So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

[romanov]

I'm afraid that is just rubbish. many sub tropical fruits have been grown in the South of the UK since Roman times. The climate of the Southern UK is very similar to that of Northern France, that is hardly suprising seeing as Northern France is 22 miles away from the South of the UK.

Ho hum, these bits are a bit farther north of France than 22 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire

These bits are farther north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northamptonshire

And these bits are a lot farther north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincolnshire

I got these form the article which had you read it, it would have been plain to you. Here is the quote;

"To date the research has identified the remains of seven Romano-British vineyards - four in Northamptonshire, one in Cambridgeshire, one in Lincolnshire and one in Buckinghamshire."

I have also read elsewhere that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Scotland. This article goes on to state;

"In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production."

These days British sparkling wine wins many awards in competition with Champagne. That is hardly suprising seeing as the climate and geology are almost identical to Champagne. The reason this wasn't done before was not because the grapes would not grow but because the techniques were not known and the desire was not there.

From what I have read it was not a case of desire, but the quantity and quality of the grapes.

Trying to say the climate of the UK is so radically different to that of France that grapes could not be grown until recently shows a stunning inability to look at a map and notice how close two countries are to each other.

Well from the map it shows most of the wine vineyards are in the south of France. I do not know a lot about grapes but I am sure there a strains that grow better in one place than another. I would not doubt some of those strains were not around in the times that Roman occupied Briton.

But climate deniers ability to repeat faery tales and ignore reality has never been in doubt.

I do not deny that there are other climates. You got tropical, sub-tropical, mountian, arctic, rainy, dry, etc.. I do not deny the plant as a whole has warmed 3/10th of a degree. I just know from what I have read and know to be true that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.

I suggest you visit some of the stately homes of England and look at their kitchen gardens where many fruits like grapes, peaches, apricots etc, usually associated with warmer climates, are grown on South facing brick walls. Grapes can be grown on south facing hill sides quite far North in the UK and that has always been the case

South facing, I wonder what is in the sky above a south facing wall? Must be something hot.

The climate in the UK is never going to be ideal for some sorts of wine making but it has always gone on:

Never going to be ideal for some sorts of wine making,

And so on. The reason for decline in English wine making was probably cheap French imports, but it has always been there on a small scale, and now it is increasing massively.

I suggest you try Chapel Down Flint Dry it is quite superb.

Can't say I am a big wine drinker, but if I can find it I will see if wife likes it.

 

[romanov]

For claiming to be so well read and up on the issue, you are incredibly ignorant of climate science and history. There is NO WAY the Renaissance was 5 degrees warmer than it is now. This is an absurdly preposterous claim. If you look at the actual scientific data, you will clearly see that the Renaisance was during the little ice age from 14th to 17th centuries when average temperatures were about a degree C colder than they are now. What I think you may be trying to refer to is the medieval warm period (in the 10th and 11th centuries), however even during this period average temperatures were about half a degree colder than current temperatures.
Here is a nice graphic to set you straight:

The claim that is was 5 degrees warmer in the past millenia also clearly demonstrates that you know little about climate science. The difference in average temperatures between an ice age and an interglacial is about 4-6 degrees. If it were 5 degrees warmer in 1500, we would be smack in the middle of an ice age right now.

Nice graph. Did you make that yourself. But you are right I meant Medieval.

 

[joebudda]

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

 

[Btodd]

Oh look, it's a denier's favorite resource.....YouTube!


Btodd

 

[chaim]

I did not make the plot, and I apologize for not sourcing it on this occasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The data sources are:

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

Even if you do mean medieval, you are still completely wrong. It is warmer now than it has been at anytime in at least the past two millennia.

Nice graph. Did you make that yourself. But you are right I meant Medieval.

 

[chaim]

You seem to be ignoring the discussion of your last posts. Do you not agree with your own sources?

 

[chaim]

You can argue all you want about the local climate of the southern UK, it doesn't change the fact that the Earth is currently significantly warmer than anytime in the past 2000 years. Local climate is not the same thing as global climate. If we continue at our current rate of climate change, the UK may end up getting whole lot colder if the gulf stream shuts down.

If is funny that you bring that you know from what you have read that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, when it is clear from what you have said, whatever you are reading is lying to you.

Ho hum, these bits are a bit farther north of France than 22 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckinghamshire

These bits are farther north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northamptonshire

And these bits are a lot farther north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincolnshire

I got these form the article which had you read it, it would have been plain to you. Here is the quote;

"To date the research has identified the remains of seven Romano-British vineyards - four in Northamptonshire, one in Cambridgeshire, one in Lincolnshire and one in Buckinghamshire."

I have also read elsewhere that the Romans were growing grapes as far north as Scotland. This article goes on to state;

"In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than now; and, with 500 to 600mm of rain a year, Northamptonshire is at the lower end of the British precipitation range, which would have meant fewer fungal problems. The area would therefore have been suitable for grape production."



From what I have read it was not a case of desire, but the quantity and quality of the grapes.



Well from the map it shows most of the wine vineyards are in the south of France. I do not know a lot about grapes but I am sure there a strains that grow better in one place than another. I would not doubt some of those strains were not around in the times that Roman occupied Briton.



I do not deny that there are other climates. You got tropical, sub-tropical, mountian, arctic, rainy, dry, etc.. I do not deny the plant as a whole has warmed 3/10th of a degree. I just know from what I have read and know to be true that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax.



South facing, I wonder what is in the sky above a south facing wall? Must be something hot.



Never going to be ideal for some sorts of wine making,



Can't say I am a big wine drinker, but if I can find it I will see if wife likes it.

 

[romanov]

Oh look, it's a denier's favorite resource.....YouTube!


Btodd

Oh look, a useless comment by some-one who does not seem to understand that You Tube is where a lot of folks go to post videos they find interesting. Like say, a documentary with a bunch of scientist talking about climate.

 

[chaim]

The problem with a you tube documentary as a source is that there are no references. Anyone can be a talking head and make any sort of talking point which may or may not have any basis in reality.

If you are actually interested in information about science (which I suspect JoeBudda is not) you tube is not a good source. However of you want to reinforce what ever political view you may hold, you tube is a great source.

Oh look, a useless comment by some-one who does not seem to understand that You Tube is where a lot of folks go to post videos they find interesting. Like say, a documentary with a bunch of scientist talking about climate.

 

[Braunwyn]

Part 2

Oh, the drama lol.

In 2003, Baliunas and Astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.

Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[13]

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[14][15] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[16]"

...

Baliunas earlier adopted a skeptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer. The originators of the hypothesis, Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland, were awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue were presented at Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement).
Although Baliunas never publicly retracted her criticism of the ozone depletion hypothesis, an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

 

[romanov]

You can argue all you want about the local climate of the southern UK, it doesn't change the fact that the Earth is currently significantly warmer than anytime in the past 2000 years. Local climate is not the same thing as global climate. If we continue at our current rate of climate change, the UK may end up getting whole lot colder if the gulf stream shuts down.

If is funny that you bring that you know from what you have read that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, when it is clear from what you have said, whatever you are reading is lying to you.

What is clear is that you and other gloom and doomers believe is if information does not come form some kind of group think process it is to be cast off. I ask the main point again. How much money and how far back into the dark ages are you willing to go to drop the temperature 3/10ths of a degree? What happens when under the mounting pressure of truth, your group thinkers start admitting they where wrong?

At one time scientist (well the equivalent) where absolutely sure the sun circled the earth. Scientist in more recent times where absolutely sure the Aryan race was the pinnacle of human evolution. Scientist of the Manhattan Project knew they where right believing detonation of the atom bomb would spontaneously combust the earth. Mann's hokey stick has already been disproven. NASA's clame of October 1998 (I think that is the right year) being the hottest on record has been diproven. The satilite sent up to find where all the carbon dioxcide is coming from showed that most carbon dioxcide is coming from the world's jungles and China. Neither of which would have been altered by Kyoto. The whole MMGW hoax is a power grab by the UN and other governments.

Follow the money. Who is going to benefit the most from trying to control something that is a natural cycle? Governments will get more control of it's people. The UN is going for a world carbon tax. Al Gore wants to trade in carbon credits. Power, prestiage and privaledge is what MMGW is about.

 

[romanov]

The problem with a you tube documentary as a source is that there are no references. Anyone can be a talking head and make any sort of talking point which may or may not have any basis in reality.

If you are actually interested in information about science (which I suspect JoeBudda is not) you tube is not a good source. However of you want to reinforce what ever political view you may hold, you tube is a great source.

You mean like Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and Nova where a lot of gloom and doomers get their info.

 

[romanov]

Oh, the drama lol.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

Okay, posting an argument between different scientists proves what? It proves that scientists don't agree with each other. Wonder of wonders. Thank-you for clearing that up. I always thought that scientists always agree with each other, that they sat down over some Brie and wine and came to a consensus and patted each other on the back while saying, "Good job!"

 

[chaim]

I don't believe information about science that is not supported by evidence and the scientific method. Thus I don't believe your absurd claims about it being 5 degrees warmer during the medieval period, the temperature only warming by 3/10ths of a degree etc. I also don't go to the CATO institute or you tube when looking for information on science.

I have already shown that you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to climate change. I could continue to do so by pointing out that Mann's 'hockey stick diagram' was verified by the National Academies of Science as being correct. I could also point out that NASA was completely correct in claiming that 1998 was the warmest year on record up until 2006, when it turned out that 2005 had overtaken 1998 as the warmest year on record.

I should also point out that the benefits of getting away from fossil fuels extend well beyond climate. Thousands of people die every single year in the US alone from air pollution from fossil fuel emissions. We spend billions of dollars on oil security every year. Not to mention that America does not have the oil reserves necessary to meet our own demand so we will be forever dependent on foreign imports.

To some degree this is all a moot point, as you seem to be confusing two distinct issues. You don't like some of the solutions that have been proposed to climate change (carbon tax, costs etc) therefore you are claiming the science it false! That is backwards and illogical. The science and the policy are two separate issues, you can disagree with the policy without any understanding of the science. But what your doing is akin to saying that you don't agree with health care policy, therefore disease doesn't exist.

What is clear is that you and other gloom and doomers believe is if information does not come form some kind of group think process it is to be cast off. I ask the main point again. How much money and how far back into the dark ages are you willing to go to drop the temperature 3/10ths of a degree? What happens when under the mounting pressure of truth, your group thinkers start admitting they where wrong?

At one time scientist (well the equivalent) where absolutely sure the sun circled the earth. Scientist in more recent times where absolutely sure the Aryan race was the pinnacle of human evolution. Scientist of the Manhattan Project knew they where right believing detonation of the atom bomb would spontaneously combust the earth. Mann's hokey stick has already been disproven. NASA's clame of October 1998 (I think that is the right year) being the hottest on record has been diproven. The satilite sent up to find where all the carbon dioxcide is coming from showed that most carbon dioxcide is coming from the world's jungles and China. Neither of which would have been altered by Kyoto. The whole MMGW hoax is a power grab by the UN and other governments.

Follow the money. Who is going to benefit the most from trying to control something that is a natural cycle? Governments will get more control of it's people. The UN is going for a world carbon tax. Al Gore wants to trade in carbon credits. Power, prestiage and privaledge is what MMGW is about.

 

[chaim]

What does this have to do with me? I have not given documentaries or you tube as a source.

You mean like Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and Nova where a lot of gloom and doomers get their info.

 

[Braunwyn]

Okay, posting an argument between different scientists proves what? It proves that scientists don't agree with each other. Wonder of wonders. Thank-you for clearing that up. I always thought that scientists always agree with each other, that they sat down over some Brie and wine and came to a consensus and patted each other on the back while saying, "Good job!"

Let it be clear that I don't really have an opinion on the origin of current warming. I'm not a climate scientist. I do like to review both sides of the debate. I simply picked one random vid and one random scientist and googled her. What I found was worth noting. If 13 of the authors she cited for her publication had a cow how could I not mention it?

Any way, of course scientists don't always agree. What matters is where the majority stands on a given topic. And as lay folk (IRT climatology at least), it would do us well to review as much info as possible. Given your position on that ridiculous petition, I'm not surprised by your resistance to read/consider what I found.

 

[romanov]

I don't believe information about science that is not supported by evidence and the scientific method. Thus I don't believe your absurd claims about it being 5 degrees warmer during the medieval period, the temperature only warming by 3/10ths of a degree etc. I also don't go to the CATO institute or you tube when looking for information on science.

I do not go to the IPCC or Nova, nor do I seek out CATO. I read a lot. I come across all kinds of information, some of it even from Nova. But, I do not gulp it down and believe everything I am told. I compare new information with old and draw MY own conclusions. Years ago I read an article about the amount of buffalo in north America found by the first European explorers. Herds went from horizon to horizon. They found huge swathes of grassland reduced to dirt and poo where these giant herds moved thru. I have seen on Nova about how elepants could be found in greater numbers in the last century. Marlin Perkins told me as a kid (man I am old) about the worlds critters were more abundant in times past. Then I read how the raising of cattle will reduce the world to an ashen cinder due to methane.

What do cows have in common with buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins? They all eat, poo, pass gas, exhale, die and make more cattle, buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins. All of which causes methane and carbon dioxide. Since no-one has proven a greater number of cattle, pigs, and chickens than buffalo, elephants, zebras and puffins of the past. Then I blew this guy off as another gloom and doomer trying to elbow his way to the government tit.

I have already shown that you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to climate change. I could continue to do so by pointing out that Mann's 'hockey stick diagram' was verified by the National Academies of Science as being correct. I could also point out that NASA was completely correct in claiming that 1998 was the warmest year on record up until 2006, when it turned out that 2005 had overtaken 1998 as the warmest year on record.

And Mann's hockey stick was dis-proven by some-one else using the scientific method. You can also prove that NASA proved that NASA was right. Wow, I just can not believe NASA would work overtime to prove they are not wrong. The NAS gets most of their funding form let us see, oh yea the government, NAS and NASA have no dog in this fight.

I should also point out that the benefits of getting away from fossil fuels extend well beyond climate. Thousands of people die every single year in the US alone from air pollution from fossil fuel emissions. We spend billions of dollars on oil security every year. Not to mention that America does not have the oil reserves necessary to meet our own demand so we will be forever dependent on foreign imports.

Thousands of people die each year due to electrical shock. Are you willing to go down to the river and bet your clothes on a rock to wash them? How about running that thing you sit in front of? Are you going to hook a generator to a bike and pedal while you type?

As I said before, Kyoto does not cover China. Are you willing to spend trillions on carbon security? Are you willing to go to war to stop China form burning dirty coal?

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I would say I have had a personal experience that has convinced me Global warming is real I moved from way up north to the south and now the winters are way warmer. This has convinced me Global warming is real. It gets warmer depending on where you move to and what time of year you are in. That is global warming to me! Doesn't matter because we are all going to be extinct in three hundred years, so what can you do?

 

[romanov]

Let it be clear that I don't really have an opinion on the origin of current warming. I'm not a climate scientist. I do like to review both sides of the debate. I simply picked one random vid and one random scientist and googled her. What I found was worth noting. If 13 of the authors she cited for her publication had a cow how could I not mention it?

Any way, of course scientists don't always agree. What matters is where the majority stands on a given topic. And as lay folk (IRT climatology at least), it would do us well to review as much info as possible. Given your position on that ridiculous petition, I'm not surprised by your resistance to read/consider what I found.

I read and considered it. I just do not expect for any scientist to except his life's work was a waste of time. They are going to "prove" the person proving them wrong interpreted the data wrong and thus the wrongness of his wrongness was completely wrong so I desire more money for my department so can continue to prove the wrong of those who clearly do not understand the information I collected to show how wrong they were.

 

[romanov]

I would say I have had a personal experience that has convinced me Global warming is real I moved from way up north to the south and now the winters are way warmer. This has convinced me Global warming is real. It gets warmer depending on where you move to and what time of year you are in. That is global warming to me! Doesn't matter because we are all going to be extinct in three hundred years, so what can you do?

See, now I have to prove your wrongness. My data clearly shows to anyone with an open mind we are actually moving to another ice age. When I moved up north from down south it got a lot colder so clearly you have your page upside down.