EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:13 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:44 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
I was going through the GISS map site and saw what an exrtaordinary year the United States is going through and yet the average over the globe isn't that high. I invite anyone to look at the color maps and zonal mean graph for each of the six months of this year. To keep the same comparison as I saw just change the month and nothing else for the different months of the year of 2012. There are some incredibly warm areas in the northern lattitudes compared to the base period 1951-1980.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Data Sources: Land: none GISS analysis
Ocean: none Hadl/Reyn_v2
Map Type: Anomalies Trends
Mean Period: -------------------- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time Interval: Begin 2012— End 2012
Base Period: Begin 2012— End 2012
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
renewable guy wrote:
I was going through the GISS map site and saw what an exrtaordinary year the United States is going through and yet the average over the globe isn't that high. I invite anyone to look at the color maps and zonal mean graph for each of the six months of this year. To keep the same comparison as I saw just change the month and nothing else for the different months of the year of 2012. There are some incredibly warm areas in the northern lattitudes compared to the base period 1951-1980.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Data Sources: Land: none GISS analysis
Ocean: none Hadl/Reyn_v2
Map Type: Anomalies Trends
Mean Period: -------------------- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time Interval: Begin 2012— End 2012
Base Period: Begin 2012— End 2012
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular


You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas? How can that be? :eh: :problem: :mrgreen: :-

_________________
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: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:00 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Image

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reco ... d-in-june/


Combine all the northern artic hemisphere above average anomalies with ice and frozen tundra and you have artic amplification


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:03 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Wayne Stollings wrote:
renewable guy wrote:
I was going through the GISS map site and saw what an exrtaordinary year the United States is going through and yet the average over the globe isn't that high. I invite anyone to look at the color maps and zonal mean graph for each of the six months of this year. To keep the same comparison as I saw just change the month and nothing else for the different months of the year of 2012. There are some incredibly warm areas in the northern lattitudes compared to the base period 1951-1980.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Data Sources: Land: none GISS analysis
Ocean: none Hadl/Reyn_v2
Map Type: Anomalies Trends
Mean Period: -------------------- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time Interval: Begin 2012— End 2012
Base Period: Begin 2012— End 2012
Smoothing Radius: 1200 km
Projection type: regular


You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas? How can that be? :eh: :problem: :mrgreen: :-



I think Hertiage foundation has been right all along. Climate scientists are the equiv. of ax murderers. :crazy: #-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:35 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
GISS came in as the 13th warmest for July 2012. On AQUA it looks like as if UAH should come out with a similar anomaly as last month. 2012 has not been warm at all when compared to the last 15 years.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Spongebob wrote:
Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.


The MWP has been confirmed by many studies all throughout the globe.

From the Tibetan Plateau (Liu et al. 2011)

To the Alps (Mangini et al. 2005)

To South Africa (Tyson et al. 2000)

To Greenland (Kobashi et al. 2009)

It was a Global phenomena, with many places having seen substantially warmer climates during the MWP than the CWP.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:47 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
To select a handful of papers and represent it as cast iron proof that some time in the medieval period was warmer then now seems to me to be dishonest when so many lines of evidence do not support that bold assertion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:17 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
Spot, the problem with it is when you have the guys and gals of ANDRILL drilling into the sea bed from above the sea ice and they make a statement like this in their financial review like

"Over 4000 samples from snow sections and ice cores have been analysed for isotopes and
geochemical elements. These indicators of change are providing information on the age of the
snow/ice, air temperature, degree of windiness, extent of sea ice and ocean turbulence. Preliminary
results have identified the Little Ice Age, a cold spell from 1400 to 1850 AD mostly found in
Northern Hemispheric records, when temperatures were ~1oC cooler than today. The record also
identified potentially the termination of the Mediaeval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) when
temperatures were 1 to 2oC warmer and storms more prevalent than now."

From
ANTARCTIC RESEARCH CENTRE
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON
REPORT FOR 2008, WITH OUTLINE FOR 2009 AND BEYOND

They would be foolish to say anything like this if it were not true, they also reveal a few other things in the report as well as their research as a whole. There is another report that clearly states part of the 2009 funding will be put to looking into the MWP signal.

Now this is in essence as far from the northern hemisphere as you can get, being at the south pole, showing if they have signals in their cores that show it happened that it is a global event, with variation in the southern hemisphere because it is not as clear in sites from other studies as it is in the northern hemisphere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:19 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Spongebob wrote:
Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.


If the signal is correct and is more than a "blip" on the temperature trend, we can talk, but as it stands now the impact was not seen a global.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:35 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Spongebob wrote:
Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.


The MWP has been confirmed by many studies all throughout the globe.

From the Tibetan Plateau (Liu et al. 2011)


The period is earlier in China?

There were two warm periods, W4 and W5, during 784–
1014 AD, most likely corresponding to Zhu’s result [19]
that there was a warming interval during 600–1000 AD in
the Sui and Tang dynasties. It seemed that the duration of
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was earlier in China
than in the Western Hemisphere [24
]. However, at almost
the same time as a warm period during 900–1000 AD observed
in the GISP2 δ18O records of an Greenland ice core
[25], W5 occurred on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggested
that the MWP existed worldwide or at least synchronously
at the high elevations of western China and high latitudes of
the Northern Hemisphere. It should also be noted that the
longest cold period was 1595–1713 AD, which was homochronous
with the worldwide LIA maximum [26].


Quote:
To South Africa (Tyson et al. 2000)


Anohter time frame and if you add the later paper from the same group on a reconstruction some 30 feet away you will seen an entirely different temperature pattern. So much for confirmation of the data.

Quote:
To Greenland (Kobashi et al. 2009)

To the Alps (Mangini et al. 2005)


Geography would put these in the North Atlantic region.

Quote:
It was a Global phenomena, with many places having seen substantially warmer climates during the MWP than the CWP.


Depending on how you redefine the MWP and cherry pick the data.

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:40 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Spongebob wrote:
Spot, the problem with it is when you have the guys and gals of ANDRILL drilling into the sea bed from above the sea ice and they make a statement like this in their financial review like

"Over 4000 samples from snow sections and ice cores have been analysed for isotopes and
geochemical elements. These indicators of change are providing information on the age of the
snow/ice, air temperature, degree of windiness, extent of sea ice and ocean turbulence. Preliminary
results have identified the Little Ice Age, a cold spell from 1400 to 1850 AD mostly found in
Northern Hemispheric records, when temperatures were ~1oC cooler than today. The record also
identified potentially the termination of the Mediaeval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) when
temperatures were 1 to 2oC warmer and storms more prevalent than now."


From
ANTARCTIC RESEARCH CENTRE
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON
REPORT FOR 2008, WITH OUTLINE FOR 2009 AND BEYOND

They would be foolish to say anything like this if it were not true, they also reveal a few other things in the report as well as their research as a whole. There is another report that clearly states part of the 2009 funding will be put to looking into the MWP signal.

Now this is in essence as far from the northern hemisphere as you can get, being at the south pole, showing if they have signals in their cores that show it happened that it is a global event, with variation in the southern hemisphere because it is not as clear in sites from other studies as it is in the northern hemisphere.


Why would that be foolish? The complete set of results may not support the conclusions of the preliminary data. That is not a statement that would cause trouble for them, but ,ight get them some funding from the oil companies.

This is 2012, what have they determined in the last 3-4 years?

_________________
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: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:49 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Spongebob wrote:
Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.


The MWP has been confirmed by many studies all throughout the globe.

From the Tibetan Plateau (Liu et al. 2011)


The period is earlier in China?

There were two warm periods, W4 and W5, during 784–
1014 AD, most likely corresponding to Zhu’s result [19]
that there was a warming interval during 600–1000 AD in
the Sui and Tang dynasties. It seemed that the duration of
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was earlier in China
than in the Western Hemisphere [24
]. However, at almost
the same time as a warm period during 900–1000 AD observed
in the GISP2 δ18O records of an Greenland ice core
[25], W5 occurred on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggested
that the MWP existed worldwide or at least synchronously
at the high elevations of western China and high latitudes of
the Northern Hemisphere.
It should also be noted that the
longest cold period was 1595–1713 AD, which was homochronous
with the worldwide LIA maximum [26].


Quote:
To South Africa (Tyson et al. 2000)


Anohter time frame and if you add the later paper from the same group on a reconstruction some 30 feet away you will seen an entirely different temperature pattern. So much for confirmation of the data.

Quote:
To Greenland (Kobashi et al. 2009)

To the Alps (Mangini et al. 2005)


Geography would put these in the North Atlantic region.

Quote:
It was a Global phenomena, with many places having seen substantially warmer climates during the MWP than the CWP.


Depending on how you redefine the MWP and cherry pick the data.


I bolded a section in the paper that you didn't like (or decided not to bold).

Spongebob is correct that the MWP was probably Global, as ice core readings in Antarctica, far away from Europe, Asia and North America confirm that the MWP existed there as well.

I don't see why some try and deny Earth's climatic history when they try and argue that most of the warming in the CWP was anthropogenic.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:56 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Other studies support different conclusions;

Image


Arctic Ice extent is to a large part dependent on temperature, in common with most reconstructions it does seem to indicate a warmer period in the middle ages followed by a cooling in the early modern period. but recently we see a a massive drop off of sea ice extent, what could possibly be causing that and what are the implications?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:04 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20500
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Spongebob wrote:
Wayne you state that "You mean it is like the MWP where there was a significant anomoly in the north Atlantic basin, but not so much evidenced in other areas?" which is kinda correct but we go back to the ANDRILL results and they state that they have evidence for the MWP in their core samples and are going to be investigating it further in one of their funding reports that I linked to before.

If this signal is correct then the MWP was a global event with variations in the southern hemisphere and it will be interesting to see what they conclude when they get to drilling again.


The MWP has been confirmed by many studies all throughout the globe.

From the Tibetan Plateau (Liu et al. 2011)


The period is earlier in China?

There were two warm periods, W4 and W5, during 784–
1014 AD, most likely corresponding to Zhu’s result [19]
that there was a warming interval during 600–1000 AD in
the Sui and Tang dynasties. It seemed that the duration of
the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was earlier in China
than in the Western Hemisphere [24
]. However, at almost
the same time as a warm period during 900–1000 AD observed
in the GISP2 δ18O records of an Greenland ice core
[25], W5 occurred on the Tibetan Plateau. This suggested
that the MWP existed worldwide or at least synchronously
at the high elevations of western China and high latitudes of
the Northern Hemisphere.
It should also be noted that the
longest cold period was 1595–1713 AD, which was homochronous
with the worldwide LIA maximum [26].


Quote:
To South Africa (Tyson et al. 2000)


Anohter time frame and if you add the later paper from the same group on a reconstruction some 30 feet away you will seen an entirely different temperature pattern. So much for confirmation of the data.

Quote:
To Greenland (Kobashi et al. 2009)

To the Alps (Mangini et al. 2005)


Geography would put these in the North Atlantic region.

Quote:
It was a Global phenomena, with many places having seen substantially warmer climates during the MWP than the CWP.


Depending on how you redefine the MWP and cherry pick the data.


Snowy123 wrote:
I bolded a section in the paper that you didn't like (or decided not to bold).


Why would I not like it? It along with the other data indicates warming blips within a large range which may or may not be global in nature.

Quote:
Spongebob is correct that the MWP was probably Global, as ice core readings in Antarctica, far away from Europe, Asia and North America confirm that the MWP existed there as well.


The MWP during what years and for how long? A warming spike of a few years maximum in a locality within a range of four centuries have what impact on the global temperature average?

Quote:
I don't see why some try and deny Earth's climatic history when they try and argue that most of the warming in the CWP was anthropogenic.


Who denies the history? All we deny is the attempt to draw invalid conclusions by redefinition and cherry picking of data. To define the MWP as a couple of decades long warming spike within a 400 year window just does not match that of the normal definition of MWP previously 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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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