OT: A paper dedicated to Bill's problem !

In article , Eeyore wrote in part:

Not according to Loehle, who you like so much. His second paper has height of MWP only .07 degree warmer than the 29 year period centered on

1992 (make that about .09-.1 degree warmer if he used HadCRUT-3 instead of GISS for extension from the endpoint of his corrected reconstruction). Now, it is warmer than the 29 year period centered on 1992 by more than .1 degree.

Can you cite this "under today's ice"? I have seen plenty of pictures of the parts of Greenland that the Vikings settled during the MWP, showing the land getting green in the summer.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

But the evidence of farmsteads from that period physically exists. It's undeniable. Just google it.

'Getting green in the summer' ( in some areas ) won't grow wheat or whatever to sustain a community etc.

I have to say for me, you can argue over all the data you like but this is the 'killer evidence' that the IPCC case is just plain wrong.

Graham

-- due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to my email address

med

has

n

).

.1

e

tures

ver

s the

As usual, Graham is being an idiot. The southern tip of Greenland may well have been warmer during the medieval warm period than it is now - the Gulf Stream could have been running faster than it is now (30% down on 12 years ago)

but that doesn't say anything specific about global temperatures. It seems that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are basically North Atlantic excursions - other places have had similar excursions but not at the same times, so Graham has nailed his colours to the wrong mast.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Rich does like setting up strrawn man arguments.

m.

If Rich ever grows up - which seems most unlikely - he may learn the difference between a religion, where the dogma depends on faith and isn't falsifiable, and science, where there isn't any dogma and any valid hypotheis has to be falsifiable. All the hypotheses that underly Anthropogenic Global Warming are testable, haven't ben falsified yet, and don't seem to be in any immediate danger of being falsified. Lindzen did have a crack at falsifying the theory a few years ago, but ocean cloud cover didn't behave the way he thought it ought to.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ut

ame

front of

t h .

ever

95% of plants in greenhouses, where the growers make sure that the plants have enough water, nitrates, phosphates and other nutrients.

Paleontology tells that back when CO2 levels were higher, real plants reacted by decreasing the number of stomata per unit of leaf area - with fewer stomata the plants could still get as much CO2 as they needed, while losing less water by evaporation (which was harder to get hold of).

More CO2 in the atmosphere is more likely to benefit weeds than our food crops, which would mean less food, rather than more.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen