|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 5, 2009 14:06:12 GMT
I cannot answer this because it's based on a false premise. The 1990 report didn't even imply 'relax this has happened before' and there was no such transition like that from one report to the next.Yes sure .... from this  to this  and then to:  So what do we have? We have the 1990 graph sticking out like a sore thumb. This is not entirely surprising because the 1990 graph was based on central england temperature and was a sort of a "this is the best idea we have" kind of graph. The second one there is northern hemisphere. Therefore they really are apples and oranges. The 1990 graph did not support "relax this has happened before". The 1990 report was projecting temperature rises similar to the ones in AR4. What we see from 1990 report to AR4 is the progression of attempts to reconstruct the past 1000 years of temperature records. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reportsSoCold - I agree with you - they are apples and oranges. The first graph was a real attempt to show the temperature record. The second was Mann's hockey stick which was used to scare politicians and used a statistical algorithm that turned ANY input including random noise into the hockeystick that he wanted. You should now read www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932#comment-355268 about the way data that shows what is wanted is selected and any that is in discord is discarded. Even to the extent of inverting some data to get it to fit. You still trust these 'professional and well qualified honorable' authors? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 5, 2009 15:42:06 GMT
and then to: So what do we have? We have the 1990 graph sticking out like a sore thumb. This is not entirely surprising because the 1990 graph was based on central england temperature and was a sort of a "this is the best idea we have" kind of graph. The second one there is northern hemisphere. Therefore they really are apples and oranges. The 1990 graph did not support "relax this has happened before". The 1990 report was projecting temperature rises similar to the ones in AR4. What we see from 1990 report to AR4 is the progression of attempts to reconstruct the past 1000 years of temperature records. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reportsSoCold - I agree with you - they are apples and oranges. The first graph was a real attempt to show the temperature record. The second was Mann's hockey stick which was used to scare politicians and used a statistical algorithm that turned ANY input including random noise into the hockeystick that he wanted. Other studies not conducted by Mann agree more closely with his graph than with the 1990s one. Basically what we see is that the 1990s graph has not been backed up by reconstructions since then. The 1990s one was a finger in the air guess anyway which simply used a single location because we had no better. So it's not really a surprise or warrants much explanation as to why it didn't survive. The problem with climate audit is that it's just a one sided discussion on a blog. Science moves forwards on these matters by people publishing their own reconstructions and it is the range of all reconstructions that becomes the actual debate and the accepted current science on the matter. Authors are not obliged to answer questions or challenges (that may or may not be valid) that are put on blogs and I see no motive for them to do so. The correct course of action for someone who thinks the reconstructions are wrong is to publish their own because that is the first step to making the case. At least Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch attempted to do this even if it didn't reach a journal many scientists are going to read. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 5, 2009 16:24:58 GMT
The problem with climate audit is that it's just a one sided discussion on a blog. Science moves forwards on these matters by people publishing their own reconstructions and it is the range of all reconstructions that becomes the actual debate and the accepted current science on the matter. I see you and Climate Audit are in 100% agreement here Socold!!! ROTFLMAO!! Authors are not obliged to answer questions or challenges (that may or may not be valid) that are put on blogs and I see no motive for them to do so. Definitely much more convenient to shun the townhall approach to science huh? Filter the questions that makes it a lot easier. The correct course of action for someone who thinks the reconstructions are wrong is to publish their own because that is the first step to making the case. At least Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch attempted to do this even if it didn't reach a journal many scientists are going to read. Who cares how many scientists read it. What value is that in your mind? |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 5, 2009 22:52:21 GMT
SoCold - I agree with you - they are apples and oranges. The first graph was a real attempt to show the temperature record. The second was Mann's hockey stick which was used to scare politicians and used a statistical algorithm that turned ANY input including random noise into the hockeystick that he wanted. Other studies not conducted by Mann agree more closely with his graph than with the 1990s one. Basically what we see is that the 1990s graph has not been backed up by reconstructions since then. The 1990s one was a finger in the air guess anyway which simply used a single location because we had no better. So it's not really a surprise or warrants much explanation as to why it didn't survive. The problem with climate audit is that it's just a one sided discussion on a blog. Science moves forwards on these matters by people publishing their own reconstructions and it is the range of all reconstructions that becomes the actual debate and the accepted current science on the matter. Authors are not obliged to answer questions or challenges (that may or may not be valid) that are put on blogs and I see no motive for them to do so. The correct course of action for someone who thinks the reconstructions are wrong is to publish their own because that is the first step to making the case. At least Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch attempted to do this even if it didn't reach a journal many scientists are going to read. At least Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch attempted to do this even if it didn't reach a journal many scientists are going to read. Loehle's data was already published by previous authors. He collated them into one. CA scrutinized the first paper for which Loehle submitted corrections. www.ncasi.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025See at the bottom of the paper ' Literature Cited'? That would be self-evident if you'd bother reading it. BTW, E&E was where the hockey stick (perhaps cited by more than any climate related article) was exposed for the fraud that it is. Steig had his paper plastered on the cover of Nature, and it also turned out to be garbage, so why introduce the Appeal to Popularity fallacy? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 6, 2009 0:26:21 GMT
Who cares how many scientists read it. What value is that in your mind? How else is it going to become accepted by the scientific community? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 6, 2009 1:00:44 GMT
Who cares how many scientists read it. What value is that in your mind? How else is it going to become accepted by the scientific community? It would not be the first time the Sanhedrin has been in the dark. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Sept 7, 2009 22:39:43 GMT
it's too bad we don't all agree, then we'd know we are all wrong. If the solar minimun continues AND it gets cold , then they will be proven right. (unless, of course, the numbers are fixed) And if the solar minumin continues and it actually continues to become warmer, then the co2 crowd is correct. My moneys on the solar minimun AND it getting colder. I don't think we put enough co2 into the atmosphere to make a difference. As Spock said ' When a difference makes no difference, then there is no difference'.
Actually, I hope the co2 crowd is right in a way and prevents us from going into a ice age... little or otherwise. A cold world is a dangerous world.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 8, 2009 2:13:48 GMT
This may have been noted somewhere. Its the MWP but not in Armagh
The Middle Ages were warmer than today: Pescadero Basin, Gulf of California, Mexico
Barron, J.A. and Bukry, D. 2007.
Solar forcing of Gulf of California climate during the past 2000 yr suggested by diatoms and silicoflagellates. Marine Micropaleontology 62: 115-139. Barron and Bukry (2007) developed high-resolution records of diatoms and
silicoflagellate assemblages spanning the past 2000 years from analyses of a sediment core extracted from Pescadero Basin in the Gulf of California (24°16.78'N, 108°11.65W). Results indicated that the relative abundance of Azpeitia nodulifera (a tropical diatom whose presence suggests the occurrence of higher sea surface temperatures), was found to be far greater during the Medieval Warm Period than at any other time over the 2000-year period studied, while during the Modern Warm Period its relative abundance was actually lower than the 2000-year mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 11, 2009 18:38:19 GMT
Returning to the LIA issue for a moment:
Icefisher and Woodstove seem to go with Akasofu who seem to be saying that the LIA ended in 1800.
From a WUWT post, Henrik Svensmark says
"It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century and was followed by an increase in solar activity."
This reinforces the point I made. There is no agreement on the duration of the LIA. It's a period to suit whatever theroy is being put forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 11, 2009 20:28:27 GMT
Returning to the LIA issue for a moment: go with Akasofu who seem to be saying that the LIA ended in 1800. Akasofu is not saying it ended in 1800 he is saying it is still warming from that period of coldness, and the warming started either around 1800 or very much earlier. www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdfIs the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”? A possible cause of global warming Syun-Ichi Akasofu International Arctic Research Center University of Alaska Fairbanks Abstract There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to
the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about
1940.
"This is why glaciers have been melting since about 1800," he said. "Because the planet is still warming up from the Little Ice Age (a cold period from about 1400 to 1800).www.sitnews.us/0509news/052809/052809_ak_science.htmlCooler decades ahead, researcher says "This is why glaciers have been melting since about 1800," he said. "Because the planet is still warming up from the Little Ice Age (a cold period from about 1400 to 1800).
"The IPCC paid attention to only the latest temperature rise, from 1975 to 2000," Akasofu said. "This is what I call 'instant climatology.' They didn't look at the Little Ice Age. There's no excuse for that."
"In fact, world temperatures have already stopped rising, since 1998, which annoys the IPCC," he said. He also pointed out that a similar change happened in 1940, when the Earth cooled until about 1975, a time when some scientists predicted a coming ice age.people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/climate.phpIf most of the present rise is caused by the recovery from the Little Ice Age (a natural component) and if the recovery rate does not change during the next 100 years, the rise expected from the year 2000 to 2100 would be roughly 0.5°C. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 11, 2009 22:42:34 GMT
This reinforces the point I made. There is no agreement on the duration of the LIA. It's a period to suit whatever theroy is being put forward. Sort of like theoretical IR forcings the actual effects of which have never been physically demonstrated in a planet-like lab? |
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Sept 12, 2009 0:19:14 GMT
I wonder why so many, or all, of the "climate scientists" seem to be so utterly ignorant of history. After all, monks comments that the rivers were frozen hard enough to carry sledges from All Hallows to an early Easter should certainly be an indication that winters were bone chillingly cold.
On the other hand, just a few hundred years later there was late September heat sufficient to make the Danes remove their mail and hauberks points toward a warm period. As is the remarkable march of of Harold's men from London to Hastings.
A bit later, history says the Danube had ice thick enough to support horses at its mouth, the Nile was frozen over at Cairo, and so on, and that's an indication of an extended cold spell. And so on.
And then there is a little matter of crops. We are pretty well aware of what grows where - and alpine plants growing at low levels in mid latitudes should make bells go off. As should temperate zone crops growing at high latitudes, and so on.
All this and more is waiting for some "scientist" to put two and two together. If you do it carefully enough, you can get a very good idea how cold or hot in must have been, even though there were no thermometers.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 12, 2009 9:43:23 GMT
All this and more is waiting for some "scientist" to put two and two together. If you do it carefully enough, you can get a very good idea how cold or hot in must have been, even though there were no thermometers.
The fact that the events to which you refer generated so much comment at the time suggests they were far from 'normal'. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes tend to refer to anomalous events.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 12, 2009 10:50:10 GMT
All this and more is waiting for some "scientist" to put two and two together. If you do it carefully enough, you can get a very good idea how cold or hot in must have been, even though there were no thermometers. The fact that the events to which you refer generated so much comment at the time suggests they were far from 'normal'. This is the problem with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes tend to refer to anomalous events. Quite possibly but we have plenty of evidence to show that it must have been warm for quite a while and proxies seem to indicate that the temperature was similar. Also, something people PROBABLY forget...dendrochronology was established and calibrated in recent times. The convergence of the proxies is almost certainly an artifact of the timing of the process and it has indeed begun to diverge again. Also something people probably don't think about is that the ever-increasing CO2 levels would have ALSO showed up in the proxy record. Increased CO2 levels make plants more drought resistant (since they don't need to keep their pores open as much for the same amount of CO2) and grow far faster during good times. Now imagine, if the proxies for current times show this sort of growth with this level of CO2...what must the medieval warm period have been like to have a similar level of growth? |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 12, 2009 10:51:02 GMT
I wonder why so many, or all, of the "climate scientists" seem to be so utterly ignorant of history. After all, monks comments that the rivers were frozen hard enough to carry sledges from All Hallows to an early Easter should certainly be an indication that winters were bone chillingly cold. On the other hand, just a few hundred years later there was late September heat sufficient to make the Danes remove their mail and hauberks points toward a warm period. As is the remarkable march of of Harold's men from London to Hastings. A bit later, history says the Danube had ice thick enough to support horses at its mouth, the Nile was frozen over at Cairo, and so on, and that's an indication of an extended cold spell. And so on. And then there is a little matter of crops. We are pretty well aware of what grows where - and alpine plants growing at low levels in mid latitudes should make bells go off. As should temperate zone crops growing at high latitudes, and so on. All this and more is waiting for some "scientist" to put two and two together. If you do it carefully enough, you can get a very good idea how cold or hot in must have been, even though there were no thermometers. Stranger The only thermometer which is going to make a difference is either: 1. failing crops and freezing conditions or 2. Crops growing further north and rising temperatures and migrations to the barren northern areas away from the hotter middle areas where most people prefer to live because human life is perceived as being easier in a warm climate Which is why so much attention goes into the combined Arctic and Antarctic ice thermometer. It is the largest bullshit free heat detector on earth. |
|
