Wayne Stollings wrote:
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Has this been peer reviwed or is it an independant study?
I believe both now apply actually. The study was funded by the skeptic groups an undertaken by a skeptic, the data was released prior to publication, but I believe has now been peer reviewed.http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
Isn't this where you should be making it clear you are talking about the paper Tim discussed because as it stands it does give the impression you are talking about the ANDRILL project being funded by sceptics until you open the link?
We all make mistakes Wayne, I see you are human after all
Am glad you couldn't read my mind last night, a quarter of a bottle of whisky from 1974 to finish the night messed it up so much I couldn't even understand it as is clear from the wrong link for the second quote, last time I finish a weekend of celebrations like that for a while.
I am sure if you look at the final review paper that is available on the andrill.org site you will see it is in the paper, along with the remarks they have found evidence of the medieval warm period and little ice age in the cores, in the southern most part of the southern hemisphere, would have thought it.
Yes graphs can be, believe any scientist or wanna be statistician can make graphs represent what they want, it is only when you come to a representation of the raw data like the one shown in my op that it is hard to dispute.
Yes it is related to that statement but even that statement does not cover the details of why it is ice free with lower CO2 levels, and it is also a shame that emotional attachments have been placed around the CO2 links to sea level and ice loss such as the one johnny pointed out as his worry.
I know how special I am Wayne, especially when a weekend of alcohol and fine dining is involved, I am just humbled that there are others out there that are more special than me
So lets stop with the bashing of the new poster and look at the paper (and all the research behind it) and the reason I felt it important after all this time reading this forum and not joining to post this piece of research before but posted it in this thread.
The Koch brothers who have a reputation for distorting the truth have had a bad time lately with the release of what could only be classed as internal (as in within funders of the org) letters, memos and papers. They have clearly made their stand in the camp of supporting the industries that are destroying the planet and getting away with it and now they change their point of view. I am not and never would dispute CO2 is rising, or temperatures for that matter and that humans definately have a role to play in it, but it is the sensitivity of the link I have always been concerned about, even after reading many atmospheric physics and chemistry based papers that tried to show how much of a link there is.
Now I have known about this research and not discussed it for many years (end of 2008 approx for knowing about ANDRILL and what they were trying to achieve and followed the release of papers since with very little about them discussed in the mainstream AGW debate) of being involved in discussions on the net because I have seen how people that think they are trained scientists get blinkered to certain aspects of the overall picture. Yet the graph on the op clearly shows less ice than present, and the research goes into the types of diatoms etc. in the ocean and how they are only able to survive in the region due to certain temperature and calcium/magnesium ranges, if you look at the overall research you can clearly see temperatures have been higher than today because certain species have thrived there and this is confirmed by changes in the density of the sediment layers, the warmer it gets the finer the clay like deposits, then there is a point before it get too cold with the ice pack actually touching the sea bed where the sediment layer is much coarser.
Now as Johnny picked out of a very small piece of this work "CO2 levels have been 400ppm and temperatures 3-5C warmer" yet they have been 3-5C warmer without such levels of CO2, else if they had the evidence for it they would have used it in much the same way the emotional statements have been added and highlighted at certain points in the reports, such as "so man needs to stabilize the climate while we still have a little time." that is a conclusive statement with emotional attachment, not something that should have been in the report body and there are a few of them that throw the work off kilter a little.
Now as spot tried to say we only have my word for what this study has discovered, which when you look at it from the point of view that you hadn't heard about it before is fair enough, but the research and data speak for themselves and the graph in the op is very clear, all interglacials with less ice cover over the drilling points in the sea bed beneath the current ice sheet and we are still wamring, the ice sheet is still retreating and we are only in the downward slope, we haven't reached the 10-20 thousand years of relatively stable warmer temperatures (less sea ice) that all the interglacials have.