No, he said there is not enough available data to say whether it could have been warmer globally then than now. There is a difference. There is some evidence that it was at least as warm in certain regions, but not globally. The northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere don't always match in mean temperatures during a certain period. What Jones said is that we need more data from the tropics and southern hemisphere to know for sure what the global mean temperatures were in the medieval period and that data is difficult to come by in those regions. Other scientists believe the data is sufficient to show that it was not as warm then as now.
OK, my statement concerning comments from Phil Jones was that he, "said that it very well could have even been warmer during that period." Probably the wrong words to use, but my thought remains the same. Here is the exact quote from Phil Jones during the interview.
*****Phil Jones- "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few paleoclimatic records for these latter two regions."
"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."*****
If you actually look at data from the study, and it has been repeated since then with the same results, areas in the North Atlantic were at least as warm and possibly even warmer than it is now. They can't obtain the proper sediment cores or tree rings to do an accurate estimate on the southern hemisphere at that time. So they aren't sure if it would have balanced out the warmer regions 'if' they were perhaps cooler. This is precisely why I brought up this period in time, the verdict is still out as to wether or not the current warming is 'unprecendented' as you suggested earlier. Really, we have only been keeping accurate weather data since the 1800's I think?. So we can only take our best guesses as to what the weather cycles were doing going back the thousands and even millions of years that the Earth has been going through its various short term anomalies and longer term cycles. So we go through a 40 year warming period or so and all of sudden everyone knows that it has to be due to greenhouses gases. Like I said, if we were cooling over that same period, wouldn't the same people be arguing that it's due to human activity? I know the answer to that already. As far as I know, we very well could be the cause for the warming. But it is hardly the proven fact that everyone seems to make it out to be.
FYI, Jones also stated in the same interview: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed . . . there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." Jones also said that "[t]he fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing" supports the conclusion that recent warming has been largely man-made while previous periods of warming were caused by natural forces.
It's a good interview:
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Yes, but for some reason I think this part is missing, or perhaps I skimmed over it or it was from a separate interview?-
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Meaning, as I said above, we are only looking at a very short blink in the history of Earth to try to establish a pattern. If I sit here and flip a coin long enough, I could come up with 6-8 heads in a row or perhaps more, which would perhaps suggest a pattern is developing. But we know in truth that isn't really happening.
Everything is provable, one way or the other, in time. What we need to do is follow the evidence. Where there are questions and gaps, we need to seek the data to close those knowledge gaps. What we don't need to do is turn a blind eye to any possibility, including the possibility that we are wrong in our assumptions.
I agree, keep in mind that I'm not turning a blind eye to our being a potential cause for global warming, I'm just not treating it as gospel as others seem to do.
The problem with your point of view, of course, is scale. Water pollution is mostly a short term and local issue. Global warming and the acidification of our oceans has a high risk for global calamity. We are talking mass extinction of the human species, along with many other species. Ultimately, our population is out of control and it will correct itself, and probably quite severely. Through our use of fossil fuels, and overuse of all our resources, I think we are rapidly accelerating that process. Better enjoy your Logans while you can. :music:
Yes and no. The Shenandoahs water problems are mostly local in source, but remember that all the water in our streams and rivers eventually flow to the ocean where the chemicals (pollutants) collect and concentrate, thus becoming a global problem. Also, the acid rain that has an impact on Virginias trout streams comes from the same pollutants that are perhaps the cause for global warming. They can have their origin from another part of the US or even from another country. I guess I treat global warming as just being one of the potential symptoms of the larger problem (the pollution of our planet which causes other harm beyond a degree or two of warming) as opposed to being the main problem itself. If that makes sense? If we cut back on pollution as much as feasilbly possible, then we will have done as much as we can for global warming wether or not we are the cause. For what it is worth, I have no doubt that we aren't helping matters. I guess some of the difference is in just what steps we start taking to cure the problem. I'm not into going back to living in small huts and traveling by horse and buggy. But if we all drive electric cars I guess every bit helps, but by just how much? Remember that we need to produce the electricity to power the car. And what if other nations such as China and India don't follow along, would we have even come close to putting a dent in it? It's sad to think about really. But we need to strive to be as clean as possible while still enjoying life.
I'll let you have the final word, as I'm sure others on this ML have read their share of global warming opinions from us and I'm quite for certain that I need to get some work done!! But it's nice to have had a thoughtful dicussion of slightly differing opinions without the animosity that sometimes come through in these sorts of talks. Good day.
