new vines were being planted. Sources differ a little on how many vineyards are included in the book: Selley quotes Unwin (J. Wine Research, 1990 (subscription)) who records 46 vineyards across Southern England (42 unambiguous sites, 4 less direct), but other claims (unsourced) range up to 52. Lamb's 1977 book has a few more from other various sources and anecdotally there are more still, and so clearly this is a minimum number.
Of the Domesday vineyards, all appear to lie below a line from Ely (Cambridgeshire) to Gloucestershire. Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren't many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it's probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don't necessarily come with evid
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether today's temperatures are 'unprecedented'. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution."
Thought I'd break that out.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
"Global warming is a myth...."
and apparently you and 5 other people agree, auraptor....
these days that would almost put you and Hero in the Fringe looney land you always apply to Pirate News
Ahh yes, I must add on the precursor ... that HUMAN AIDED global warming is a myth. Feel beter now ?
For decades, the world labored under the false notion that Dinosaurs were slow, cold blooded and stupid. Why? Becasue they were simply big lizards, and lizards are cold blooded, stupid, etc......
I don't give a flying fornication what the 'majority' thinks, especailly when they are so clearly wrong. As is the case w/ man made global warming. Pure b.s. Nothing more.
Scientific truth is not beholden to the wishes of the majority.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Scientific truth is not beholden to the wishes of the majority."
Is it beholden to the facts ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then who the hell are the scientists you are basing your understanding on, Auraptor? I'm going to wager a guess and say that Hero's originating post was not a peer reviewed study.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So in other words, it was a lie. Thanks
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Apparently it's an argument against global warming. I did a quick Google and found this analysis.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:By all accounts it's beholden to what Auraptor wants it to be...
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Scientific truth is not beholden to the wishes of the majority.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME