Much of the ‘anecdotal evidence for wine production is from the Doomsday Book compiled on the orders of the William the Conquerer.

It happens where I grew up in England (Harlow) is one of many places that produced wine, and the DB records show it was a substantial economic activity.

This the DB record for another Essex location.

Hundred of Rochford. Suen holds Rayleigh in demesne as one
manor and 5 hides. Then 2 ploughs on the demesne, now 3. Always 10 ploughs belonging to the men. Then 21
villeins, now 6. Then 6 bordars, now 15. Always 2 slaves. There are 10 acres of meadow and wood for 40 pigs. Now
1 park, and 6 arpents of vineyard, which produce 20 muids of wine if it does well.
Then 4 horses, 13 cows, 25 pigs, 105 sheep; now 5 horses, 2 colts,
20 cows, 11 pigs, 80 sheep, and 11 goats. Then it was worth ⡱0, now the same without counting the wine.
In this manor Suen has built his castle. Of this manor
4 Frenchmen hold 2 hides, with 4 ploughs and 4 bordars, worth 60s. of the
above total.

An arpent is 3400 SqM or a bit less than an acre. A muid appears to be a wagon load.

The only example they write about is the British vineyards, and have you seen Mann’s weak attempt
at a rebuttal? Get this, he says that because they have vineyards there now, that means the vineyards
there in the 11th century don’t prove warmer climes. Rrrrright, after 1000 years of breeding for
cold-hardiness and improvements to growing techniques from greenhouses to synthetic blankets to
cover the roots in winter, they grew new cold-hardy varieties of grapes in England – and in other
cold areas like Vermont, Maine, etc…. And that’s relevant…. how?

They do NOT grow in Britain the same kind of grapes they grow in Provence, nor do they use 11th century growing methods.

They CAN’T, because it’s too COLD.

They DID grow in Britain the same kind of grapes they grow in Provence, using 11th century growing
methods, in the 11th century.

Because it was WARMER THEN THAN IT IS TODAY!

The sheer stupidity of Mann’s attempted rebuttal on this one is quite revealing.

Lee wrote: “… – y’all have fun with this.”

Shall we?

Lee started that comment, as he often does, with a whine:

“Well, I had left this site, until it was pointed out to me that Steve had once again posted an article referring to me without even the courtesy of sending me an email saying he had done so.”

So, a bit of Lee’s childish pique is showing, but what else is new? Is Lee’s sudden interest in courtesy something more than a bit of polemical convenience? Perhaps a look at an example of Lee’s courtesy to others from one of his first posts on this blog may suggest an answer.

In the thread Hergerl et al in this week’s Nature, tFreddy asked in comment 8 “Does Nature have an explicit policy of an embargo on data under review ?”

Lee, in coment 23, after another one of his whines, responded with a rant which included the following gem: “And before you ask; find the link your own damn self. It isn’t difficult. You should have done it **before** you asked a question with scurrilous imputations. — ”

Perhaps courtesy matters to Lee when it might serve Lee’s purposes, but otherwise, place your bets.

In this current thread Lee went on to try to slur Steve M’s honesty, as he has attempted so often before. Hey, if you can’t beat Steve on the science, why not try a slur? But, as with courtesy, it might seem as if Lee’s regard for honesty may be a function of polemical convenience. Perhaps a few examples might be of some slight interest.

In comment 17 of the thread Reverse engineering Hergerl et al. Lee wrote:

“What I said was that I found it distressing to read, as a stated reason for your making those guesses, implications of dishonesty.”

Well, no. That is not what Lee said. Therefore, that statement which Lee wrote about what Lee had said, clearly is false, no mindreading required. Does that imply that Lee is dishonest? How on earth, to borrow a phrase from Lee, is that NOT an implication of dishonesty?

In comment 78 of the thread Nation Post Op Ed Lee wrote: “Steve, your op/ed implied that the comittee cut off ALL evidence at the knees, and that is simply not true.”

To put it courteously: hogwash. The Op Ed expressed confidence that the other studies do not meet the methodological standards now recommended by the NAS panel. It did not state, or imply, or even merely suggest, that the NAS panel “cut off ALL evidence at the knees”.

In comment 92 of that same thread, also referring to Steve, Lee wrote: “In fact, he SAYS it applies to all the evidence, … “, another of Lee’s fabrications, and another example of Lee’s attitude toward honesty when polemical convenience calls.

It would be nice if Lee could actually try a bit of courtesy, and apologize to Steve for Lee’s various fallacious comments, but I’m not holding my breath.

There seems to be conflicting ideas about this tree, some pages say it grows 3-4 feet per year, but on other fact pages it says “growth is slow”. An adult tree doesn’t have to be mature or tall , just produce cones.

“Some grow rapidly, others slowly. Some have silvery foliage, others are dark green. They range in maturity from dwarfs to 100-foot-tall trees.”

thought that was interesting.

Cheers!

Whether annual, or daily, or decadal, it doesnt change the USEFULNESS (or lack thereof) of the concept.

One can say that conditions for net ablation, or net accumulation, occurred during a certain time frame. Perhaps the inflection points of “equilibrium” could serve only to define the lengths of time over which these periods occur. Defining a long term warming or cooling trend, as you point out, is another thing altogether.

Have you ever heard of a gentleman called Walter Marshall? Walter Marshall is a former Chairman o fthe UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and was also a Chairman of the UK Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) back in the days when in the UK we planned to build 10 new PWRs. In the end we only built one (Sizewell B) and opted for the ‘dash for gas’ instead. Walter Marshall was a key advocate of the PWR and once coined the phrase ‘Slow Breeder Reactor’. This was a mickey take on the mis-named ‘Fast Breeder Reactor’ (FBR) as the FBR most definitely did not breed plutonium fast. Indeed this was Walter’s way of eluding to the fact the the Dounreay FBR did not have a positive breeder co-efficient. Even as the UK DOE’s chief scientist and subsequently Chairman of the UKAEA he could see little point in the fast reactor fuel cycle. Sadly Lord Marshall of Goring died in 1996 and so did not live to see recent developments on energy policy within the UK. I wonder what he would have thought of the recent developments, namely Tony B’s backing for a new programme of nuclear power plants which will inevitably be based on the Sizwell B design. If he had lived longer he could well have eventually seen his plan finally come to fruitition.

KevinUK