46 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 19 October 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Thought Three:  According to Christiansen and Ljungqvist, the Medieval Warm Period was 0.6 degrees hotter than "today," meaning the 1880-1960 average.  During their baseline period, the world was -0.181 degrees colder than the 1951-1980 average.  For the Medieval Warm Period, you add their 0.6 degrees to the -0.181 degrees and find that the Medieval Warm Period was +0.419 degrees warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline.

But:  the 1981-2010 average was +0.364 degrees warmer than the 1951-1980 baseline, meaning the MWP was +0.055 degrees warmber than the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.

And:  the twenty years from 1991 to 2011 was +0.445 warmer than the 1951-1980 standard baseline.  Meaning 1991 to 2011 was +0.257 degrees warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.

How about the last eleven years - the time when Little Fish says it didn't get any warmer?  Those years were 0.548 degrees warmer than the baseline, or 0.129 degrees warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.

Chistiansen and Ljungqvist's data ends in 1960.  The modern temperature excursion, what is usually meant by the term "Global Warming," began in 1976.  Using that study to refute global warming is comparing apples and ornages:  a kindergarten mistake.

Chistiansen and Ljungqvist show the graph of their proxy reconstructions with the instrumental record overlayed (green-line), so together the chart shows 20th century warming in context to the MWP (~1000AD), so you can see that 20th century warming is not dissimilar to what occurred ~900-1000AD in terms of both magnitude and rate of change, this is important because it puts to bed the myth that 20th century warming is unprecedented in both magnitude and rate of change and further discredits mann's hokey schtick IPCC flagship graph.

Quote

If you read these things before you parrot them, you won't look like such a fool.

The poster "The L" doesn't look like a fool. the citation given in the OP is an important paper.

[spud the mackem]

I guess they had thermometers,wind gauges,weather balloons,and written weather reports between 1000/2000 yrs ago ?

[the L]

Little Fish, on 19 October 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

The poster "The L" doesn't look like a fool. the citation given in the OP is an important paper.

Thanks LittleFish on support.

[questionmark]

spud the mackem, on 19 October 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

I guess they had thermometers,wind gauges,weather balloons,and written weather reports between 1000/2000 yrs ago ?

You don't really need those. What you need is sediments that are that old. By its contents you can reconstruct with 80% confidence any medium temperature at the time.

Edit, your problems start when you try to compare them with the medium of 1969 and then claim that it was warmer 1000 years ago:



between 1969 and 2000 we have a confirmed increase of almost 1 degree (Source)

A typical case of cherry picking data to demonstrate whatever you want to.

But we are making progress, they are already admitting that it is getting warmer. Five years ago that, according to certain "scientist" did not happen either.

Edited by questionmark, 20 October 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Little Fish]

questionmark, on 20 October 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

You don't really need those. What you need is sediments that are that old. By its contents you can reconstruct with 80% confidence any medium temperature at the time.

if you believe what you say here then you should accept the reconstruction as displayed below, note that only good proxies were used that respond well to temperature, proxies like tree rings which do not respond well to temperature were not used.

Quote

Edit, your problems start when you try to compare them with the medium of 1969 and then claim that it was warmer 1000 years ago:

how can it be a problem when the same thing happened 1000 years ago. see chart above.

Quote

between 1969 and 2000 we have a confirmed increase of almost 1 degree (Source)

look at your own graph, it doesn't say that at all.

Quote

A typical case of cherry picking data to demonstrate whatever you want to.

isn't that what you did by focusing on only the data from 1969. furthermore why does your graph omit the last 12 years of data? cherry picking perhaps? why should we rule out a 1000 year natural solar-ocean cycle.

Quote

But we are making progress, they are already admitting that it is getting warmer. Five years ago that, according to certain "scientist" did not happen either.

I know of nobody who has claimed that, who are you talking about?

Edited by Little Fish, 20 October 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 20 October 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

if you believe what you say here then you should accept the reconstruction as displayed below, note that only good proxies were used that respond well to temperature, proxies like tree rings which do not respond well to temperature were not used.


how can it be a problem when the same thing happened 1000 years ago. see chart above.

look at your own graph, it doesn't say that at all.

isn't that what you did by focusing on only the data from 1969. furthermore why does your graph omit the last 12 years of data? cherry picking perhaps? why should we rule out a 1000 year natural solar-ocean cycle.

I know of nobody who has claimed that, who are you talking about?

I will not have a problem with that graph as soon as I see the data, as the medieval "spike" there does not jive with anything I know.

And I know my own graph does not say that, but as it ends in 2000 it can hardly reflect the additional .2 degrees warming since then, 0.6 + 0.2 = 0.8, which according to me is almost one degree.

And you mean to tell me that the Oregon petition never happened?

[Little Fish]

questionmark, on 20 October 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

I will not have a problem with that graph as soon as I see the data

its linked at the top of the link in the original post.
http://wattsupwithth...1000-years-ago/
http://www.clim-past...-8-765-2012.pdf

Quote

as the medieval "spike" there does not jive with anything I know.

if you look at all the MWP studies from different regions, it overwhelmingly jives with the published science. you can check these studies at the MWP project at http://www.co2scienc...ta/mwp/mwpp.php what is different about this new study is that it analyses dozens of robust proxies across different regions, and confirms what we already knew for 50 years. it was only michael mann's graph and the ipcc that turned it all upside down in 1998 and 1999, and that graph has since been shown to be artifact of incorrect statistics and unreliable proxies.

Quote

And I know my own graph does not say that, but as it ends in 2000 it can hardly reflect the additional .2 degrees warming since then, 0.6 + 0.2 = 0.8, which according to me is almost one degree.

you said "between 1969 and 2000 we have a confirmed increase of almost 1 degree" which is not true, and there has been no global warming for the last 16 years, if you disagree then you are at odds with the UK met office and phil jones and Hadley CRU.

Quote

And you mean to tell me that the Oregon petition never happened?

yes it happened, this is what is said:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

that position is something i would currently agree with.
so where does it say in the above that "it is not getting warmer?"

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 20 October 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

its linked at the top of the link in the original post.
http://wattsupwithth...1000-years-ago/
http://www.clim-past...-8-765-2012.pdf


if you look at all the MWP studies from different regions, it overwhelmingly jives with the published science. you can check these studies at the MWP project at http://www.co2scienc...ta/mwp/mwpp.php what is different about this new study is that it analyses dozens of robust proxies across different regions, and confirms what we already knew for 50 years. it was only michael mann's graph and the ipcc that turned it all upside down in 1998 and 1999, and that graph has since been shown to be artifact of incorrect statistics and unreliable proxies.

you said "between 1969 and 2000 we have a confirmed increase of almost 1 degree" which is not true, and there has been no global warming for the last 16 years, if you disagree then you are at odds with the UK met office and phil jones and Hadley CRU.


yes it happened, this is what is said:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

that position is something i would currently agree with.
so where does it say in the above that "it is not getting warmer?"

Your own graph the is at offs with the meteorological and whoever else office cause it shows very well a warming until 1998, but don't let that bother you.

[Little Fish]

questionmark, on 20 October 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

Your own graph the is at offs with the meteorological and whoever else office cause it shows very well a warming until 1998, but don't let that bother you.

the graph I showed is not at odds with the UK met office statement "there has been no global warming for the last 16 years". you did not respond to any of the points raised. i don't think your intention is for a meaningful discussion.

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 20 October 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

the graph I showed is not at odds with the UK met office statement "there has been no global warming for the last 16 years". you did not respond to any of the points raised. i don't think your intention is for a meaningful discussion.

Oh but I don't have to, lets start with the Oregon  paper, are you going to tell me that Peter Wegman had nothing to do with it? Or Robert Carter? They did deny global warming (though both have been clearly refuted and Wegman additionally been caught for plagiarism). But I guess, informed as you are you knew that.

Whatsupwiththat does not have any data at all and the study of Christiansen and Thoompson contains, under Conclusions (you know the part at the end) this paragraph:

The level of warmth during the peak
of the MWP in the second half of the 10th century,
equalling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century
warming, is in agreement with the results from other
more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions
by Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008,
2009), Ljungqvist (2010), and Ljungqvist et al. (2012).

So, nothing new there, we are exactly where we started and not at 1000 and 2000 years ago it was warmer.

[Little Fish]

I was curious why you said peter wegman.
did you seriously get your information here:
http://answers.yahoo...05092637AA0Wtnn

[questionmark]

Little Fish, on 20 October 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

I was curious why you said peter wegman.
did you seriously get your information here:
http://answers.yahoo...05092637AA0Wtnn

Because occasionally I commit an error too, I was thinking about Peter Christoff but then remembered that he hardly is s scientist but a journalist.

[spud the mackem]

Just curious, where did these graphs originate and how were they made up, and by what resources.Anyone can stand in front of a rolling graph chart and cause the stylus to shake then come up with a theory.So where did the evidence  come from ??

[Zeta Reticulum]

Earth has been cooling and warming for millions and millions of years..... ICE AGE ... thaw... ICE AGE... thaw.... now is nothing different

[questionmark]

spud the mackem, on 20 October 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

Just curious, where did these graphs originate and how were they made up, and by what resources.Anyone can stand in front of a rolling graph chart and cause the stylus to shake then come up with a theory.So where did the evidence  come from ??

There are different types of reconstructions, based on tree growth, sediment analysis and ice cores. We know the warmth induced biological and chemical processes well enough to give us an approximate picture of the temperatures that must have reigned at a specific time.

The easiest is to make a list of plants that thrived during a period, like the discovery of the Medieval Optimum, that was based mostly on the discovery that in Britain plants that needed much warmer temperatures than found at this time thrived.

More exact are the measurements of decomposition products found in lake sediments and most exact are gas analysis of the polar ice cores.