If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News5 mins ago
Physicist V J S O Moron......
45 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ClareTG0ld, I think not. If that contained a definitive answer you would have no hesitation in passing it on to me.
The point I’m making here is that because you’ve said that the high temperatures in Roman times were just ‘local’, people like Atheist, who appears to be incensed at the very notion that anyone would question you, take that as gospel, whereas from my point of view, since I’ve seen no evidence to support your claim, I consider it instrumental to the mountain of scaremongering that this topic generates. I know there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of this but I don’t doubt that man is adding to the problem - you only have to drive into Los Angeles to see the yellow cloud hovering above the city to confirm that. However, when little children ask me when they’re going to die, that worries me and for that reason alone I think science has a duty to be honest. Anything less I consider to be a dereliction of what ought to be a duty to the public at large.
The point I’m making here is that because you’ve said that the high temperatures in Roman times were just ‘local’, people like Atheist, who appears to be incensed at the very notion that anyone would question you, take that as gospel, whereas from my point of view, since I’ve seen no evidence to support your claim, I consider it instrumental to the mountain of scaremongering that this topic generates. I know there are a lot of people making a lot of money out of this but I don’t doubt that man is adding to the problem - you only have to drive into Los Angeles to see the yellow cloud hovering above the city to confirm that. However, when little children ask me when they’re going to die, that worries me and for that reason alone I think science has a duty to be honest. Anything less I consider to be a dereliction of what ought to be a duty to the public at large.
NAOMI, this suggests the historical changes in temperatures were not global.
"A group of climate scientists has reached a surprising conclusion about Earth’s past eras of naturally-driven, global warming and cooling—they weren’t global after all.
The authors of new studies in Nature and Nature Geoscience used evidence of ancient climates gathered around the world, from tree rings to coral reefs, to examine the pace and extent of well-known episodes of warming or cooling over the past 2,000 years. They report that events like the Little Ice Age and Mediaeval Warm Period, driven by natural variability, were actually more regional than global in scope."
https:/
"A group of climate scientists has reached a surprising conclusion about Earth’s past eras of naturally-driven, global warming and cooling—they weren’t global after all.
The authors of new studies in Nature and Nature Geoscience used evidence of ancient climates gathered around the world, from tree rings to coral reefs, to examine the pace and extent of well-known episodes of warming or cooling over the past 2,000 years. They report that events like the Little Ice Age and Mediaeval Warm Period, driven by natural variability, were actually more regional than global in scope."
https:/
// ... from my point of view, since I’ve seen no evidence to support your claim ... //
This is quite pathetic, really. There's no other word for it. You haven't "seen evidence to support [my] claim", because when I literally showed you exactly where to look, you refused to. Now, granted, that might be initially because of tech issues -- I don't enjoy looking at scientific papers on phones either -- but to then form an opinion on what it doesn't contain because I didn't do the online equivalent of reading it aloud for you is really something. Never mind the absurd act of linking it with scaremongering -- establishing the global extent, or lack thereof, of the Roman Warm Period and recognising that it was a local phenomenon has nothing at all to do with whether current science says we will all die tomorrow. Which it doesn't, by the way, but I shouldn't have to say that.
Corbyloon's link, by the way, is just to a media piece about the same article I've linked already. It puts in plainer English what I've already said the article said; although, if you'd read the paper, then you wouldn't have had to take my word for it.
In case you still, for whatever reason, need to see specific quotes from the paper, here are a few relevant ones:
"Within the era of the past 2,000 years, several terms for climatic epochs have come into wide use... [including] the Roman Warm Period, which covers the first few centuries of the Common Era. We note that for all of these epochs, no consensus exists about their precise temporal extent.
"Here we test the hypothesis that there were globally coherent climate epochs over the Common Era... us[ing] a common input dataset, the annual records from the recent PAGES 2k global temperature-sensitive proxy collection.
"No pre-industrial epoch shows global coherence in the timing of the coldest or warmest periods. There is, however, regional coherence.
In contrast... the highest probability for peak warming over the entire Common Era is found in the late 20th century almost everywhere." [Emphasis added]
In summary, then: there is no evidence for globally-consistent higher temperatures in Roman times (ie, the "physicist" in the video is wrong). I should also stress that this isn't the only paper to have made this observation: TCL's link, for example, mentions that this paper's broad point was already known, or at least already suggested, some time ago.
This is quite pathetic, really. There's no other word for it. You haven't "seen evidence to support [my] claim", because when I literally showed you exactly where to look, you refused to. Now, granted, that might be initially because of tech issues -- I don't enjoy looking at scientific papers on phones either -- but to then form an opinion on what it doesn't contain because I didn't do the online equivalent of reading it aloud for you is really something. Never mind the absurd act of linking it with scaremongering -- establishing the global extent, or lack thereof, of the Roman Warm Period and recognising that it was a local phenomenon has nothing at all to do with whether current science says we will all die tomorrow. Which it doesn't, by the way, but I shouldn't have to say that.
Corbyloon's link, by the way, is just to a media piece about the same article I've linked already. It puts in plainer English what I've already said the article said; although, if you'd read the paper, then you wouldn't have had to take my word for it.
In case you still, for whatever reason, need to see specific quotes from the paper, here are a few relevant ones:
"Within the era of the past 2,000 years, several terms for climatic epochs have come into wide use... [including] the Roman Warm Period, which covers the first few centuries of the Common Era. We note that for all of these epochs, no consensus exists about their precise temporal extent.
"Here we test the hypothesis that there were globally coherent climate epochs over the Common Era... us[ing] a common input dataset, the annual records from the recent PAGES 2k global temperature-sensitive proxy collection.
"No pre-industrial epoch shows global coherence in the timing of the coldest or warmest periods. There is, however, regional coherence.
In contrast... the highest probability for peak warming over the entire Common Era is found in the late 20th century almost everywhere." [Emphasis added]
In summary, then: there is no evidence for globally-consistent higher temperatures in Roman times (ie, the "physicist" in the video is wrong). I should also stress that this isn't the only paper to have made this observation: TCL's link, for example, mentions that this paper's broad point was already known, or at least already suggested, some time ago.
Here, "hypothesis" is used in the technical sense of "a thing that we will test probabilistically"; see, for example, the reference to the "null hypothesis" later in the paper, when they attempted to check that they'd done their job properly by stress-testing their methods. So I'm not sure why you think highlighting it as the "operative word" is particularly meaningful.
Don't Stop Oil! Climate Change is natural. Arguments to the contrary are just models, like the man said. But anyone who says it's natural and not made made must be a blaspheming heretic. Anyone who says the opposite is wandering around with their heads in the clouds looking for Utopia whilst singing "Imagine".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.