|
|
Post by steve on Oct 4, 2009 11:40:17 GMT
What is interesting is why the true believers cannot simply accept history. What is *not* interesting is that the true deniers refuse to try and *interpret* history. I haven't denied that there was a period from 950-1300 where certain places were warmer. The historical and proxy evidence is that these places were not warm all of the time (even assuming the proxy evidence has been interpreted correctly), that there were special reasons for sustaining development in some of these places such that historical evidence of sustained settlement is not guaranteed to be proxy for sustained warmth (such that colonists are likely to be stubborn and hardened people), and there were other places that were colder at the same time (such as the link above or such as evidence in the very papers cited by CO2"science".org |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 4, 2009 17:04:03 GMT
What is interesting is why the true believers cannot simply accept history. What is *not* interesting is that the true deniers refuse to try and *interpret* history. I haven't denied that there was a period from 950-1300 where certain places were warmer. The historical and proxy evidence is that these places were not warm all of the time (even assuming the proxy evidence has been interpreted correctly), that there were special reasons for sustaining development in some of these places such that historical evidence of sustained settlement is not guaranteed to be proxy for sustained warmth (such that colonists are likely to be stubborn and hardened people), and there were other places that were colder at the same time (such as the link above or such as evidence in the very papers cited by CO2"science".org In the AGW community, 'interpreting history' means, as Briffa admits, 'proving AGW'. Of course you are tenacious against admitting any error: One admission of error and you know the house of cards collapses. The purpose is never to let the evidence speak, in the AGW community, the purpose is to sell the story. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 4, 2009 20:08:27 GMT
After a slight temperature increase up to the beginning of the 8th century, the third cold period extended from the mid-8th to the 13th century, during which the Bosphorus and even parts of the Black Sea were repeatedly frozen, and floating ice masses entered the Sea of Marmara. Winters were markedly mild
for 400 years starting from the mid-13th century. The fourth cold period began early in the mid-17th century and has lasted to the present day; it has been characterized by severe winters, however, the intensity of the winter cold has gradually diminished during this interval."The mid 8th to the 13th century" ... ? Doesn't that cover about 300 years of the MWP? "Winters were markedly mild for 400 years starting from the mid-13th century" ...? I thought the LIA kicked in around 1350. When did the vikings start abandoning their Greenland farms. Like I said I doubt that the MWP and LIA were simultaneous global events. The new scientist in action: Evidence it was very cold a few hundred years ago in Turkey gets used to tell us there was no cold period a few hundred years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Oct 4, 2009 20:20:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 5, 2009 1:54:17 GMT
Depends on who is looking, no? |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 5, 2009 7:41:01 GMT
The objective is not to create clarity but to create doubt in those who might be straying from the intended path. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 9:25:51 GMT
The new scientist in action:
Evidence it was very cold a few hundred years ago in Turkey gets used to tell us there was no cold period a few hundred years ago.
No - evidence it was cold in Turkey when other places were supposedly warm and evidence it was warm when other places were cold suggests that the 'cold' and 'warm' periods were not simultaneous global events.
You seem to struggle with this, why is that?
Mind I accept it is a problem because we can't get any agreement on beginning and end dates for the MWP and LIA, so it can be difficult. There's also the knotty problem of trying to tie everything in with solar activity as well so I can see the dilemna.
Keeping things as vague as possible is probably the best bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2009 9:44:43 GMT
Mind I accept it is a problem because we can't get any agreement on beginning and end dates for the MWP and LIA, so it can be difficult. There's also the knotty problem of trying to tie everything in with solar activity as well so I can see the dilemna. Keeping things as vague as possible is probably the best bet. Not surprising when one cannot determine when the global CO2 warming stopped in the most recent decade. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 10:09:16 GMT
people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Fennoscandian%20summers%20500-2004.pdf
Clear enought? Not really. We'll ignore, for the moment, the fact that this is using tree-rings to reconstruct the temperatures for just ONE season in just ONE region, and take the graph at face value. Between ~900 and ~1100, there does appear to be a MWP, but the LIA is less well defined. In fact there doesn't appear to be one. There are a couple of troughs; one of which bottoms out in ~1600, but this is at least 40 years before the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). In fact, temperatures appear to be on the up throughout the entire Maunder Minimum period and beyond. The second trough occurs around 1900. This is the lowest data point in the whole reconstruction. Temperatures appear to be falling from about 1750. They did fall during the Dalton Minimum (so a bit of good news for the solarphiles) but then carried on falling right the way through the 19th century. If I say that this reconstruction contradicts even the loosely defined periods attributed to the LIA, that would be an understatement. The messages we take from this reconstruction: 1. There was a MWP. 2. There wasn't a LIA - or the there were at least 2 LIAs. The last of which ended in ~1900. 3. The Sun's activity had no effect whasoever, because (i) It warmed during the Maunder Minimum (ii) It started cooling in ~1750 - a period of high solar activity (iii) It carried on cooling for ~80 years after the Dalton Minimum. Could you explain what this is supposed to clarify.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2009 10:14:50 GMT
Beautifully clear indication that summers were warmer in Fennoscandia during the MWP. And reasonably consistent with a previous analysis by Briffa. Does this prove that the earth was more or less globally warmer during the MWP than now? Does it disprove that the earth is more or less globally warmer now than it was 30 or 100 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 5, 2009 10:23:44 GMT
Yesterday at 3:20pm, northsphinx wrote:http://people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Fennoscandian%20summers%20500-2004.pdf
Clear enought?
Beautifully clear indication that summers were warmer in Fennoscandia during the MWP.
Yes, Steve , but it also shows there was no LIA - or if there was the coldest period was in ~1900. It also shows warming throughout the Maunder Minimum.
In a nutshell it's totally inconsistent with the sceptic consensus on past climate and further reinforces my point (thank you, northsphinx) about the lack of simultaneous warming/cooling on a global scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Oct 5, 2009 11:22:36 GMT
Glc
Please explain to me and many others what is dangerous with temperatures withing normal variances.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 5, 2009 11:31:50 GMT
glc,
skeptics don't believe in consensus! Only the AGW believers have a fixed idea. The rest of us are free to explore the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 5, 2009 11:34:53 GMT
Yesterday at 3:20pm, northsphinx wrote:http://people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Fennoscandian%20summers%20500-2004.pdf
Clear enought? Beautifully clear indication that summers were warmer in Fennoscandia during the MWP. Yes, Steve , but it also shows there was no LIA - or if there was the coldest period was in ~1900. It also shows warming throughout the Maunder Minimum. In a nutshell it's totally inconsistent with the sceptic consensus on past climate and further reinforces my point (thank you, northsphinx) about the lack of simultaneous warming/cooling on a global scale. GLC: You are using regional data rather than global data. As I have said before, even during warm period there are going to be cold pockets or "normal" pockets. I posted the link for the Chinese study, we all know the European studies, NA studies. The data shows a worldwide warming during the MWP. I could say, based on my local climate this summer, that we are entering an ice age being we have been so cold. Isn't the truth worldwide tho is it? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2009 11:47:26 GMT
Glc Please explain to me and many others what is dangerous with temperatures withing normal variances. Ask the Vikings whose Greenland colony failed  |
|
