If this temp graph is true, it would sure seem we are no where near record high temps?

I have seen this temp graph before. If this temp study is true (and I have no reason to believe other wise) then saying we are at unprecedented temps is an outright lie. According to this temp graph, we are no where near the high temps, and more importantly, may be ripe to slide into very frigid weather.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/#more-13939

2009-12-10T14:51:27Z

Bucket, I assume you can not defend your position. Attacking the source is not an argument. If you can say the data is wrong, that would be an argument. But, it appears you have no legitimate come back. Try again next week.

2009-12-10T14:54:40Z

Bacceus, Obviously you are not well informed on this as there are studies showing the global temps were much higher in the 1000 to 1400 AD. Also, maybe you are a slow reader. The 450,000 year graph is FROM ANTARCTICA. You may not realize, but that is about as far from Greenland as can be. Sorry, you lose this one.

2009-12-10T14:56:50Z

A side point, what many of you seem to miss (or ignore altogether) is this is the actual data the scientist are using to convince us we are all going to die. And please, do not site any tree ring studies as they are as my 8 year old can figure out why they are not a good proxy.

2009-12-10T20:47:34Z

Trevor,
It is absolutely laughable that you sited the work done by all the people in the climate gate. Their work has become the laughing stock of anyone who knows science. And try this, write all the different authors names down and you will find they overlap horribly. they are basically a bunch of basement dwelling baffoons who cite each others work then call it peer reviewed. Sorry, but you have to use actual studies which have not been completely discredited to prove a point.

2009-12-10T20:49:40Z

Trevor, BTW you denounced my graph for ending soon. How about if they just tacked on some temps onto the end like Mann. ROFL!!!!

2009-12-10T20:50:52Z

Beren, Please actually READ the entire article. The first part deals with Greenland ice cores. The last part uses Arctic. AND they still have the same results!

beren2009-12-10T15:13:09Z

Favorite Answer

okay so central Greenland was warmer than it is today. It is a little misleading to talk about the Vikings since they did not live in central Greenland and probably never even visited there. They lived on the coast. But the question you have to ask yourself is Greenland representative of the entire globe?

Trevor2009-12-10T14:56:28Z

You're looking for answers on a skeptic's website !!!

Have another look at the graphs and ask yourself why they stop about 100 years ago. How convenient that they somehow managed to forget to include the data for the last 100 years - the period when the vast majority of warming has occurred. Who are those morons trying to kid?

They are trying another favourite trick of the skeptics which is to look at one piece of the puzzle whilst ignoring all the others. In this instance they're looking at just one ice core record taken from one location. Conveniently the location they have chosen is Greenland and conveniently they have chosen a record which only goes back 50,000 years. Nothing like a bit of cherry picking to present a distorted view of things.

Here are two much more representative graphs showing an average of many global temperature records...
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

I wouldn't say that the site has made errors or that it's perhaps a bit confused, more that it's full of deliberate and blatent lies and obsessed with spreading propoganda.

The reason they chose Greenland is bacause it's in the North Atlantic and during the Medieval Warm Period this is the part of the world that warmed up - hence the peak in the graph. On a global scale the MWP was more of a blip. The reason they omitted the most recent 100 years is because if they had included it then you would see that temps now are higher than during the MWP.

Talking of Greenland, don't be fooled if anyone tells you that it was originally named because it was green. It was so named by Eirik Raude in 983 to attract settlers.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

Interesting that you made no attempt to defend the sources you used. I guess even hardened skeptics and deniers have to admit that they're a blatent attempt at deception.

You claim that the graqphs I linked are the work of scientists involved in Climategate. There are over 70 named contributors to those graphs. If we're being honest here then how many of them are involved in Climategate? 3.

You state that their work has become the laughing stock of scientists. Perhaps you had hoped it would but your aspirations have failed to life up to reality. No real scientist is paying the slightest bit of attention to the claims of the skeptics. I would invite you to name just one credible scientist who has given any credence to anything to have come out of Climategate.

And if you don't trust the graphs then you could always create your own. Despite the lies perpetuated by some of the skeptics and deniers you'll find all the data needed is available online for free. You may wish to save yourself some time, I can tell you now that should create your own graphs you'll find that your results will simply replicate the results of climate scientists.

A Guy2009-12-10T14:49:54Z

Most of GreenLand is high-altitude (platau of ice)

The climate prediction include that at higher altitudes, the temperature will actually go down.

I don' think Vikings lived "in central Greenland". The ice is hundreds of feet thick.

Anonymous2009-12-10T15:10:46Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Same graph, different source.

When dealing with the Global Warmists, keep in mind, they will not acknowledge any temperature records further than 150 years. 150 years accounts for nothing on a geological timescale.

Artic ice is good for pointing at to prove AGW is real, not so good for extrapolating temperatures of the past. It just doesn't cooperate with the set agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Baccheus2009-12-10T14:41:19Z

Thank you for your history of Greenland climate. However, you put your question in the global section. I understand that the spelling is difficult, both starting with the letter G and all, but one is Greenland, in the North Atlantic, and the other is global -- that includes everywhere. Anyone who draws global conclusions from just one place and tries to extrapolate to the globe will be mislead.

You can now take Anthony Watt's hook out of you mouth and start reading what climatologists are saying.

Show more answers (1)