« UK Govt Reveals Incredible Land Waste From Solar & Wind Energy Facilities Versus Single Nuclear Plant | Main | The IPCC's 'AR5': Expert Uncovers Absurd Cherry-Picking "Climate Science" In Latest Report »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a010536b58035970c019b005d522e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Extreme Cherry-Picking "Science" Exposed In Newest Alarmist Arctic Climate Study - Moss-Picking Debunked, Unequivocally:

Comments

zi xiu tang bee pollen Reviews

C3: Extreme Cherry-Picking "Science" Exposed In Newest Alarmist Arctic Climate Study - Moss-Picking Debunked, Unequivocally

C3 editor

Actually, I do not misunderstand. On the other hand, you assume a definitive 'cause & effect' as proof that is likely without merit:

"The evidence strongly suggests that glaciation of Baffin Island will herald the next glaciation of North America although the timing of such development is unknown. The climatic glacial mode may develop rapidly, but there is a lag of the order of 10,000 years in the subsequent buildup of a continental ice sheet… The recent climatic fluctuations in the area are on too short a timescale to be viewed with alarm. The main control on glacierization in eastern Baffin Island is snowfall, not temperature."

Note the last sentence of a previous study regarding the Baffin Island ice cap. And if you read the linked articles provided in the post, you would realize that Miller et al. conclusion is probably erroneous.

The first clue that something is wrong with his conclusion is the cherry-picking of 4 samples out of 135 to assert the 44,000 year claim of temperature effect. The second clue of cherry-picking is the multitude of Arctic region studies, including other Baffin Island research, that refutes the Miller et al. conclusion.

As I said, I completely understand what Miller did to draw an erroneous conclusion. And I understand you want to ignore all the other evidence that this study's conclusion is without merit regarding the Arctic region's past temperatures.

As pointed out from the previous research, the exposure of older moss at that altitude and location is probably due to that area's snowfall, not temps. Nuff said.

Proton

Your critique is based on a massive misunderstanding of the study. The studied moss-samples were all less than 1 metre away from the receding glacier, which means that they have just recently been uncovered. What is the relevance of the other sites that are not close to the current edge of the ice-cap?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories