|
|
Post by steve on Oct 8, 2009 9:50:48 GMT
If you are denying that it ihas been colder and warmer (at different times of couse) in the recent past (2000 years), isn't that putting your neck out to get it chopped off? Maybe ice ages never happened either. Maybe the last ice that ended 10,000 never happened either. What the heck are you guys talking about? Of course there are cycles in the weather. You can see a cycle every year. There are longer cycles of both cold and warmth. and Then there are really long cycles that would during that time period look normal. Not being able to see this, or even think about it, are you sure you are a scientist? I don't recall anyone here denying that it has been colder and warmer in the recent past (2000 years). The question is whether the initial beliefs, based on anectodal evidence, that there were periods warmer than now during the Middle Ages are supported by the proxy evidence. Some people say the proxy evidence says it wasn't as warm then. Some say the proxy evidence is not good enough - eg. Steve McIntyre says this about tree rings. Some say that since the proxy evidence is poor/faulty/fraudulent etc. and an indication that we are being lied to by a communist conspiracy, we must go back and believe the anecdotal historical evidence. One or two people start frothing at the mouth and demanding the Spanish Inquisition. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 8, 2009 10:30:41 GMT
If you are denying that it ihas been colder and warmer (at different times of couse) in the recent past (2000 years), isn't that putting your neck out to get it chopped off? Maybe ice ages never happened either. Maybe the last ice that ended 10,000 never happened either. What the heck are you guys talking about? Of course there are cycles in the weather. You can see a cycle every year. There are longer cycles of both cold and warmth. and Then there are really long cycles that would during that time period look normal. Not being able to see this, or even think about it, are you sure you are a scientist? I don't recall anyone here denying that it has been colder and warmer in the recent past (2000 years). The question is whether the initial beliefs, based on anectodal evidence, that there were periods warmer than now during the Middle Ages are supported by the proxy evidence. Some people say the proxy evidence says it wasn't as warm then. Some say the proxy evidence is not good enough - eg. Steve McIntyre says this about tree rings. Some say that since the proxy evidence is poor/faulty/fraudulent etc. and an indication that we are being lied to by a communist conspiracy, we must go back and believe the anecdotal historical evidence. One or two people start frothing at the mouth and demanding the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Iquisition But it would be interesting to see a cite or two showing validation of proxy data if people are going to build world changing hypotheses on them. We wouldn't want to be sold a dead proxy would we.  Dead proxy www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hESpanish Inquisition www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o&feature=fvst |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 8, 2009 16:41:59 GMT
If you are denying that it ihas been colder and warmer (at different times of couse) in the recent past (2000 years), isn't that putting your neck out to get it chopped off? Maybe ice ages never happened either. Maybe the last ice that ended 10,000 never happened either. What the heck are you guys talking about? Of course there are cycles in the weather. You can see a cycle every year. There are longer cycles of both cold and warmth. and Then there are really long cycles that would during that time period look normal. Not being able to see this, or even think about it, are you sure you are a scientist? I don't recall anyone here denying that it has been colder and warmer in the recent past (2000 years). The question is whether the initial beliefs, based on anectodal evidence, that there were periods warmer than now during the Middle Ages are supported by the proxy evidence. Some people say the proxy evidence says it wasn't as warm then. Some say the proxy evidence is not good enough - eg. Steve McIntyre says this about tree rings. Some say that since the proxy evidence is poor/faulty/fraudulent etc. and an indication that we are being lied to by a communist conspiracy, we must go back and believe the anecdotal historical evidence. One or two people start frothing at the mouth and demanding the Spanish Inquisition. One or two people start frothing at the mouth and demanding the Spanish Inquisition. 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?' climatedepot.com/a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-nowI think it's safe to say which side is frothing at the mouth. Want more examples? There are a lot to choose from  |
|
|
|
Post by gdfernan on Oct 8, 2009 18:41:12 GMT
Steve and GLC have been going on and on about the MWP being regional, being intermitent etc, while implying that the current hot phase is global. However, I do not believe that this is correct. If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone?  ). vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.ltSo unlike the MWP (where warming is recorded in all 6 continents and Antarctica), the current warm phase does not seem to be global at all. However, if someone more competent in statistics can calculate and post the regional trends, taking into account the auto-correlations and the spikes caused by the volcanoes, it would be most helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 8, 2009 19:25:28 GMT
Steve and GLC have been going on and on about the MWP being regional, being intermitent etc, while implying that the current hot phase is global. However, I do not believe that this is correct. If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone? ). Good point. CO2 is well distributed in the atmosphere. If increased CO2 were the cause of recent warming why is it not trending the same around the globe? As Hansen himself says, its the trend that counts not the absolute temperature. You have record zenith in seaice melting in the arctic and a record nadir in seaice melting in the antarctic. Doesn't fit with what the propagandists are telling us. Something drastic must be wrong with their models. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 8, 2009 19:49:08 GMT
I don't recall anyone here denying that it has been colder and warmer in the recent past (2000 years). The question is whether the initial beliefs, based on anectodal evidence, that there were periods warmer than now during the Middle Ages are supported by the proxy evidence. Congratulation you just denied it was warmer in the past! And you are just lying that you dont know that GLC has been trying to bury the little ice age How about you agree with me now that you think it was warmer in the past or how about formulating a statement that does not weasel out of saying it could have been warmer in the past? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 8, 2009 23:25:54 GMT
If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone? ).
Another one who thinks the satellite readings are affected by UHI.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2009 15:06:25 GMT
If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone? ).Another one who thinks the satellite readings are affected by UHI. I did a rough dirty calculation of the energy per m2 from the conversion of fuel and it comes out at approximately 1 watt/m2. Does somebody want to check that? |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 20:13:36 GMT
If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone? ).Another one who thinks the satellite readings are affected by UHI. In reality the satellite data is processed and produced to create trends which correspond to the observed temperatures on the earths surface If the temperature data of the earth changes then so must the satellite data because the satellites cannot measure temperature. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements The satellite temperature record Since 1979, Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) on NOAA polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen. The intensity is proportional to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere, as demonstrated by theory and direct comparisons with atmospheric temperatures from radiosonde (balloon) profiles. Upwelling radiance is measured at different frequencies; these different frequency bands sample a different weighted range of the atmosphere......... Records have been created by merging data from nine different MSUs, each with peculiarities (e.g., time drift of the spacecraft relative to the local solar time) that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend.[14] The process of constructing a temperature record from a radiance record is difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 10, 2009 3:32:40 GMT
I did a rough dirty calculation of the energy per m2 from the conversion of fuel and it comes out at approximately 1 watt/m2. Does somebody want to check that? It is for the US, but we're a fairly large nation with just short of the largest per-capita energy use (australia is the highest but has a much lower population density). Anyway, while that 1 watt/meter might seem failry small, it contributes a HUGE amount to UHI and therefore the perception of warming...since over half of the world's population (and energy use) is in urban areas now. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 10, 2009 15:49:25 GMT
I did a rough dirty calculation of the energy per m2 from the conversion of fuel and it comes out at approximately 1 watt/m2. Does somebody want to check that? It is for the US, but we're a fairly large nation with just short of the largest per-capita energy use (australia is the highest but has a much lower population density). Anyway, while that 1 watt/meter might seem failry small, it contributes a HUGE amount to UHI and therefore the perception of warming...since over half of the world's population (and energy use) is in urban areas now. I calculated it based upon a rough estimation of worldwide energy use and divided it by the area of the globe. Take the 1 watt through the various climate sensitivity analyses and you get pretty good piece of warming and maybe more because of proximity to urban area issues with some of the temperature measuring instruments. |
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Oct 11, 2009 2:07:28 GMT
While proxies are all very well, HISTORY supports the contention that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the Modern Warming Period that is just ending. One need only look at the shifts in trade routes over time to see strong evidence of that.
And while the historic evidence is somewhat scattered, history suggests the warm period in Hadrians lifetime was warmer than the MWP.
There is increasing evidence that the end of an ancient warming period triggered mass migrations that brought an end to the Hittite empire. That must have been a very warm period indeed to force so many people to head south.
And there is even some evidence of an even earlier and still warmer period around 1900 BCE.
So if the proxies agree, that's nice. But history is much firmer evidence.
Stranger
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 10:15:05 GMT
Steve and GLC have been going on and on about the MWP being regional, being intermitent etc, while implying that the current hot phase is global. However, I do not believe that this is correct. Speaking for myself, not glc, I've been "going on" about the fact that reports of any warm period in any location during 900-1400 is often ascribed to "the MWP". That is a 500 year period! It is quite easy to find cold periods during this 500 year period. But noone seems interested in those. So I'm asking for the evidence to be compared in a reasonably equal way. And if you don't accept the evidence, don't fall back on a few anecdotes about Vikings in Greenland, or the MWP plot of uncertain provenance that appeared in the first IPCC report. You mean there are periods of warmth (or something that made the proxies *look* like they might be indicating warmth) there for some time between 900 and 1400. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 10:17:08 GMT
I don't recall anyone here denying that it has been colder and warmer in the recent past (2000 years). The question is whether the initial beliefs, based on anectodal evidence, that there were periods warmer than now during the Middle Ages are supported by the proxy evidence. Congratulation you just denied it was warmer in the past! And you are just lying that you dont know that GLC has been trying to bury the little ice age How about you agree with me now that you think it was warmer in the past or how about formulating a statement that does not weasel out of saying it could have been warmer in the past? I've made it clear I am not talking to you unless you learn to moderate your language towards me. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 12, 2009 10:27:32 GMT
If you look at the UAH data for the last 30 years compiled by Christy and Spencer, there seems to be a significant regional difference. The trends are identified at the bottom, and the trend for the Southern Hemisphere is different from the trend for the northern hemisphere, and the trend for land is different from the trend for oceans. The highest trend is for the NH Land (UHI anyone? ).Another one who thinks the satellite readings are affected by UHI. I did a rough dirty calculation of the energy per m2 from the conversion of fuel and it comes out at approximately 1 watt/m2. Does somebody want to check that? World energy use is under 20 terawatts (20e+12) Area of the world (4*3.14*6370000*6370000) is 500 *1e12 metres sqared. So that is about 0.03W/m^2. |
|
).
