Parts of England where in the 1500s rivers would freeze in winter were, in the 11th and 12th centuries, wine country. They grew wine grapes there and made wine.
In the 1500s when the rivers froze in winter they were no longer able to grow wine grapes there on any scale.
In the 21st century after 1000 years of breeding for cold climate hardiness and advances in growing techniques, a lot of places are wine country now that never were before. Britain, Vermont, Maine…
The climate in England is not the same as the climate in Provence and they don’t grow the same kind of grapes there using 11th century methods. In the 11th century, they did.
They didn’t have the cold hardy varieties and greenhouses and plastic wraps for the roots that they have now.
The fact that Britain was wine country in the 11th century DOES mean that it was warmer.
That we can now grow new varieties of cold-hardy grapes that didn’t exist in 1000 AD has no relevance.
Yes but that doesn’t explain Britain - they got the vines from France and Italy, brought them to England, planted vineyards, which were successful with no cold-hardy breeding and no 21st century techniques like greenhouses or wraps for winter months.
They produced the same wines they produce in the South of France.
In areas where a few hundred years later, rivers would freeze over in winter.
It might be us now.
It might now be us now.
That remains to be proven, if it ever will be, despite 20 years and tens of billions of dollars trying to prove it.
From here on in, not only is what they have not enough reason to limit driving or power production by force or tax, it no longer justifies spending taxpayer money to keep looking for proof.
And whether or not it’s us this time, last time DID happen.
And trying to write it out of the history books to support an agenda makes people less inclined to support that agenda.
It’s Orwellian.
Bob, no, computer models using tree rings don’t change the physical evidence.
If it wasn’t warmer then, please explain how these things happened?
You can’t - and they can’t. Nobody has even tried, the only thing they’ve come up with is this stupid argument that because they grow new, cold-hardy varieties of grapes now using modern techniques, the fact that they grew in Britain the same grapes they grew in Provence using 11th century growing techniques, which they don’t do now, doesn’t require that it was warmer.
It’s not just a few counties in England - we’ve been through this - you can’t dismiss as "anecdotal, therefore not the global picture" when the anecdotes are from all over the globe.
Again - so and so says it’s us, that’s not proof that it is.
And this particular question relates to the MWP - regardless of what you believe about today, denying the MWP is silly, and this particular argument about growing cold-hardy grapes today is REALLY silly.
Nickel now you’re arguing with something I never said.
Yeah, the CO2 is manmade - well, the increase is.
And that increase is 90 parts per million.
Less than 1 / 11,000th of the atmosphere.
Over 200 years.
Whoop de freakin’ do, Basil!
It has been warmer than today despite lower CO2 concentration.
And what happens with air and heat in a box cannot be extrapolated to the whole planet - if it could, the Navy would have a stealth aircraft (ask Alan Brown about that one).
Bob dismissing reality as "anecdotal nonsense" is foolish - the anecdotes cover the entire planet aside from a small region in the Pacific.
Proxy model studies DO show the warmer MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=8
But that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t just dismiss out of hand as "anecdotal" the physical evidence - there is no other explanation for the fact that species wild and domestic alike thrived where they do not thrive now.
It’s like arguing that because your computer model can’t come up with a viable way for a T-Rex-sized dinosaur to have existed without larger arms, they didn’t exist, without explaining what those skeletons are.
It’s like arguing that Jason couldn’t have hit that home run last night without explaining how that ball landed on Ted Williams Way.
Computer models that can’t replicate the PRESENT warming can’t justify ignoring the physical evidence of the last warming.
Question still stands - how’d they do it?
Ash, because the website that published those studies (but didn’t fund them, and is not the only website that published them) was funded in part by some fuel companies, that’s enough, in the MWP-denialists’ minds, to just dismiss them out of hand, without ever addressing their merits.
We hold ourselves to a higher standard - just because AGW is just the latest in dozens of pretexts the MWP-denialists and AGW-proponents have used to try to run the fuel business under doesn’t mean we dismiss them out of hand.
We just ask them to prove their assertions.
And we don’t hold our breath waiting for them to do so…..
I love the "anecdotal" evidence canard - - it’s DIRECT PHYSICAL evidence of things that happened all over the world that can’t happen now because it’s not warm enough - - and somehow that’s trumped by feeding their selection of indirect data into computer models that can’t replicate the present warming?
That makes zero sense….
Nickel you can prove that we generated most of the increase in CO2 since 1800 - the increase of 1/11,000th of the atmosphere.
And you can prove that it’s warmer now than it was 100 years ago.
But you can’t infer that the one caused the other.
Because it was warmer 1000 years ago (and 5,000 years ago) than it is today, for multi-century periods, when CO2 levels were lower.
That doesn’t prove that we don’t cause it.
It does mean that you can’t just infer that we cause it simply because it’s happening.
And the bottom line is, no matter how you slice it, you DO rely on that inference.
Until that changes, there is no justification for carbon taxes, more gasoline taxes, taxes on power usage, etc….. and "govt out of" this aspect of my life is as righteous as "govt out of" your private life.
Anders re MWP I’ve posted this several times, it’s a matter of historical and physical record.
To sum it up - around the world, stuff grew where it can’t grow today because it’s not warm enough, and people traveled where they can’t travel today because it’s ice bound.
And not a SINGLE example has been explained away by the MWP-denialists. They just dismiss it out of hand as "anecdotal" even though the anecdotes are from almost every corner of the earth, not one or two, based on the inputting of their selected indirect proxy data into computer models that can’t replicate the PRESENT warming.
That doesn’t give you any pause at all????
Oh I forgot, they TRIED to explain away the fact that in parts of Britain where rivers would 400 years later freeze in winter, they had significant commercial vineyards.
The explanation is that, get this, they have commercial vineyards there today.
Right - after 1000 years of breeding for cold-hardiness and advances in growing techniques such as thermal blankets for the root systems, they grow new varieties of grapes in colder climates where this was not possible even 100, much less 1000, years ago - - - —
They DON’T grow in Britain the same kind of grapes they grow in Provence using 11th century methods.
They DID in the 11th century.
Doesn’t the sheer stupidity of the MWP-denialists’ attempted counterargument in and of itself concern you?
And that was Mann himself!!!!! It’s on realclimate.org!!!!!!!
Anders ALL the sources said it until the climate became a political issue….
But check www.climateaudit.org.
Technorati Tags: billions of dollars, cold climate, computer models, greenhouses, hardiness, hardy grapes, history books, hundred years, kind of grapes, orwellian, physical evidence, provence, south of france, taxpayer money, tree rings, vines, wine country, wine grapes, wines, wraps