|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 23:50:08 GMT
There isn't much of an argument whether there was a LIA or not. Certainly nothing that can be considered scientific.
It was an uncontroversial consensus it existed up until certain folks decided it was inconvenient for their purposes.
Oh dear. So there was a "consensus" was there? But consensus isn't science. At least that's the sceptic argument. You appear to be digging yourself into a hole.
Thats when all the questioning began and discounting of numerous studies and proxies. . . .all without the aid of any kind of rigorous analysis.
But the "numerous studies" contradict each other. There was no rigorous analysis in the original studies. You were right in your opening remarks. The LIA (and MWP) became the consensus view. It wasn't challenged.
Show me the analysis that brought about that change. Nope there is none. . . .it was just handwaved away.
Show me the analysis on which the original consensus was based.
While you are at it show me the data that supports the consensus on the residence time of CO2, which also became inconvenient as well.
Why is the residence time of CO2 inconvenient? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing. A shorter than expected residence time might mean the rate of increase is less than expected, but this will only delay things a few years.
Does it matter that much if CO2 concentrations reach 600 ppm in 2080 rather than 2060.
Like I said its nothing but handwaving to make it go away because you are going to come up with nothing, zip, nada like you always do.
But you've come up with nothing. I ask for evidence for the LIA and we've had nothing, zip, nada - not a sausage. You can't even tell me how long it lasted. When did it start? When did it end? What caused it? Is it solar-related?
"Consensus" just about sums it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 26, 2009 2:45:32 GMT
There isn't much of an argument whether there was a LIA or not. Certainly nothing that can be considered scientific.
It was an uncontroversial consensus it existed up until certain folks decided it was inconvenient for their purposes.Oh dear. So there was a "consensus" was there? But consensus isn't science. At least that's the sceptic argument. You appear to be digging yourself into a hole. Thats when all the questioning began and discounting of numerous studies and proxies. . . .all without the aid of any kind of rigorous analysis.But the "numerous studies" contradict each other. There was no rigorous analysis in the original studies. You were right in your opening remarks. The LIA (and MWP) became the consensus view. It wasn't challenged. Show me the analysis that brought about that change. Nope there is none. . . .it was just handwaved away.Show me the analysis on which the original consensus was based. While you are at it show me the data that supports the consensus on the residence time of CO2, which also became inconvenient as well.Why is the residence time of CO2 inconvenient? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing. A shorter than expected residence time might mean the rate of increase is less than expected, but this will only delay things a few years. Does it matter that much if CO2 concentrations reach 600 ppm in 2080 rather than 2060. Like I said its nothing but handwaving to make it go away because you are going to come up with nothing, zip, nada like you always do.But you've come up with nothing. I ask for evidence for the LIA and we've had nothing, zip, nada - not a sausage. You can't even tell me how long it lasted. When did it start? When did it end? What caused it? Is it solar-related? "Consensus" just about sums it up. Really? You are really arguing that there was not LIA? Historical documentation means nothing to you? Just precious! |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 26, 2009 2:50:32 GMT
There isn't much of an argument whether there was a LIA or not. Certainly nothing that can be considered scientific.
It was an uncontroversial consensus it existed up until certain folks decided it was inconvenient for their purposes.Oh dear. So there was a "consensus" was there? But consensus isn't science. At least that's the sceptic argument. You appear to be digging yourself into a hole. Thats when all the questioning began and discounting of numerous studies and proxies. . . .all without the aid of any kind of rigorous analysis.But the "numerous studies" contradict each other. There was no rigorous analysis in the original studies. You were right in your opening remarks. The LIA (and MWP) became the consensus view. It wasn't challenged. Show me the analysis that brought about that change. Nope there is none. . . .it was just handwaved away.Show me the analysis on which the original consensus was based. While you are at it show me the data that supports the consensus on the residence time of CO2, which also became inconvenient as well.Why is the residence time of CO2 inconvenient? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing. A shorter than expected residence time might mean the rate of increase is less than expected, but this will only delay things a few years. Does it matter that much if CO2 concentrations reach 600 ppm in 2080 rather than 2060. Like I said its nothing but handwaving to make it go away because you are going to come up with nothing, zip, nada like you always do.But you've come up with nothing. I ask for evidence for the LIA and we've had nothing, zip, nada - not a sausage. You can't even tell me how long it lasted. When did it start? When did it end? What caused it? Is it solar-related? "Consensus" just about sums it up. You are really arguing that there was no LIA? That's just precious. It's one thing to play with data, but you can't change historical documentation. Just amazing! And before you demand examples, just read a book or two from that time period. There are many accounts of the frozen Thames River and other examples of heavy winters and lost summers. Geez, your arguments get more and more vacuous the more that you post. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2009 4:48:40 GMT
There isn't much of an argument whether there was a LIA or not. Certainly nothing that can be considered scientific.
It was an uncontroversial consensus it existed up until certain folks decided it was inconvenient for their purposes.Oh dear. So there was a "consensus" was there? But consensus isn't science. At least that's the sceptic argument. You appear to be digging yourself into a hole. The consensus is not science GLC; but there is no science to suggest the widely held belief is untrue. . . .and considerable information and tradition to suggest the widely held belief is factual. The only thing that happened was the fact became inconvenient. . . .and I mean inconvenient in a highly Freudian way. Thats when all the questioning began and discounting of numerous studies and proxies. . . .all without the aid of any kind of rigorous analysis.But the "numerous studies" contradict each other. There was no rigorous analysis in the original studies. You were right in your opening remarks. The LIA (and MWP) became the consensus view. It wasn't challenged. It remains unchallenged today. Show me the analysis that brought about that change. Nope there is none. . . .it was just handwaved away.Show me the analysis on which the original consensus was based. I am sure the bibliography is longer than the "Residence Time" bibliography. One does not need to look far. Visit Akasufo's site for a few handful in one spot. While you are at it show me the data that supports the consensus on the residence time of CO2, which also became inconvenient as well.Why is the residence time of CO2 inconvenient? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing. A shorter than expected residence time might mean the rate of increase is less than expected, but this will only delay things a few years. Where is your analysis on this GLC? Changing residence time from more than a century to 7 years, one would think it would have rather dramatic impact on our ability to manage CO2 should it get a little warm. Does it matter that much if CO2 concentrations reach 600 ppm in 2080 rather than 2060. Nope! What I said is if CO2 is a problem its a 7 year problem not a hundred year problem as foisted by the IPCC. Like I said its nothing but handwaving to make it go away because you are going to come up with nothing, zip, nada like you always do.But you've come up with nothing. I ask for evidence for the LIA and we've had nothing, zip, nada - not a sausage. You can't even tell me how long it lasted. When did it start? When did it end? What caused it? Is it solar-related? "Consensus" just about sums it up. Its a folk belief GLC. Where is the science disputing it? Listening to your ancestors might be risky business but it sure beats running your head up your butt to look for answers. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 26, 2009 9:05:36 GMT
Listening to your ancestors might be risky business but it sure beats running your head up your butt to look for answers.
Listening to them say it was a cold winter in 1812 or some such tyear is not terrbily helpful.
Let's try some simple questions on the LIA.
1. When did it start
2. When did it end
3. Any theories for what caused it.
Any references would be useful. So far (on this thread) I haven't seen a single thing. I have, though, seen a number of long term temperature records - none of which indicate that a simultaneous, global cold spell occurred over a sustained period of time. Across Europe, for example, temperatures were pretty much flat throughout the 19th century.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 26, 2009 10:00:03 GMT
Re: post by itsthesunstupidYou are really arguing that there was no LIA? That's just precious. I'm not so much arguing that there was no LIA. I 'm arguing about it's extent and duration. It's one thing to play with data, but you can't change historical documentation. No-one (on this thread) has produced any "historical documentation". Though I'm not sure how you can possibly decide how much colder it was 200 years ago than to-day from some obscure historian's perspective that it was a bit chilly in January. Just amazing! And before you demand examples, just read a book or two from that time period. Which time period? !4th century, 15th ...18th century? And just one example will do, by the way. I have no doubt I'll be able to trace literature which will refer to the LIA in some vague, non specific way but it's meaningless. There are many accounts of the frozen Thames River and other examples of heavy winters and lost summers. Right - I've had enough of this garbage. There are a number of reasons why the Thames does not freeze as often or perhaps as extensively as it used to. One being the increased urbanisation of London. There are other reasons which relate to a narrowing of the river bed in 1831 and the subsequent changes in the rates of river flow. But let's have a look at some of the "frozen Thames" years. www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/freeze63.htmlThe above link states This is not intended to be a definitive list, and is based on reported weather conditions from agricultural records where the freezing of the Thames was recorded on most occasions in London.
The intention is however to demonstrate that severe weather conditions such as described below were not unique and occurred from time to time on a reasonably regular basis.Freezes occurred in 1963, 1953, 1947 (the coldest February ever), 1940, 1895-6, 1893, 1880, 1857 (Source: Leslie Ward ('SPY' of Vanity Fair) Autobiography, page 17 where he recalls well that an ox was roasted on the Thames at Eton),.....Hang on a minute - 1963? 1953? 1947?. These are not LIA years. Nor are the late 19th century freezes. Or are they? To be honest I'm not sure. Anyway, since the end of the LIA, we've had 8 freeze years in just over 100 years but none since 1963. Other years are mentioned, i.e. ....1821, 27 December 1813 - 27 March 1814 (Frost Fair 4th Feb 1814), 24 December 1739 to early March 1740, (Frost Fair Christmas 1739 - February 1740), 1708, 1688, 1685, 1684, 1683, (The winter was 'intolerably severe' (John Evelyn), Frost Fair), 1665, 1649, 1608, 1607 and 1564. There are earlier records of freezes also back to 1100AD. Oh dear. The Thames appears to have frozen over during the halcyon days of the MWP. Surely not. Let's check out another source: www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/It just gets worse In 1063 it is recorded that it was frozen over for fourteen weeks, and again in 1076.During that glorious climate optimum, it appears that the Thames froze over for more than 3 months at a stretch. It would be difficult if not impossible to imagine that happening to-day. Let's just summarise the situation: Throughout the past millenium, the Thames froze on a number of occasions at fairly regular intervals. This pattern ceased in the 1960s since when there has been no recorded occurrence of the Thames freezing. Sounds like AGW to me. Geez, your arguments get more and more vacuous the more that you post. We can continue with your Thames argument. Over to you ......
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 26, 2009 10:12:19 GMT
Here so socold, glc and steve can't say they didn't see it....  haha just as you thought skeptic lies couldn't get any more outrageous we have a new winner. Furthermore I see the shadowy outline of an older lie transposed in the background of the image. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 26, 2009 11:34:21 GMT
It's a common confusion, neither are incorrect, they are residence times for different things. Apples and Oranges. The 5 years is the residence time for an average molecule of co2. That's true even if atmospheric co2 level isn't changing. The longer time frame is how long it takes for a rise in co2 level to drop back down to where it started. The paper, the article and the website are just total BS. I thought that I would go back in this thread and read from the beginning and I found this argument illogical. Stepping through it "The 5 years is the residence time for an average molecule of co2. That's true even if atmospheric co2 level isn't changing."OK so the average time for a CO2 molecule to leave the atmosphere is 5 years. So a jump in atmospheric concentration must disappear in 5 years. Therefore your claim that "The longer time frame is how long it takes for a rise in co2 level to drop back down to where it started." ...... Makes no sense .. unless the atmospheric residence time of each molecule also extends with the concentration - which you have said it does not. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 26, 2009 12:28:33 GMT
As I said in an earlier post:
"If you have a water tank containing 50 gallons with 10 gallons per minute flowing in and 10 gallons per minute flowing out then the average lifetime of a water molecule in the tank is roughly 50/10 = 5 minutes.
If for just one minute you increase the inflow to 11 gallons per minute, the total amount of water in the tank will increase to 51 gallons. The question is how long will it take for the water level to fall back to 50 gallons after the inflow is restored back to 10 gallons per minute.
Obviously it could be never. But if the extra water causes the outflow to increase, but only slightly, it could slowly drop back down to 50 gallons.
It could take minutes, it could take hours, it could take days.
But crucially it is not the same thing as the average lifetime of a molecule."
|
|
|
|
Post by william on Sept 26, 2009 12:58:12 GMT
Another approach to understanding the problem situation is to examine all of the unexplained problems together. Look for a solution that solves all puzzles. Akin to suggesting tectonic plates move to provide a solution to the set of geological surface puzzles. Puzzle 1 During the glacial phase detailed carbon balance calculations show that CO2 levels in the atmosphere should stay the same or slightly rise, rather than falling from 280 ppm to 180 ppm. Higher solubility of CO2 in colder water is off-set by less water surface area and the contraction of the biosphere and biosphere's effectiveness to absorb CO2 during the glacial phase. The biosphere contracts as the planet is drier which converts vast areas of tropical forests to savana. Puzzle 2 Missing CO2 sink in current times. Puzzle 3 Evidence that in 19th and early 20th century that CO2 levels fluctuated, with peaks as high as 400 ppm. The three puzzles could be explained by a mechanism that modulates a carbon source to the planet's atmosphere. The upper ocean is currently saturated with CH4. There is evidence that the biosphere constantly removes carbon from the atmosphere so there needs to be a steady input of carbon into the biosphere. It appears the source (See Sloan Deep Carbon) is deep core carbon that is resident in the liquid core. As the liquid core solidifies the CH4 comes out of the liquid and moves up through the mantel. So what is required is a mechanism that has increased the amount of CH4 that is released during the later half of the 20th century and that is cyclically surpressed during the glacial phase and then returns to the current normal during the interglacial phase. The point is now one is looking for a changing CH4 input. To explain all observations. Now assuming that the CO2 level increase in the 20th century was partly due to the increase in CH4 in the 20th century it then becomes possible for CO2 levels to fall if whatever has forcing the CH4 abates. If that were the mechanism one should look at this time for a reduction in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. What Caused the Glacial/interglacial atmospheric pCO2 cycles? www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/staff/mahowald/papers/archer2000.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 26, 2009 13:19:01 GMT
As I said in an earlier post: "If you have a water tank containing 50 gallons with 10 gallons per minute flowing in and 10 gallons per minute flowing out then the average lifetime of a water molecule in the tank is roughly 50/10 = 5 minutes. If for just one minute you increase the inflow to 11 gallons per minute, the total amount of water in the tank will increase to 51 gallons. The question is how long will it take for the water level to fall back to 50 gallons after the inflow is restored back to 10 gallons per minute. Obviously it could be never. But if the extra water causes the outflow to increase, but only slightly, it could slowly drop back down to 50 gallons. It could take minutes, it could take hours, it could take days. But crucially it is not the same thing as the average lifetime of a molecule." The water tank case is different. What you said in your initial post was that a CO 2 molecule had a life of 5 years in the atmosphere. What you are NOW saying is that there is that there is a fixed rate of exit of CO 2 from the atmosphere (the 10gals per minute) which is unaffected by the concentration of CO2 and therefore, that the life of CO 2 molecules in the atmosphere will extend in some ratio with CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is a totally different position. I presume you will accept then that your previous position on 5 years residence in the atmosphere was wrong and that you can refer us to research that demonstrates that there is a 'fixed rate' of exit of CO 2 from the atmosphere and that rate is independent of CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere? |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 26, 2009 13:51:59 GMT
GLC,
So what you are saying is that you don't deny the LIA but that the historical documentation that supports its existence is less reliable than AGW models that can't reproduce past temperatures. Can't keep arguing with you based on that logic.
I am glad that you admit that urban heat island can be so powerful that it could be the difference between local rivers freezing over or not. I wonder how UHI's could affect other things (e.g. temperature stations, etc.).
I know, why don't you make some rock solid adjustments to a computer model to determine when the Thames would have frozen over since 1940 if not for UHI effect. That way we all will know the precise truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2009 17:20:57 GMT
Listening to your ancestors might be risky business but it sure beats running your head up your butt to look for answers.Listening to them say it was a cold winter in 1812 or some such tyear is not terrbily helpful. It sure beats the other approach GLC, namely we have a theory that CO2 emissions spell the doom of the earth so its incompatible that there ever was a LIA or that CO2 has a short residency in the atmosphere. Both of those make the CO2 threat look non-threatening so they must be wrong. Let's try some simple questions on the LIA. 1. When did it start 2. When did it end 3. Any theories for what caused it. Any references would be useful. So far (on this thread) I haven't seen a single thing. I have, though, seen a number of long term temperature records - none of which indicate that a simultaneous, global cold spell occurred over a sustained period of time. Across Europe, for example, temperatures were pretty much flat throughout the 19th century. flat cold compared to the MWP I'd say. Here are a few, all show warming through the 19th century, including one in mid-Europe. . . .so I guess you are wrong. . . .again.    |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 26, 2009 17:37:00 GMT
GLC,
So what you are saying is that you don't deny the LIA but that the historical documentation that supports its existence is less reliable than AGW models that can't reproduce past temperatures. Can't keep arguing with you based on that logic.
I haven't mentioned models. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It absorbs IR radiation. It's likely that at least some of the warming over the past 30-odd years is due to it's increased presence in the atmosphere. By using well established phyical laws and equations, the absorption/transmission of radiation through the atmosphere can be calculated.
Meanwhile you (and others) seem to be relying on some vague period in history when some years may have been colder than other years. You presented the Thames freezing events as evidence (the only evidence) of the the existence of the LIA. I have shown that the Thames has frozen over in many years including years during the MWP. The last year the Thames froze was in 1963.
Do you have anything else to add on the LIA. I'm still waiting for someone (anyone) to define the period of the LIA. I'm happy to accept that some years in 18th and 19th centuries were cold but they quite often coincide with significant volcanic eruptions. There does not appear to be a strong correlation with solar activity. The Dalton Minimum was a minimum in terms of sunspot averages, but the climate does not appear to have been appreciably colder than the periods immediately before or after the Dalton period. This can be seen from long term temperature records.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 26, 2009 18:20:42 GMT
flat cold compared to the MWP I'd say.
What's "flat cold compared to the MWP". I'm not going over each plot, but there appears to be little difference
Here are a few, all show warming through the 19th century, including one in mid-Europe. . . .so I guess you are wrong. . . .again
Which ones am I wrong about. De Bilt doesn't stay consistently above the 2 deg mean until the 19th century. Temperatures in 1900, 1775, 1650 and 1525 are all the same. The late 20th century clearly stands out as the warmest period. It is this that forces the smoothed line on an upward trajectory. Without the 20th century. The Qilian mountain and the Esper tree ring plot show some shallow peaks and troughs. There are dips in ~1200 and again in ~1600. Most of the 17th, 18th & 19th centuries appears to be ~0.5 deg below the 1961-1990 average which is about the same as the average temperature in the first couple odf decades of the 20th century. I've just checked the Hadley record and the 1901-1920 average is -0.44 (compared to the 1961-1990) base period.
Haven't you got anything better than this? It seems the bitter cold LIA may have been marginally colder than the 1901-1920 period - though I doubt anyone would have noticed.
|
|
