EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:40 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:57 am
Posts: 8
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ought.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posting a link without any other content in your post is called spam.


What do YOU think of all this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:30 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:57 am
Posts: 8
spot1234 wrote:
Posting a link without any other content in your post is called spam.


What do YOU think of all this.


I think you're remarkably aggressive and probably not someone it would be worth my time responding in any detail to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:54 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
moqauvin wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
Posting a link without any other content in your post is called spam.


What do YOU think of all this.


I think you're remarkably aggressive and probably not someone it would be worth my time responding in any detail to.


I prefer assertive to aggressive but it's nice to meet you anyway. Good luck in getting someone to discuss your link.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 198
I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Milton Banana wrote:
I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.


Quote:
The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend.


They also say that the CO2 increase has reversed this cooling so we could get back to the good old days of growing vines in York.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
From the article:
"Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, thinks that at least some of those tree rings actually show something else: a long-term cooling trend that lasted right up until the Industrial Revolution. The trend came about because of reduced solar heating caused by changes to the Earth's orbit known as Milankovitch wobbles, says Esper. His results suggest the Roman world was 0.6 °C warmer than previously thought – enough to make grape vines in northern England a possibility.

Esper and his colleagues say that warmer summers do not necessarily make tree rings wider – but they often make them denser. He studied the density of tree rings in hundreds of northern Scandinavian trees and found that they showed evidence of a gradual cooling trend that began around 2000 years ago.

The finding fits with other proxies for temperature – such as the chemical make-up of air trapped in glaciers and the organic remains in ancient lake sediments – which have also suggested a cooling trend."
Anyone well versed in geology knows we are supposed to be cooling down, and northern hemisphere increase in snow/ice season, leading to higher albedo and then the ~90,000 year ice age. This cooling trend stopped when fossil fuels began to be burned in abundance. Since 1950 it has begun an upward hyperbolic zooming upward after 1980, then more after 2000.
The trend now is toward skipping this ice age entirely, unless Yellowstone super volcano, or another similar one, erupts and aerosols cool down the atmosphere ~10*F for an number of years. In just a few centuries even this will not reverse the warming trend toward AETM. From PETM studies, and the increase in sequestered carbon being released, this would eliminate probably two ice ages, and one interglacial----200K years until the carbon is re-sequestered, then another 2 or more million until biodiversity is returned.
Sure, the wine growing region is shifting north, but not many will be growing vines after the population crash of mid century. Then, in a few hundred years it will have shifted too far north, then off the planet. So, drink your wine and pretend it isn't happening-------while you can.
I wonder if those seeds stored on that Norwegian Island will be viable in 200K years, and if anyone will be around to open the locked door.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
moqauvin wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
Posting a link without any other content in your post is called spam.


What do YOU think of all this.


I think you're remarkably aggressive and probably not someone it would be worth my time responding in any detail to.


I see you have met some of the less polite members on this forum.

Welcome to the forum!

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:24 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Milton Banana wrote:
I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.


Nice post.

The warmers are now going to concede that Tree ring studies are unreliable, since Esper's study is quite inconvienient for those trying to maintain that the 20th Century Global Warming was truly anomalous.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
I have always had problems with tree ring proxy studies. Temperature is only one indicator in tree growth. Many other factors contribute to the rate of growth. Light, water, soil conditions, altitude, absence or presents of insect pests or larger animals, etc. If a tree ring study says it was warmer or cooler in the past or present I am skeptical.


Nice post.

The warmers are now going to concede that Tree ring studies are unreliable, since Esper's study is quite inconvienient for those trying to maintain that the 20th Century Global Warming was truly anomalous.


No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.


No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was as warm or warmer than the present.

Kobashi et. al 2010

Rolland et. al 2009

Mangini et. al 2005

Tyson et. al 2000

Quite the nasty tone in your last sentence. Why would I claim something and then pull off a double standard like you have done with correlating various forcing variables to temperatures?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:16 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.


No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was warmer than the present.


Not globally, or even consistently.

Quote:


Why not list the other two papers from the same group whose findings contradict the temperature reconstructions in this one from the huge distance of 30 meters away from this site.

Quote:
Quite the nasty tone in your last sentence. Why would I claim something and then pull off a double standard like you have done with correlating various forcing variables to temperatures?


The "you" was the general term not the specific term, unless you are going to say these tree rings are acceptable while the other tree rings are not. If that is the case, I will point out your personal hypocrisy.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Quite the nasty tone in your last sentence. Why would I claim something and then pull off a double standard like you have done with correlating various forcing variables to temperatures?


Care to try to explain what double standard I have used with correlating forcing variables to temperature? I say try because I have not used a double standard at all. However, I cannot say the same for your presentations. Specifically the repearted attempts to claim causation due to correlation with no mechanisms evidenced to connect the supposed cause to the observed effect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.


No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was as warm or warmer than the present.

Kobashi et. al 2010

Rolland et. al 2009

Mangini et. al 2005

Tyson et. al 2000



Image



The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

(dark blue 1000-1991): The Holocene.
(blue 1000-1980): Geophysical Research Letters.
(light blue 1000-1965): Ambio. Modified as published in Science.
(lightest blue 1402-1960): J. Geophys. Res..
(light green 831-1992): Science.
(yellow 200-1980): Geophysical Research Letters. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
(orange 200-1995): Reviews of Geophysics. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
(red-orange 1500-1980): Geophys. Res Lett.. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
(red 1-1979): Nature. doi:10.1038/nature03265
(dark red 1600-1990): Science. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

No, that is not the case since other proxy systems have reached similar conclusions. We will, of course, call you on the hypocrisy of trying to use this study for any data reference given the ranting over tree ring studies.


No, many other proxy reconstructions have come to the conclusion that there was a MWP, and it was as warm or warmer than the present.


Tyson et. al 2000


The graph of the temperatures from the above and from a skeptical source, so there should be no qualms over the accuracy ...right?

Image

Image

Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51

The two periods from 1000-1500 do not look anything alike yet they are from the same group in the same cave about 30 meters apart using the same procedures and not coming up with anything remotely similar in reconstruction. Really a strong case for that claim don't you think?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group