EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:08 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
warmair wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.


Blatantly false.

Image

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

Image


More junk from "co2science.org"
Here is a typical comment from the site
Quote:
Because science tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet, and because even the best climate models are manifestly incapable of delivering what we require of them, i.e., correct climate forecasts.


The author means by "correct climate forecasts" one that would suit his view of the world.


Snowy123 wrote:
Not sure what this has to do with numerous studies showing that the MWP may have been warmer than the CWP.


Could it be that it has to do with the "interpretations" that site presents claiming any blip in the temperature over about a thousand year span "is" the MWP somewhere. You know, those questions I posed about what the MWP is supposed to be?

_________________
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 Oct 17, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:
Not sure what this has to do with numerous studies showing that the MWP may have been warmer than the CWP.


If the site is obviously junk that you chose to quote from, I can safely ignore the any conclusions you chose to draw from their material.

There is data to back up the claim that there was a medieval warm period, but I know of none that proves it was globally warmer than the present.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:13 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
This video actually shows the interpretation of a graph by CO2 Science in some detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

_________________
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: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:37 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Wayne Stollings wrote:
This video actually shows the interpretation of a graph by CO2 Science in soem detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
great video. might be a good time to buy a farm in Greenland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:23 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:
Could it be that it has to do with the "interpretations" that site presents claiming any blip in the temperature over about a thousand year span "is" the MWP somewhere. You know, those questions I posed about what the MWP is supposed to be?


a "blip" in a multi millenial proxy record is probably around a couple hundred years or so. So the MWP was significant in the papers I posted to make that "blip" in the proxy record.

By the way, a few papers came out recently that confirmed that the MWP was Global, and was warmer than the present.

Esper et al. 2012

The MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction presented here sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology. The record explains about 60% of the variance of regional temperature data, and is based on more high-precision density series than any
other previous reconstruction. Importantly, MXD sample replication prior to the Little Ice Age, during Medieval times and throughout the first millennium AD, is much better than in any other record, and we demonstrated – based on calibration trials using reduced
datasets – that these early sections of the N-Scan record likely still contain useful climate information. This persistent climate signal allowed an estimation of temperature variability throughout the Common Era, revealing warmth during Roman and Medieval times were larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century conditions.


Of course this study uses Tree Ring data so take it FWIW.

Image

Christainsen and Ljungqvist 2012

In the conclusions they state:

“The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”

The temperature reconstruction was based off of many locations in the Northern Hemisphere:

Image

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:31 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Not sure what this has to do with numerous studies showing that the MWP may have been warmer than the CWP.


If the site is obviously junk that you chose to quote from, I can safely ignore the any conclusions you chose to draw from their material.

There is data to back up the claim that there was a medieval warm period, but I know of none that proves it was globally warmer than the present.


I have just posted multiple peer reviewed papers documenting such an event was equal to or slightly warmer than the current temperatures.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:58 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2236
Location: Central Colorado
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/glo ... hange.html

Last year the top ten did not even include 1997. 2012 will end up being the hottest and 2001 will fall off the top ten list.
The rest are 1998, 2002,3,4,5,6,7,9, & 10. The ten hottest global average years on record have all been within the last 14 years.
Records started in 1880. This year exceeded any year in the medieval warm period, and is the warmest ever in this interglacial epoch.
It must be noted that the interglacial epoch is really now the Anthropocene Epoch and without major reductions in HGHG emissions very soon,
will end in a thermal maximum worse than PETM and an ELE worse than the K-T Event.

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Could it be that it has to do with the "interpretations" that site presents claiming any blip in the temperature over about a thousand year span "is" the MWP somewhere. You know, those questions I posed about what the MWP is supposed to be?


a "blip" in a multi millenial proxy record is probably around a couple hundred years or so. So the MWP was significant in the papers I posted to make that "blip" in the proxy record.


Sorry, but that is pure BS. The records listed in your reference have a much higher resolution than that. Do you even read them anymore or just repeat them as if there was some basis in fact?

Quote:
By the way, a few papers came out recently that confirmed that the MWP was Global, and was warmer than the present.

Esper et al. 2012

Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the
past two millennia


The MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction presented here sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology. The record explains about 60% of the variance of regional temperature data, and is based on more high-precision density series than any
other previous reconstruction. Importantly, MXD sample replication prior to the Little Ice Age, during Medieval times and throughout the first millennium AD, is much better than in any other record, and we demonstrated – based on calibration trials using reduced
datasets – that these early sections of the N-Scan record likely still contain useful climate information. This persistent climate signal allowed an estimation of temperature variability throughout the Common Era, revealing warmth during Roman and Medieval times were larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century conditions.


You have answered the question about whether you read the sources. It seems you do not or you would not claim the reconstruction of Northern Scandinavia showed anything in the global nature of the MWP. You would have realized that if you had only read the title and not even the abstract.

Quote:
Of course this study uses Tree Ring data so take it FWIW.


Tree ring data from where?

The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland

Image

Christainsen and Ljungqvist 2012

In the conclusions they state:

“The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”

The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability



The temperature reconstruction was based off of many locations in the Northern Hemisphere:

The Northern Hemisphere is now the globe .... ](*,) ](*,)

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:29 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Here are two such papers with the "two hundred year blip" except there are none which match.

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Two adaptations from two separate studies from the same cave in South Africa. Notice the MWP header is not consistent in the period implied. Also note the vast difference in the temperature and time period between the two. I thought the MWP was supposedly a long period of warming during a specifi time frame, not a period of peaks and valleys that moves with each graphed adaptation or interpretation.

Image

Image

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Could it be that it has to do with the "interpretations" that site presents claiming any blip in the temperature over about a thousand year span "is" the MWP somewhere. You know, those questions I posed about what the MWP is supposed to be?


a "blip" in a multi millenial proxy record is probably around a couple hundred years or so. So the MWP was significant in the papers I posted to make that "blip" in the proxy record.



I noticed the question posed went unnaswered. What is the period of time during which a MWP would be counted? The NH reconstructions use one groups of dates while CO2 Science use several others. Without some determination of a time period the MWP can be claimed to have been identified at any point in time and clearly has been.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
warmair wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Not sure what this has to do with numerous studies showing that the MWP may have been warmer than the CWP.


If the site is obviously junk that you chose to quote from, I can safely ignore the any conclusions you chose to draw from their material.

There is data to back up the claim that there was a medieval warm period, but I know of none that proves it was globally warmer than the present.


I have just posted multiple peer reviewed papers documenting such an event was equal to or slightly warmer than the current temperatures.



Which does nothin to support the concept of GLOBALLY warmer temperatures. The key is the extent of the supposed warming. There is also nothing to support the credibility of the site you choose to quote.

_________________
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 Oct 22, 2012 10:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 649
Location: Montana
Snowy123,

FYI, the junk science that was Gergis et al (Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium) has now been permanently withdrawn. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/g ... n-finally/

Back to the Null hypothesis - that there is no evidence that late 20th century warming in Australia is unusual. But that won't stop alarmists from trying again, or prevent the true believers from defending the indefensible.

Ock

_________________
"...To hunt means to have the land around you like clothing" Barry Lopez


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 649
Location: Montana
Wayne Stollings wrote:
This video actually shows the interpretation of a graph by CO2 Science in some detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s



Wayne,

I watched quite a bit of your linked video. I find it interesting that his case that the MWP was cooler than present times, is anchored on the necessity of splicing on modern instrumental record data sets onto paleo-reconstruction proxy data. Without the the splices, his case is inconclusive - point goes to skeptics..

What astonishes me, from our long history together on this site, is that you of all people, a stickler for truth and accuracy, would condone drawing conclusions from such dissimilar data cobbled together. Proxy data is naturally smoothed by biotic and abiotic factors, thus the large error bars. Using one of the featured reconstructions in the video, can you please tell me what the average global temperature was in say ... 1066 AD? No, why not? But, you can tell me reasonably well, what the global average temp was in any one year of the instrumental record. Funny that. If the argument were reversed, you'd be all over it. Sorry that my BS meter went off the scale with this one. Shame on you.

Ock

_________________
"...To hunt means to have the land around you like clothing" Barry Lopez


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20468
Location: Southeastern US
Ockham wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
This video actually shows the interpretation of a graph by CO2 Science in some detail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s



Wayne,

I watched quite a bit of your linked video. I find it interesting that his case that the MWP was cooler than present times, is anchored on the necessity of splicing on modern instrumental record data sets onto paleo-reconstruction proxy data. Without the the splices, his case is inconclusive - point goes to skeptics..

What astonishes me, from our long history together on this site, is that you of all people, a stickler for truth and accuracy, would condone drawing conclusions from such dissimilar data cobbled together. Proxy data is naturally smoothed by biotic and abiotic factors, thus the large error bars. Using one of the featured reconstructions in the video, can you please tell me what the average global temperature was in say ... 1066 AD? No, why not? But, you can tell me reasonably well, what the global average temp was in any one year of the instrumental record. Funny that. If the argument were reversed, you'd be all over it. Sorry that my BS meter went off the scale with this one. Shame on you.

Ock


Why would anyone want to use proxy measurements instead of direct measurements when the direct measurements are available? The point of the video was that the CO2 Science site was not a valid reference because they manipulate the data they interpret, especially when I made mention of that aspect.

Quote:
This video actually shows the interpretation of a graph by CO2 Science in some detail:


How did your BS meter miss that? Maybe you could defend the CO2 Science interpretations since Snowy clearly gas not been willing to attempt to do so.

_________________
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: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:19 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 649
Location: Montana
Wayne says: <Which does nothin to support the concept of GLOBALLY warmer temperatures. The key is the extent of the supposed warming. There is also nothing to support the credibility of the site you choose to quote.>

Wayne,

Alarmists and skeptics alike know the importance of the MWP to their argument. On the one hand, if the MWP can be shown to be as warm or warmer than present, then a case can be made that 20th century warming is not unprecedented and thus not unnatural. With a strong MWP, the alarmists case is weakened maybe even emasculated. It makes sense for activist scientists like Mann to do whatever he can to minimize the MWP. And that, he did, for a short while anyway, until the many flaws in his reconstructions were revealed. The science is now all over the map and it now so often comes down to impugning, by either side, the reputations and motives of the scientists or the people interpreting the science. Which is precisely what you do in the above quote. CO2 Science blog may have a particular bias, I grant you that, but they are a clearing house for scientific literature on the subject. It is a great resource. That they interpret said science in one way or another is no different from the oft quoted Skeptical Science blog or RealClimate which I know to be quite unreliable even if you ignore their censorship policies.

There is a second line of defense - it is to minimize the effect of a strong MWP, by making the claim (unsupported by evidence) that it was regional. By doing so, one can cast doubt as to the extent of the warming during that period. By minimizing the extent one can proclaim that the MWP warming wasn't global. Since the Southern hemisphere is mostly ocean and with very little proxy data compared to the Northern hemisphere, it stands to reason that it will take time to find answers. It begs the question as whether the Null hypothesis should be that the MWP was regional until proven otherwise or whether we assume it was global until proven otherwise. Whatever the case, with time, more and better evidence will emerge like this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1X12000659 pointing to a global extent of the MWP right down to Antarctica. There is a plethora of historical and archeological evidence establishing a strong MWP. The climate science is coming around. I am thankful that there are true skeptical scientists out there pointing out the malpractice in papers like Gergis et al. so that we can get at the truth faster.

Wayne, I don't plan on sticking around here, since I don't find the information particularly revealing or the arguments very compelling. I invite you to join skeptic sites like WattsupWithThat. Even though it is, by nature, a skeptic site and therefore biased as such, they don't censor (or even edit user comments like SkS does). You can reasonably be assured to make your case, as many alarmists have.

Despite our disagreement on this issue, best regards,

Ock

_________________
"...To hunt means to have the land around you like clothing" Barry Lopez


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group