No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice

[stellarfun]

When did I say they did? Go back and read the links I posted.

Either way, my point is unscathed in regards to trees growing in areas that are still partially ice covered, viking burial grounds, higher treelines, higher sea levels....etc. This all solar.

next?

You again reveal little knowledge of geography, less of history, and when added to your knowledge and understanding of science....

Let's review:

The Vikings had two settlements in Greenland. The Eastern Settlement and the Western Settlement.

Here is a map of the Eastern Settlement's location. The Eastern settlement was the main Viking settlement. Note where it is in Greenland.

Here is a link to a map of the Western Settlement. Its on the other side of Greenland, and a bit farther north.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Western-settlement-eng.png

From the Eastern Settlement the Vikings sailed south and west.

They first explored what they called Helluland, which is current day Baffin Island. No trees to speak of at Helluland, so they sail south.

They do leave behind possibly a small settlement at Kimmirut, southwest of Iqaluit.

From Helluland they sail to Marklund, which is now southern Labrador, near the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There are forests in Marklund, and they cut trees there and send them back to Greenland, as there are no trees to speak of in Greenland.

Marklund is on the northern side of the Strait of Belle Isle.

On the southern side of this strait is Vinland, which is current-day northern Newfoundland. The definitive remains of the Viking settlement is at L'Anse aux Meadows.

Here is a map of the Strait of Belle Isle. L'Anse aux Meadows is by the A in Atlantic.

Now some claim the Vikings sailed even further south, getting to Nova Scotia, New England. There has been no claim they sailed or settled further north than the Western Settlement or Helluland, and in Helluland, the possible Viking site(s) are on the south coast of Baffin Island.

There is no evidence of Viking settlements or Viking exploration north of the Arctic Circle. No evidence that retreating glaciers have unearthed long-buried Viking settlements. No evidence, from a Viking exploration standpoint, that the Arctic basin was a lot less ice-free in the MWP.

Cabot in the 16th Century sails into the Strait of Belle Isle, finds the same forests, same grape vines, that the Vikings found. When Cabot sails, the LIA is starting to take hold, and the MWP has long gone.

[BethesdaWX]

what the heck?

You obviously didn't read the links I posted. What does this have to do with the remains of vikings, and trees, under todays melting glaciers? What does this have to do with the higher sea levels during that time? How about higher treelines? Or the Antarctic Ice sheet?

[WeatherRusty]

I agree that we need to look at the argument as weighting different "forcing agents" which is what the IPCC is supposed to be doing, but unfortunately seems to get stuck with only a single forcing agent.

And, it may well be that they are considering every possible forcing agent, but leaving them in the background and only discussing a single forcing agent that they think is most "important". However, it comes across as if they are just ignoring everything else.

As far as different ice thickness models. It may well be that the Navy PIPS model is not as complete as other models. It is odd that the shape of the Feb 2011 3m ice resembles the Sept 2010 ice, when we know that everything tends to move around a lot.

As far as the calibration of the PIOMAS model. The initial points on their calibration chart are there because they forced them to be there. And, in fact, the 4th and 5th points seem to be drifting (to the positive in their chart).

In fact, when you read their notes on calibration.

Compared to the submarine data, their model tended to show thicker ice on the Alaska side (by about 2m), and thinner ice on the Greenland side (by about 2m). I suppose it all averaged out.

http://psc.apl.washi...lation_2006.pdf

The idea behind the model is that the "Mass" calculations should be more stable than the area calculations.

There apparently is no 2011 data published, so we have to base our analysis on a 2010 graph, already a month and a half old.

http://psc.apl.washi...malyCurrent.png

What you notice is that in mid-2010 there was a "Flash Crash", beginning sometime in May 2010, and beginning to resolve itself by July 2010 (before the minimum ice extent).

http://nsidc.org/ima...608_Figure5.png

http://neven1.typepa...cbf47970c-800wi

I only see anomalies so I can't tell if their model added ice in the summer, or just stopped loosing ice in the summer. Either one, there was a problem with the flash crash. Other models show a divergence from the mean ice area in the spring, but don't note whether it is ice that would have melted later anyway.

In the 2010 AMSR-E graph, there was no rapid transition in the May/June/July time period, nor any reason to believe that an anomaly should have ended with a point of any sort.

http://www.ijis.iarc...ce_Extent_L.png

I may have some ideas of what caused the instability, but it seems as if the PIOMAS is less predictive of the mid-summer ice than the just tracking the area with out the mass.

These various forcings are not ignored. They are calculated and measured against one another as to relative importance.

[BethesdaWX]

These various forcings are not ignored. They are calculated and measured against one another as to relative importance.

Radiative forcings/properties from such molecules says nothing about the atmospheric response in temperature. Computer modeled atmospheric results are simple hypothesis, and do nothing to argue the case for AGWers.

How about we follow the scientific method for once?

[WeatherRusty]

Radiative forcings/properties from such molecules says nothing about the atmospheric response in temperature. Computer modeled atmospheric results are simple hypothesis, and do nothing to argue the case for AGWers.

How about we follow the scientific method for once?

Actually radiative forcing does tell us about temperature change because the forcing is characterized by the amount of ENERGY entering and being retained by the system. Now, if you don't believe in the Stephan-Boltzmann Law or Planck's Law or any of the tried and true fundamentals of physics which allow us to calculate the temperatures of everything from stars to planets (the Earth is a planet) I can see how you might doubt this science and it's methodology. You will however be hard pressed to find anyone who does understand these fundamental tenets of science to agree with you. This is the scientific method as practiced by some of the greatest 19th and 20th century physicists.

[stellarfun]

what the heck?

You obviously didn't read the links I posted. What does this have to do with the remains of vikings, and trees, under todays melting glaciers? What does this have to do with the higher sea levels during that time? How about higher treelines? Or the Antarctic Ice sheet?

I asked hambone for links to support his claim that:

That's not exactly true. We have archeologic records that indicate arctic ice at lower levels during the MWP.

He never replied, but you did, with this:

I provided links on this several times over, citing peer reviewed sources. Viking expeditions through the arctic were rarely hindered by Ice, Glaciers were half the size of those today, as wee see remains of trees, and viking cemetaries, showing up under our melting glaciers. Heck, trees were growing where there are now ice floes.

I then posted that there is basically no evidence to support what you described above. Remember, my question to hambone was show me the link that demonstrate arctic ice was at lower levels in the MWP.

Still you persisted, ^^^^, and now drag in the Antarctic ice sheet. NOBODY claims the Vikings ever crossed the Equator. Nobody raised the point of sea levels. BTW, what happened to sea levels during the MWP? How much higher or lower were the MWP sea levels compared to today? What melting glaciers have uncovered Viking cemeteries? How were these cemeteries able to survive, from an archeological standpoint, after being crushed and disturbed by the weight and movement of a glacier?

[salbers]

Radiative forcings/properties from such molecules says nothing about the atmospheric response in temperature. Computer modeled atmospheric results are simple hypothesis, and do nothing to argue the case for AGWers.

How about we follow the scientific method for once?

Certainly you are aware that days are warmer than nights - do you discount this simple example of radiative forcing?

[BethesdaWX]

Actually radiative forcing does tell us about temperature change because the forcing is characterized by the amount of ENERGY entering and being retained by the system. Now, if you don't believe in the Stephan-Boltzmann Law or Planck's Law or any of the tried and true fundamentals of physics which allow us to calculate the temperatures of everything from stars to planets (the Earth is a planet) I can see how you might doubt this science and it's methodology. You will however be hard pressed to find anyone who does understand these fundamental tenets of science to agree with you. This is the scientific method as practiced by some of the greatest 19th and 20th century physicists.

Again, those studies revolve around the properties of Co2/GHG and their properties, the end result in atmospheric temperature is another story completely. We do not understand the GHE/Energy proccess in our own atmosphere well at all, given the debate on where the "missing heat" is going...or if it even exists! Its one thing to understand the properties of Co2 and its radiative forcings, how the atmosphere works and if it will manifest in Temperature increase is a guess. What we test and Model in a controlled impound says nothing towards our vast atmosphere, because computers cannot accurately depict our atmosphere......think, if we miss 1 variable, it throws the ENTIRE atmospheric chain of processes off the wire! Its silly to use models as proof based on the properties of Co2 itself.

Models assume that CO2 is the base cause of warming we have seen, we assume that the Sun cannot viably produce the amount of warming we have seen since 1800.....problem is, it did it during the MWP, during the RWP, and during the LIA in the form of rapid cooling. Rapid warming from the DACP to the MWP really throws off our assumptions.

You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GRC, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? A trace gas may be a complete non-factor.

My point was actually more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere.

We cannot test our complicated atmosphere in a computer with any extent of accuracy....especially when the overall impact from trace gases in the atmosphere are a mish-mash and the model results progged are based off the assumption that CO2 increase has been the base/cause of the earths temperature increase, using such formuls tested in a controlled impound w/ the observed global temperature increase to make predictions using CO2 as a base. Its one thing to have a certain amount of energy, its another thing completely to assume how the atmosphere will respond to it.

CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

[BethesdaWX]

I asked hambone for links to support his claim that:

He never replied, but you did, with this:

I then posted that there is basically no evidence to support what you described above. Remember, my question to hambone was show me the link that demonstrate arctic ice was at lower levels in the MWP.

Still you persisted, ^^^^, and now drag in the Antarctic ice sheet. NOBODY claims the Vikings ever crossed the Equator. Nobody raised the point of sea levels. BTW, what happened to sea levels during the MWP? How much higher or lower were the MWP sea levels compared to today? What melting glaciers have uncovered Viking cemeteries? How were these cemeteries able to survive, from an archeological standpoint, after being crushed and disturbed by the weight and movement of a glacier?

Cemetaries? You mean Burial Grounds. Dead viking remains are showing up in todays melting glacies, along with remains of trees and grasses than could not grow in that climate today.

I posted links a few weeks ago, If you cannot find them, I will post them again for you. Is that fair?

Sea levsls were higher, so were treelines. I'll post all of that if you cannot find the links.

[salbers]

I"ve seen that sea levels have been pretty constant over the past 2000 years. Can you simply link to the post where you've discussed this?

Sure, CO2 can be partially masked in the short term by things like aerosols, but it has to be taken seriously because of its longevity as we've discussed. Do we for example want to keep dirtying up the atmosphere with aerosols just to temporarily delay the warming effect? Actually it's the other shorter lived trace gases like methane that help to counter the aerosol effect. CO2 is wise to focus on again because if all the other forcings are cleaned up or are averaged out, it will stand to dominate in the long term.

SImilarly, do we want to keep relying on the oceans to absorb heat, that again is only a temporary reprieve. Also ocean acidification is itself a good enough reason to stop CO2 emissions.

[stellarfun]

Cemetaries? You mean Burial Grounds. Dead viking remains are showing up in todays melting glacies, along with remains of trees and grasses than could not grow in that climate today.

I posted links a few weeks ago, If you cannot find them, I will post them again for you. Is that fair?

Sea levsls were higher, so were treelines. I'll post all of that if you cannot find the links.

Post the links.

[BethesdaWX]

I"ve seen that sea levels have been pretty constant over the past 2000 years. Can you simply link to the post where you've discussed this?

Sure, CO2 can be partially masked in the short term by things like aerosols, but it has to be taken seriously because of its longevity as we've discussed. Do we for example want to keep dirtying up the atmosphere with aerosols just to temporarily delay the warming effect? Actually it's the other shorter lived trace gases like methane that help to counter the aerosol effect. CO2 is wise to focus on again because if all the other forcings are cleaned up or are averaged out, it will stand to dominate in the long term.

SImilarly, do we want to keep relying on the oceans to absorb heat, that again is only a temporary reprieve. Also ocean acidification is itself a good enough reason to stop CO2 emissions.

When measurements are implemented into the proxy data, as seen below, we get a faster short Term Rise, just in case you are wondering.

Signal in the IPWP, as surrounding areas would obviously teleconnect.

If Solar Created the MWP & LIA.......why is todays moderm max NOT responsible for todays warming?!? Todays max is HIGHER...... hehehe.......again....todays max is higher.......and we have more Ice at the North Pole.......yeah........ Oh thats right, since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today, our Computer Models MUST be correct! CO2 is the Base of earths atmosphere!

[BethesdaWX]

Post the links.

Study is here

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Click on one of the sub-links referring to each regions of the world

you'll see pages with 50-100 studies, such as the page below

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/europe.php

This is using peer reviewed references, and data from hundreds of clasified scientists from around the world.

[skierinvermont]

I agree that we need to look at the argument as weighting different "forcing agents" which is what the IPCC is supposed to be doing, but unfortunately seems to get stuck with only a single forcing agent.

And, it may well be that they are considering every possible forcing agent, but leaving them in the background and only discussing a single forcing agent that they think is most "important". However, it comes across as if they are just ignoring everything else.

As far as different ice thickness models. It may well be that the Navy PIPS model is not as complete as other models. It is odd that the shape of the Feb 2011 3m ice resembles the Sept 2010 ice, when we know that everything tends to move around a lot.

As far as the calibration of the PIOMAS model. The initial points on their calibration chart are there because they forced them to be there. And, in fact, the 4th and 5th points seem to be drifting (to the positive in their chart).

http://psc.apl.washi...010.MarNov2.png

In fact, when you read their notes on calibration.

Compared to the submarine data, their model tended to show thicker ice on the Alaska side (by about 2m), and thinner ice on the Greenland side (by about 2m). I suppose it all averaged out.

http://psc.apl.washi...lation_2006.pdf

The idea behind the model is that the "Mass" calculations should be more stable than the area calculations.

There apparently is no 2011 data published, so we have to base our analysis on a 2010 graph, already a month and a half old.

http://psc.apl.washi...malyCurrent.png

What you notice is that in mid-2010 there was a "Flash Crash", beginning sometime in May 2010, and beginning to resolve itself by July 2010 (before the minimum ice extent).

http://nsidc.org/ima...608_Figure5.png

http://neven1.typepa...cbf47970c-800wi

I only see anomalies so I can't tell if their model added ice in the summer, or just stopped loosing ice in the summer. Either one, there was a problem with the flash crash. Other models show a divergence from the mean ice area in the spring, but don't note whether it is ice that would have melted later anyway.

In the 2010 AMSR-E graph, there was no rapid transition in the May/June/July time period, nor any reason to believe that an anomaly should have ended with a point of any sort.

http://www.ijis.iarc...ce_Extent_L.png

I may have some ideas of what caused the instability, but it seems as if the PIOMAS is less predictive of the mid-summer ice than the just tracking the area with out the mass.

This is a pretty bad analysis Clifford, I am sorry. I can agree with the basic idea that PIOMAS is a model and might have some errors given it has only undergone moderate validation and not rigorous validation (yet). But your above analysis is just not very strong. However, it did validate well against IceSat.

First of all, the PIOMAS graph doesn't have a precise enough X-axis for me to say whether the drop in 2010 was in May, or August, or any time in between. You say July.. but I honestly cannot tell just from looking. Perhaps you could find some text data.

Your next problem is you are making an apples to orange comparison. You are comparing the PIOMAS anomaly chart to the JAXA absolute extent chart.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the PIOMAS volume chart shows a rapid dip mid-2010 which is not particularly evident on the JAXA chart. However if you were to show a graph of ice extent anomalies (instead of absolute values) you would see the same dip in PIOMAS also occur in extent. Such a chart is shown below. You can see a rapid dip in the extent occurs in mid-2010, just like on PIOMAS. In fact, on both PIOMAS and on the following graph there are dips in mid-2009, mid-2008 and mid-2007. What this is really indicative of is that the largest anomalies, in both volume and extent occur in summer and early fall.

The following chart will allow you to make an apples to apples comparison between volume anomalies and extent anomalies, instead of between volume anomalies and extent absolutes.

I strongly object to your statement that "volume (anomalies) should be more stable than extent/area (anomalies)." Year to year, I agree that is probably true. However, intra-annually I would expect the volume anomalies to be smallest in winter and then rapidly grow in summer/fall and then shrink again in winter. This, in fact, is exactly what we observe.

[skierinvermont]

I"ve seen that sea levels have been pretty constant over the past 2000 years. Can you simply link to the post where you've discussed this?

Sure, CO2 can be partially masked in the short term by things like aerosols, but it has to be taken seriously because of its longevity as we've discussed. Do we for example want to keep dirtying up the atmosphere with aerosols just to temporarily delay the warming effect? Actually it's the other shorter lived trace gases like methane that help to counter the aerosol effect. CO2 is wise to focus on again because if all the other forcings are cleaned up or are averaged out, it will stand to dominate in the long term.

SImilarly, do we want to keep relying on the oceans to absorb heat, that again is only a temporary reprieve. Also ocean acidification is itself a good enough reason to stop CO2 emissions.

I posted a study on here recently of 2,000 year sea level and it was a bit higher in the MWP (peer-reviewed). That makes sense though given it was a much longer period of warmth nearly as warm as present. Our current rate of rise is much faster than any period in the last 2000 years, and we will soon surpass MWP sea levels. If you can't find it and you want it I can dig it up again for you.

EDIT: Bethesda posted it above. He is correct that part of the reason the recent rise appears faster is that it is instrumental and not proxy (same thing as "Mike's Nature Trick" - not really a trick of course, it just requires proper interpretation). Nevertheless, it's probably still much faster than any before because the error bars on the proxy data are not that large.

[salbers]

When measurements are implemented into the proxy data, as seen below, we get a faster short Term Rise, just in case you are wondering.

Signal in the IPWP, as surrounding areas would obviously teleconnect.

If Solar Created the MWP & LIA.......why is todays moderm max NOT responsible for todays warming?!? Todays max is HIGHER...... hehehe.......again....todays max is higher.......and we have more Ice at the North Pole.......yeah........ Oh thats right, since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today, our Computer Models MUST be correct! CO2 is the Base of earths atmosphere!

That's fine, except that the temperature now is already starting to rise above the MWP, while solar is going down.

Interesting sea level chart - out of curiosity what's the source? It's good practice on a forum to credit the sources. Sea level will catch up as your plot shows pretty soon. This takes a bit of time as Skier is pointing out.

[skierinvermont]

Again, those studies revolve around the properties of Co2/GHG and their properties, the end result in atmospheric temperature is another story completely.

What you fail to understand, and why your posts makes very little sense, is that the figures Rusty posted of radiative forcing from various sources are not describing the physical properties of CO2, other GHGs and other forcings.

The figures are describing the EFFECT these variables have on the actual atmosphere in terms of energy gain.

That's what radiative forcing IS. It's a description of how a particular change will affect the ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE. It is NOT a description of the molecules themselves.

So when you come around and say that the figures for radiative forcing don't tell us how CO2 will affect the actual atmosphere, it doesn't make any sense and simply reveals a failure to understand what radiative forcing actually is. Radiative forcing IS a description of how a particular change will affect THE ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE.

You could possibly argue that our figures for radiative forcing are wrong (if you had any evidence for this), but you can't argue that radiative forcing does not tell us how CO2 will affect the atmosphere because that is EXACTLY what radiative forcing is DEFINED as.

Before you make such an argument, however, you should probably make an effort to understand what radiative forcing actually is. Your posts will make much more sense.

[BethesdaWX]

That's fine, except that the temperature now is already starting to rise above the MWP, while solar is going down.

Interesting sea level chart - out of curiosity what's the source? It's good practice on a forum to credit the sources. Sea level will catch up as your plot shows pretty soon. This takes a bit of time as Skier is pointing out.

The SeaLevel jump correlates to solar

1) MWP temperatures were over 1C warmer than those of today, which is explained in the links I posted. This is based upon physical evidence within ice cores on both poles, trees growing where there is now ice cover, higher treelines & sea level, etc.

2) On the Sea Level Graph, the data in the "rapid-rise" is measurement data.........the data before that is proxy data. The Proxies would reveal faster jumps, decreases, etc.

Look at the Solar Jump during the same timeframe.

If Solar Created the MWP & LIA.......why is todays moderm max NOT responsible for todays warming?!? Todays max is HIGHER...... hehehe.......again....todays max is higher.......and we have more Ice at the North Pole.......yeah........ Oh thats right, since there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today, our Computer Models MUST be correct! CO2 is the Base of earths atmosphere!

[BethesdaWX]

What you fail to understand, and why your posts makes very little sense, is that the figures Rusty posted of radiative forcing from various sources are not describing the physical properties of CO2, other GHGs and other forcings.

The figures are describing the EFFECT these variables have on the actual atmosphere in terms of energy gain.

That's what radiative forcing IS. It's a description of how a particular change will affect the ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE. It is NOT a description of the molecules themselves.

So when you come around and say that the figures for radiative forcing don't tell us how CO2 will affect the actual atmosphere, it doesn't make any sense and simply reveals a failure to understand what radiative forcing actually is. Radiative forcing IS a description of how a particular change will affect THE ACTUAL ATMOSPHERE.

You could possibly argue that our figures for radiative forcing are wrong (if you had any evidence for this), but you can't argue that radiative forcing does not tell us how CO2 will affect the atmosphere because that is EXACTLY what radiative forcing is defined as.

Before you make such an argument, however, you should probably make an effort to understand what radiative forcing actually is.

WTF? I said REGARDLESS of its properties, the processing of such is never a given. What are you talking about?

Are you saying we can take measurement from a controlled impound and correlate them to the atmosphere?!?

Again, those studies revolve around the properties of Co2/GHG and their properties, the end result in atmospheric temperature is another story completely. We do not understand the GHE/Energy proccess in our own atmosphere well at all, given the debate on where the "missing heat" is going...or if it even exists! Its one thing to understand the properties of Co2 and its radiative forcings, how the atmosphere works and if it will manifest in Temperature increase is a guess. What we test and Model in a controlled impound says nothing towards our vast atmosphere, because computers cannot accurately depict our atmosphere......think, if we miss 1 variable, it throws the ENTIRE atmospheric chain of processes off the wire! Its silly to use models as proof based on the properties of Co2 itself.

Models assume that CO2 is the base cause of warming we have seen, we assume that the Sun cannot viably produce the amount of warming we have seen since 1800.....problem is, it did it during the MWP, during the RWP, and during the LIA in the form of rapid cooling. Rapid warming from the DACP to the MWP really throws off our assumptions.

You think we can accurately estimte the Earths MF, GRC, Solar/IR, and the atmospheric response from such in our complicated atmosphere? A trace gas may be a complete non-factor.

My point was actually more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere.

We cannot test our complicated atmosphere in a computer with any extent of accuracy....especially when the overall impact from trace gases in the atmosphere are a mish-mash and the model results progged are based off the assumption that CO2 increase has been the base/cause of the earths temperature increase, using such formuls tested in a controlled impound w/ the observed global temperature increase to make predictions using CO2 as a base. Its one thing to have a certain amount of energy, its another thing completely to assume how the atmosphere will respond to it.

CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

[salbers]

If Bethesda doubts the radiative effect on the atmosphere, he might also take issue with why the weather is warmer in summer and colder in winter.

[skierinvermont]

1) MWP temperatures were over 1C warmer than those of today,

Not according to any peer-reviewed study. Every peer-reviewed study says that GLOBAL temperatures at the height of the MWP were similar to or somewhat cooler than present.

The links you have provided are a collection of anecdotes which prove NOTHING.

[BethesdaWX]

If Bethesda doubts the radiative effect on the atmosphere, he might also take issue with why the weather is warmer in summer and colder in winter.

No, its not that at all.

[skierinvermont]

Are you saying we can take measurement from a controlled impound and correlate them to the atmosphere?!?

Radiative forcing is not a "measurement from a controlled impound."

You are just further revealing your lack of understanding. Everybody here recognizes that except you. I am not continuing this discussion. Go learn what radiative forcing actually is and how it is derived.

[BethesdaWX]

Not according to any peer-reviewed study. Every peer-reviewed study says that GLOBAL temperatures at the height of the MWP were similar to or somewhat cooler than present.

The links you have provided are a collection of anecdotes which prove NOTHING.

Nope....more studies have it warmer......skier made a boo-boo.

http://www.co2scienc.../scientists.php

Thousands of scientists...........using peer reviewed evidence showing the MW warmer than today.

Scroll down or click on a letter below to search the scientist list by surname.

Ababneh, L.

Abbott, M.B.

Abrantes, F.

Aceves, H.L.

Addyman, P.V.

Adhikari, D.P.

Agnihotri, R.

Ai, L.

Airo, A.

Alden, H.A.

Alenius, T.

Alessio, S.

Alexander, C.

Almeida-Lenero, L.

Almogi-Labin, A.

An, Z.

Andersen, K.K.

Anderson, D.E.

Anderson, D.M.

Anderson, R.S.

Anderson, S.P.

Andersson, C.

Andreev, A.A.

Andrews, J.T.

Andrén, E.

Andrén, T.

Antognini, M.

Aono, Y.

Appleby, P.

Arnaud, F.

Arsenelault, D.

Astor, Y.

Austin, W.E.N.

Axford, Y.

Ayalon, A.

Ayenew, T.

Bahk, J.J.

Balsam, W.

Baltzer, A.

Bao, Y.

Baofu, N.

Baolin, H.

Bar-Matthews, M.

Barber, K.E.

Barclay, D.J.

Barnola, J.-M.

Baroni, C.

Barron, J.A.

Bartels-Jónsdóttir, H.

Bartholdy, J.

Bartholin, T.S.

Battarbee, R.W.

Baumgartner, T.R.

Beaty, R.M.

Becagli, S.

Beer, J.

Behling, H.

Beilman, D.W.

Bell, R.E.

Belt, S.T.

Benito, G.

Bennike, O.

Bentaleb, I.

Berge, J.

Bernasconi, S.

Bertin, X.

Bertrand, S.

Besonen, M.R.

Betancourt, J.L.

Bezada, M.

Bhattacharyya, A.

Bhushan, R.

Billeaud, I.

Birks, H.J.B.

Birks, S.J.

Bischoff, J.L.

Bjorck, S.

Bjune, A.E.

Blaauw, M.

Black, D.E.

Blanco, N.

Blazauskas, N.

Bodri, L.

Boettger, T.

Booth, R.K.

Borromei, A.

Borsato, A.

Bouaouina, F.

Bracht, B.

Bradley, R.S.

Brauer, A.

Bräuning, A.

Brenner, M.

Briffa, K.R.

Brook, G.A.

Brooks, S.J.

Brown, T.A.

Brutsch, S.

Bryson, R.A.

Brubaker, L.B.

Bukry, D.

Bunn, A.G.

Byrne, A.R.

Büntgen, U.

Cage, A.G.

Cai, Q.

Cai, Y.

Calanchi, N.

Calkin, P.E.

Calvert, S.E.

Campbell, C.

Campbell, I.D.

Cane, M.A.

Cannariato, K.G.

Cao, Q.-Y.

Carbotte, S.M.

Carson, E.C.

Carter, T.

Castellano, E.

Catalan, J.

Causey, D.

Cermák, V.

Chambers, F.M.

Chang, X.L.

Chaudhary, V.

Chauhan, M.S.

Chaumillon, E.

Chen, F.H.

Chen, JianHui

Chen, Jiaqi.

Chen, Jun.

Chen, L.

Chen, S.-H.

Chen, T.

Chen, Z.

Cheng, G.

Cheng, H.

Chepstow-Lusty, A.

Chivas, A.R.

Christiansen, C.

Chu, G.

Chuang, P.-P.

Cini Castagnoli, G.

Clague, J.J.

Clausen, H.B.

Cleef, A.M.

Cohen, A.S.

Cohen, M.C.L.

Collerson, K.D.

Conrad, M.E.

Cook, E.R.

Cook, T.L.

Cooper, G.R.J.

Corbett, D.G.

Cremer, H.

Cronin, T.M.

Cucchi, F.

Cui, H.T.

Cumming, B.F.

Cundy, A.

Curry, B.B.

Curry, W.

Curtis, J.H.

D'Arrigo, R.

Dabrio, C.J.

Dahl, S.O.

Dahl-Jensen, D.

Daimaru, H.

Dallimore, A.

Daniels, J.M.

Dansgaard, W.

Darbyshire, I.

Daryin, A.V.

Das, M.

Datsenko, N.M.

Davi, N.

Davis, M.E.

Dawson, A.G.

Dawson, S.

De Deckker, P.

de Vernal, A.

Dean, W.E.

Degiovanni, C.

Delany, D.L.

Deline, P.

deMenocal, P.

Demezhko, D.Yu.

Demory, F.

Denton, G.H.

Desmet, M.

Desprat, S.

Diekmann, B.

Dinelli, E.

Dippner, J.W.

Dominguez-Vazquez, G.

Drenzek, N.J.

Dullo, W.-C.

Dutta, K.

Dwyer, G.S.

Eden, D.N

Edwards, R.L.

Edwards, T.W.D.

Eiríksson, J.

Eitel, B.

Elliott, L.

Emslie, S.D.

Engstrom, D.R.

Eniou, Z.

Erasto, P.

Eronen, M.

Esper, J.

Ezat, U.

Fallot, J.-M.

Fang, X.

Fastook, J.L.

Feliks, Y.

Fengming, C.

Field, D.B.

Figueroa, D.

Figueroa-Rangel, B.L.

Filippi, M.L.

Fjellsa, A.

Flower, B.P.

Flower, R.J.

Fontugne, M.

Fortin, M.-C.

Foster, I.

Fowler, A.

Fraedrich, K.

Franca, Z.

Francus, P.

Frank, D.C.

Frisia, S.

Fritz, S.C.

Frogley, M.

Gaggeler, H.W.

Gajewski, K.

Gao, S.

Garcia, M.J.G.

Garcia-Rodeja, E.

Gasiorowski, M.

Gavin, D.G.

Gayo, E.

Ge, Q.

Geirsdottir, A.

Gemmer, M.

Gerstengarbe, F.-W.

Ghil, M.

Gil, I.M.

Giraudi, C.

Goldberg, E.

Golovanova, I.V.

Goni, M.A.

Goni, M.F.S.

Gonzalez-Samperiz, P.

Goto, S.

Gu, Z.

Graumlich, L.J.

Gray, S.T.

Gregory, T.R.

Griessinger, J.

Grimalt, J.O.

Grinsted, A.

Grosjean, M.

Grøsfjeld, K.

Grudd, H.

Guijian, L.

Guilderson, T.

Guilizzoni, P.

Gulliksen, B.

Gundestrup, N.

Gunnarson, B.E.

Gupta, A.K.

Hadley, E.A.

Haflidason, H.

Hald, M.

Hall, B.L.

Hall, V.A.

Hallett, D.J.

Haltia-Hovi, E.

Hamamoto, H.

Hammer, C.U.

Hansen, C.V.

Hansson, M.

Hantemirov, R.M.

Hao, Z.

Harris, P.T.

Hass, H.C.

Hassan, F.A.

Hay, M.B.

He, S.-F.

Hebbeln, D.

Hebda, R.J.

Heikkila, M.

Heinemeier, J.

Heiri, O.

Heiss, G.A.

Helama, S.

Helle, G.

Hemer, M.A.

Henderson, A.C.G.

Hendy, C.H.

Herve, F.

Hickey, K.

Hidalgo, H.G.

Hille, S.

Hiller, A.

Hills, L.V.

Hodell, D.A.

Hoelzel, A.R.

Hoffmann-Wieck, G.

Holmes, C.W.

Holmgren, K.

Holmstrom, L.

Holopainen, J.

Holt, T.

Holzhauser, H.

Hong, B.

Hong, Y.T.

Honghan, Z.

Hood, J.S.R.

Hooghiemstra, H.

Hu, F.S.

Huang, J.

Huang, S.-Y.

Huang, Y.

Hubberten, H.-W.

Huffman, T.N.

Hughen, K.A.

Hughes, M.K.

Hughes, P.D.M.

Hunziker, J.

Hutterli, M.

Ikeda, S.

Ingram, B.L.

Irino, T.

Irving, W.N.

Isaksson, E.

Islebe, G.A.

Isono, D.

Ito, E.

Ivanova, E.

Jackson, S.T.

Jacob, J.

Jacoby, G.

Jansen, E.

Jarockis, R.

Jaubert, R.

Jennings, A.E.

Jensen, K.G.

Jewson, D.

Ji, J.

Ji, S.

Jianfeng, H.

Jiang, H.

Jiang, H.B.

Jiang, J.

Jin, H.J.

Johnsen, G.

Johnsen, S.J.

Johnson, C.

Johnson, T.C.

Jolly, D.

Jount III, E.H.

Jun, Y.

Jones, P.D.

Jones, V.J.

Jordan, J.

Jordan, T.E.

Julia, R.

Jull, A.J.T.

Justwan, A.

Kadereit, A.

Kagan, E.J.

Kajimoto, T.

Kalugin, I.A.

Kamenik, C.

Kamite, M.

Kamiya, T.

Kang, C.Y.

Kang, S.J.

Kang, X.

Kaplan, A.

Kaplan, M.R.

Karhu, J.A.

Karlen, W.

Karlsson, S.

Kaufman, D.S.

Kauppila, T.

Kawahata, H.

Kawamura, K.

Kekonen, T.

Kellerhals, T.

Kenward, H.K.

Khassanov, B.F.

Khim, B.-K.

Khlystov, O.

Khromova, N.

King, D.N.T.

King, J.C.

Kiseleva, N.K.

Kissel, C.

Kitagawa, H.

Kjallgren, L.

Knox, J.C.

Knudsen, K.L.

Knusel, S.

Kobashi, T.

Koffman, T.

Kohn, M.H.

Kolstrom, T.

Kondrashov, D.

Kong, Z.-C.

Konradi, P.

Korhola, A.

Koç, N.

Kremenetski, C.

Kremenetski, K.V.

Kromer, B.

Ku, T.-L.

Kubler, B.

Kuijpers, A.

Kukkonen, M.

Kullman, L.

Kumon, F.

Kunzendorf, H.

Kurdyla, D.

Kutzbach, J.E.

Kutzbach, J.K.

Laird, K.R.

Lamb, H.F.

Lambert, P.

Lambiel, C.

Lami, A.

Lamy, F.

Langdon, P.G.

Lange, C.

Langone, L.

Laperriere, L.

Lara, R.J.

Larocque, I.

Larsen, J.A.

Lassen, S.J.

Latorre, C.

Le Boeuf, B.J.

Le Roux, J.P.

Lebreiro, S.

Lee, J.-Y.

Lee-Thorp, J.A.

Lefèvre, C.

Leipe, T.

Leng, M.J.

Leng, X.T.

Leonard, J.A.

León, T.

Leroy, V.

Li, B.-Y.

Li, H.-C.

Li, H.E.

Li, M.-Q.

Li, Q.

Li, S.-F.

Li, X.-S.

Li, Y.Y.

Li, Z.

Lihua, Z.

Lin, P.-N.

Lin, Q.-H.

Linderholm, H.W.

Lindholm, M.

Linsley, B.K.

Liu, C.-Q.

Liu, J.

Liu, L.

Liu, T.

Liu, T.S.

Liu, X.

Liu, Y.

Liu, Z.

Lloyd, A.H.

Lloyd, J.M.

Lockett, P.

Loope, D.B.

Lopez-Pamo, E.

Lorrey, A.

Loso, M.G.

Loutre, M.-F.

Lowell, T.V.

Lu, H.

Lucchini, F.

Luckge, A.

Luckman, B.H.

Lund, D.C.

Lund, S.P.

Lundblad, K.

Luoto, T.P.

Luterbacher, J.

Ma, C.-M.

Ma, H.

MacDonald, G.M.

MacGregor, A.

Machtle, B.

Mackay, A.W.

Maddy, D.

Magny, M.

Makaya, M.

Maley, J.

Malmgren, B.A.

Malmström, M.

Man, Z.

Manca, M.

Mangini, A.

Marchetto, A.

Martin, T.

Martinez-Cortizas, A.

Martma, T.

Mashiotta, T.A.

Mason, J.A.

Masse, G.

Masson-Delmotte, V.

Mathewes, R.W.

Matthews, J.A.

Matsumoto, E.

Mauquoy, D.

Mayes, M.T.

Mayewski, P.

Mazepa, V.S.

McGann, M.

McHugh, C.

McKay, N.P.

Mediavilla, R.

Meeker, L.D.

Meitao, L.

Melles, M.

Menier, D.

Merilainen, J.

Meyer, G.A.

Meyer, N.

Michelutti, N.

Mickelson, D.M.

Mielikainen, K.

Mikkelsen, N.

Millar, C.E.

Miller, G.H.

Miller, H.

Miller, U.

Millet, L.

Mischke, S.

Moberg, A.

Moller, P.

Moore, J.C.B

Moore, J.J.

Mordenti, A.

Moreno, A.

Mosley-Thompson, E.

Muller-Karger, F.

Murayama, M.

Murdmaa, I.

Musazzi, S.

Nakaegawa, T.

Nakamura, T.

Naurzbaev, M.M.

Nefedov, V.S.

Neil, H.

Nelson, D.M.

Nester, P.L.

Newton, A.

Ngomanda, A.

Ni, J.

Nicolussi, K.

Nievergelt, D.

Nilsen, F.

Nitsche, F.

Noon, P.E.

Noone, S.

Nordberg, K.

Nordt, L.

Notaro, M.

Novoa-Muñoz, J.C.

Nowaczyk, N.

Nyberg, J.

Nørgaard-Pedersen, N.

Oba, T.

Oberg, L.

Odada, E.

Oglesby, R.J.

Ogurtsov, M.G.

Ohtani, Y.

Ojala, A.E.K.

Okamoto, T.

Okuno, M.

Olafsdottir, K.B.

Oliveira, P.

Olvera-Vargas, M.

Oppo, D.W.

Orombelli, G.

Ortiz, J.

Oslisly, R.

Overpeck, J.T.

Overturf, B.

Page, M.J.

Palmer, J.

Panin, A.V.

Pant, R.K.

Pantoja, S.

Partridge, T.C.

Patridge, W.

Patterson, W.P.

Paulsen, D.E.

Payette, S.

Pederson, D.C.

Peeters, F.J.C.

Peltola, H.

Peramaki, P.

Perez-Cruz, L.

Persico, L.

Peteet, D.M.

Peterson, L. C.

Petit, J.R.

Phadtare, N.R.

Pienitz, R.

Pierau, R.

Pierce, J.L.

Pla, S.

Plessen, B.

Podritske, B.

Pohjola, V.

Polissar, P.J.

Polyak, L.

Pontevedra-Pombal, X.

Poore, R.Z.

Porter, S.C.

Possnert, G.

Power, M.

Proust, J.-N.

Qian, W.

Qiang, M.

Qin, D.

Qin, N.-S.

Qin, X.G.

Quamar, M.F.

Quattrocchio, M.

Quinn, T.M.

Rabenkogo, N.

Railsback, L.B.

Ramesh, R.

Rampino, M.R.

Ran, L.

Reech, N.

Reeder, P.P.

Reimer, P.J.

Rein B.

Reinhardt, L.

Ren, J.

Reynard, E.

Reynolds, C.P.

Reyss, J.L.

Richey, J.N.

Richter, T.O.

Rico, M.

Riera, S.

Rioual, P.

Risberg, J.

Risebrobakken, B.

Rittenour, T.

Robert, C.

Rodrigues, T.

Rolland, N.

Roncaglia, L.

Rosen, P.

Rosenbaum, J.

Rosenthal, Y.

Rosqvist, G.

Roth, M.

Rousse, S.

Rowe, C.M.

Rørvik, K.-L.

Röhl, U.

Rubenstone, J.

Rull, V.

Russell, J.M.

Ryan, W.B.F.

Ryves, D.B.

Saarinen, T.

Saarnisto, M.

Sabbe, K.

Saito, S.

Saito, Y.

Saito-Kato, M.

Saliège, J.F.

Salinger, J.

Sandgren, P.

Santisteban, J.I.

Sarnthein, M.

Saurer, M.

Savinetsky, A.B.

Scapozza, C.

Schevin, P.

Schilman, B.,

Schleser, G.H.

Schmidhalter, M.

Schmidt, R.

Schoeneich, P.

Scholz, D.

Schwede, S.

Schwikowski, M.

Scott, L.

Seager, R.

Seiriene, V.

Selegei, V.

Seppa, H.

Sepúlveda, J.

Seret, G.

Severi, M.

Severinghaus, J.P.

Shah, S.K.

Shao, X.

Sharma, J.

Shemesh, A.

Shen, C.

Shen, J.

Shi, J.

Shi, X.-H.

Shinozuka, Y.

Shishov, V.V.

Shiyatov, S.G. Shotyk, W.

Sial, A.N.

Sicre, M.-A.

Sidorova, O.V.

Sienkiewicz, E.

Sigl, M.

Singh, I.B.

Sinha, A.

Sinkunas, P.

Sirocko, F.

Sithaldeen, R.

Slagle, A.

Slagstad, D.

Smart, C.W.

Smith, D.E.

Smol, J.P.

Smolyaninova, L.G.

Snowball, I.

Solari, M.A.

Solomina, O.

Somayajulu, B.L.K.

Sonechkin, D.M.

Song, H.

Sorrel, P.

Spotl, C.

Sridhar, V.

St. Jacques, J.-M.

Stager, J.C.

Stahle, D.W.

Stancikaite, M.

Steffensen, J.P.

Sterken, M.

Stevens, L.

Stiger, M.

Stoner, J.S.

Stott, L.D.

Sturm, M.

Sumin, W.

Sun, J.

Sun, Q.

Sundqvist, H.S.

Svanered, O.

Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E.

Swarzenski, P.W.

Swinehart, J.B.

Takahashi, H.A.

Talma, A.S.

Tan, L.

Tanabe, S.

Tandong, Y.

Tappa, E.J.

Taricco, C.

Taylor, A.H.

Tegu, C.

Telford, R.J.

Tessier, B.

Tesson, M.

Thompson, L.G.

Thomson, R.E.

Thordarson, T.

Thorndycraft, V.R.

Thouveny, N.

Thunell, R.C.

Tian, J.

Tiegang, L.

Tierney, J.E.

Tieszen, L.

Tiljander, M.

Timonen, M.

Topf, A.L.

Trachsel, M.

Traini, C.

Traversi, R.

Treydte, K.S.

Tubbs, J.

Tuomenvirta, H.

Turon, J.-L.

Tyson, P.D.

Udisti, R.

Umer, M.

Unkel, I.

Urban, D.L.

Urrutia, R.

Vaganov, E.A.

Valero-Garces, B.L.

van Geel, B.

van Weering, T.C.E.

Vance, R.E.

Vanhoutte, K.

Vare, L.L.

Varela, R.

Vartiainen, M.

Verdes, P.

Verleyen, E.

Verneaux, V.

Verschuren, D.

Verstege, A.

Vigliotti, L.

Villa, I.M.

Vinther, B.M.

Virkkunen, K.

Vivaldo, G.

Vogel, J.C.

Vollweiler, N.

von Fischer, J.

von Gunten, L.

Voss, M.

Vu, Q.L.

Vyverman, W.

Wacker, L.

Wadhams, P.

Wagner, B.

Wagner, G.

Walker, R.C.

Wambach, E.

Wang, F.-B.

Wang, L.

Wang, Q.-C.

Wang, S.

Wang, S.L.

Wang, W.

Wang, W.-C.

Wang, Y.-S.

Wang, Y.

Wansard, G.

Wastegard, S.

Wayne, R.K.

Weber, N.

Weber, O.

Webster, J.W.

Weckstrom, J.

Wefer, G.

Wehrli, M.

Weijian, Z.

Weimer, L.M.

Weiner, N.J.

Wells, S.G.

Wen, X.

Werner, P.C.

West, D.L.

Westerberg, L.-O.

Westfall, R.D.

White, J.

Whitlock, C.

Wiles, G.C.

Willard, D.A.

Williams, D.

Williams, P.W.

Willis, K.J.

Wilson, A.T.

Wilson, R.

Wilson, R.J.S.

Winter, A.

Witkowski, A.

Witon, E.

Wolf, A.

Wolfe, A.P.

Woodworth, M.P.

Wu, J.-T.

Xia, X.-C.

Xia, W.-L.

Xiaozhong, L.

Xoplaki, E.

Xuexian, H.

Yadava, M.G.

Yafeng, S.

Yamada, K.

Yamamoto, M.

Yamano, M.

Yan, S.

Yang, D.Y.

Yang, T.-N.

Yang, Y.

Yang, Z.-J.

Yao, T.

Yasuda, Y.

Yasuyuki, S.

Yi, L.

Yi, S.

Yiou, P.

Yoon, H.I.

Yoshioka, T.

Zabenskie, S.

Zapata, M.B.R.

Zhang, C.

Zhang, E.L.

Zhang, J.

Zhang, P.

Zhang, P.-Z.

Zhang, Qi-Bin

Zhang, Qiang

Zhang, X.

Zhang, Y.

Zhangdong, J.

Zhao, J.-X.

Zhao, L.

Zheng, J.

Zhou, A.

Zhou, L.P.

Zhu, H.-F.

Zhu, L.-P.

Zhu, X.-D.

Zhu, Y.

Zhu, Y.-X.

Zicheng, P.

Zumbuhl, H.J.

[skierinvermont]

Nope....more studies have it warmer

Not a single one of those studies say that the globe was warmer during the MWP.

What they say is that particular regions have at some point in the last 2,000 years been warmer than they are at present. This does not surprise me in the slightest.

Please cite a single peer-reviewed study that says the GLOBE was warmer in the MWP.

[BethesdaWX]

Not a single one of those studies say that the globe was warmer during the MWP.

What they say is that particular regions have at some point in the last 2,000 years been warmer than they are at present. This does not surprise me in the slightest.

WTF? Do you want me to quote them?

[skierinvermont]

WTF? Do you want me to quote them?

Yes.

[skierinvermont]

Ok I picked one from your list at random Bethesda.

I picked Dominguez-Vazquez. I am reading it now. I will quote the conclusion shortly.

[skierinvermont]

The conclusion of the study, which I drew from your list at random is the following:

"Based on radiocarbon dating and pollen analyses of a sediment core retrieved from the shore of Naja Lake (16°59'27.6"N, 91°35'29.6"W), which is located near the Lacandon Forest Region in the state of Chiapas in southeastern Mexico, the authors found evidence for "a strong, protracted drought from 1260 to 730 years BP," which they characterize as "the most severe" of the record."

So the period 1260-730 BP was particularly dry in southeast Mexico. How does this prove the MWP was warmer than present globally?

Ok I will try again I will select a new study at random.

[skierinvermont]

This time I select the study by Vare L.L. Remember, I am choosing these studies at random and then quoting the results.