Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 1 votes

Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emission


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#16    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,419 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 October 2012 - 02:59 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 11 October 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

In what way is the Roman Warm Period a problem?  Or the Medieval Warm Period, either?
Doug

I think what LF is referring to is that our great Mann didn't find any significant RWP(No RWP actually) or MWP when he made his 2000yr temperature reconstruction, some years ago(If  remember right its his 2003 paper).

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#17    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,840 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 12 October 2012 - 04:02 PM

View PostBFB, on 12 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

I think what LF is referring to is that our great Mann didn't find any significant RWP(No RWP actually) or MWP when he made his 2000yr temperature reconstruction, some years ago(If  remember right its his 2003 paper).
I have that paper right here in front of me.  There are four chronologies developed from 41 proxies.  These extend from about 200 AD to 2000 AD.  The Medieval Warm Period shows up in the Southern Hemisphere, Global and combined Northern-Southern chronologies.  It is present in the Northern Hemisphere Chronology too, but very faint.  The Roman Warm Period shows up in the combined Northern-Southern chronologies, but not in the others.

The proxies used employ conservative standardization methods with regard to preserving MILLENIAL-SCALE temperature variability.  In other words, they are not intended to preserve or show temperature oscillations the size of the RWP or MWP.  This doesn't mean they aren't there, just that the methods used won't show them.  Researchers know this, especially as it says so right in the paper.  But people who aren't familiar with normal data variability often try to make a study show something it doesn't.  Little Fish would not know of this without reading the paper.  It is not mentioned in the abstract.

In the past, most proxies were collected in the Northern Hemisphere, so people tend to think that what happens here, happens everywhere.  The RWP and MWP are usually more-pronounced in Northern Hemisphere reconstructions.  But when you average in proxies from all over the world, the balance changes.

One question I have regarding these two warm periods:  during the RWP, sea levels averaged 5.6 feet higher than modern, higher than at any time since.  Presumably, that's because warmer temps melted more glaciers, raising sea levels.  Why then didn't we get a much larger sea level rise during the MWP?  Wasn't it as warm?  Or was it limited to Europe and other places where there are few glaciers that can melt and raise sea levels?  Sea levels take time to respond to climate.  Was it simply that the MWP was over so fast that sea level didn't have a chance to reach equilibrium?

And that still leaves the question unanswered:  How does either the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods refute global warming?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users