Oops! AGW mantra contradicted by . . .

March 26, 2012 | Filed under Global Warming | Posted by

. . . a pesky little thing called science.

Quoted below is the abstract of a science article titled “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula”, published by Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115).

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

Proponents of AGW keep claiming that science is on their side.  Well, science keeps telling us that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon.  So, if the recent global warming trend was caused by human activity, then what caused the global Medieval Warm Period?

« « Anti-Growth Nominee Jim Yong Kim to head World Bank
The most sensible thing I’ve read yet on the Trayvon Martin shooting » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on March 26, 2012.
Filed under Global Warming.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    “So, if the recent global warming trend was caused by human activity, then what caused the global Medieval Warm Period?”

    Rabbit farts.

    Hey!  It’s as good a $cientific theory as any!  Give me enough MONEY and I’ll PROVE it!  The $cience will be settled!

  • Ray Dawson

    Crusaders invading the Middle East for the oil.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

     As Lord Monckton has pointed out, the “warming” which has occurred since the end of the “Little Ice Age” roughly 150 years ago is only apparent if you pick the exact “right” beginning and ending years – picking other starting or ending points allows you to “prove” whatever you want with the same data.

    Another
    student asked, in that shrill tone beloved of environmental extremists
    everywhere, whether Lord Monckton was a statistician. No, he said, and
    that was why he had taken care to anonymize the data and send them to a
    statistician, who had confirmed the obvious: since the same technique,
    applied to the same data, could produce precisely opposite results
    depending upon a careful choice of the endpoints for the multiple
    trend-lines that the IPCC’s bureaucrats had superimposed on the
    perfectly correct graph of 150 years of temperature changes that the
    scientists had submitted, the technique must be defective and any
    results obtained by its use must be meaningless.

    In other words, it’s ALL a bunch of hooey.  http://tinyurl.com/79ond42

  • jim_m

    The science is settled!  We know that fire is possible because of the presence of the substance Phlogiston and that people who deny thins are ignorant luddites calling for a new dark ages.  All this talk about oxygen is nothing but reactionary BS meant to distract us from the truth!

  • herddog505

    It’s amusing that much of the “science” of AGW is being pushed by people who are NOT scientists, such as Algore.

    But I actually rather envy lefties: the world is just so simple for them.  You tell them that things are a certain way, and they accept it and go merrily on, untroubled by the burden of intelligence or critical thought.

    • http://www.facebook.com/reikirobyn Robyn Walters

       … the burden of intelligence or critical thought…
      Hmmmmm. I wonder how Creationism stands up to the application of intelligence or critical thought.

      • herddog505

        It doesn’t.  That’s why it’s called “faith”.

        O’ course, intelligent, thoughtful, critical, reality-based lefties NEVER take stuff on faith, do they?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        I, for one, believe that the FSM sneezed, creating the universe and all within it from His Noodlely Goodness – and has been laughing ever since.

        It’s bizzare, I think, how the left automatically defaults to ‘creationism’ in arguments over intelligence, as if faith in a religion of any sort somehow precludes anything resembling reasoning in other aspects of existence.

        Water melts at 32 (or 0, depending on your scale) – boils at 212 or 100.  It does so whether you believe in or not.  The Sun is a variable star, constantly changing the amount of heat put out (admittedly within a very narrow range) – and again does so whether you’ve been Bathed in the Sauce or are a flamin’ ninja atheist.

        The universe exists – there is much that can be measured, and discussed – there’s a lot we can measure we don’t really know the effects of. 

        Understanding reality is hard.  Insisting that ‘the science is settled’ re AGW on the basis of untested computer models fed dubious data is basically saying ‘This is the answer I want, and don’t try to tell me different”.

        The mantra of the left used to be “Question Authority”.  Not exactly popular now, I believe… when they are the ‘authority’, you’d best not question. 

        Me?  “Question Reality – Especially when the Science is ‘Settled’” 

      • http://twitter.com/juandtres juandos

        Well heck! Creationism stands up at least as well as AGW or ‘living constitution‘ or pervs marrying each other…

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

           By pervs, do you mean Newt Gingrich and Marianne Ginther?

          Or maybe you mean Newt Gingrich andCallista Bisek.

          • http://twitter.com/juandtres juandos

            Actually I was thinking of pervs and proven liars like David Brock of Media Matters, Barney Frank of the Democrats, Anthony Weiner of the Democrats….

            You know what I mean, parasitic societal debris that accomplish nothing and cost a lot…

      • PBunyan

        It depends on your definition of Creationism.

        If you are referring to taking the story of creation from the various Christian Bibles completely literally, then it doesn’t.   (Or course that story was written by humans thousands of years ago, so it made sense to the people living back then.)

        If you are talking about the idea that there was some intelligent designer behind the creation of the Universe and life on Earth, then intelligence and critical thought can sucessfully be applied.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

    Um, and?

    Are you saying that evidence of previous climate change extended to the antarctic, this means that it is *not* changing now?

    Or are you saying that because the climate previously changed without human causation, this means that it can’t be changing now *because* of human causation? Which would be like saying that because a previous forest fire was caused by lightning, a current one couldn’t be caused by a campfire…

    I don’t see how this disproves the current overwhelming non-partisan expert consensus of global warming and its causes in any way. I mean, show me how I’m wrong, but it doesn’t appear in that article as far as I can see.

    • jim_m

       Wow JB.  Nothing quite so bold as posting a comment 3 days after the article goes up.  That way you can be pretty sure that no one contests your BS.  Great way to demonstrate the courage of your convictions.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        Wow JM. Nothing quite so lame as responding with a weird accusation, rather than actually answer what I said.

        If I had such an intention, then you could easily foil my plot to avoid being contested by, you know, contesting me.

        Come right on and show me the courage of your convictions. Show me where I’m wrong.

  • berynn

    The paper has been misrepresented by the media. The author has issued a statement.

    http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html