skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Based on IP25 data obtained from a marine sediment core retrieved from Barrow Strait (74°16.05'N, 91°06.38'W), which they compared with "complementary proxy data obtained form analysis of other organic biomarkers, stable isotope composition of bulk organic matter, benthic foraminifera, particle size distributions and ratios of inorganic elements," Vare et al. developed a spring sea ice record that provided evidence for a decrease in spring sea ice between approximately 1200 and 800 years before present (BP), which was followed by an increase in sea ice over the last 400 years of their record (between 800 and 400 years BP). "Interestingly," as they describe it, "these latter two intervals coincide with, respectively, the so-called Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, which commonly feature in lower latitude palaeo-climatic studies." These are the results of Vare L.L. the second study I chose at random from the list. Apparently there was less ice in the Canadian Archipelago from 800-1200 AD than from 1200-1600AD. That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.. everybody agrees the earth was warmer 800-1200AD than 1200-1600AD. How does this prove the MWP was >1C warmer than present? How many studies do I have to go through before I get to the one about the earth being 1C warmer than present during the MWP? Should I select another study at random? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 This is the MWP project...in the timeframe of the MWP only. I am going to post A FEW snippets/quotes from a few articles out of the 1,000+ that are in here...ok? There are almost one thousand in here that all support the fact that the MWP was warmer than today.....I CANNOT post that many articles here. Discount anomalies outside of the MWP, the MWP anoms were warmer in every study. Point being, only look at the MWP datatables......if you can. Included in here , "Higher global treelines, higher sea levels, less ice on both poles" OK OK OK OK OK????? AFRICA Reference 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. http://www.co2scienc...coldaircave.php in the section http://www.co2scienc...ions/africa.php ANTARCTICA Reference Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245. http://www.co2scienc..._bransfield.php In this section' http://www.co2scienc.../antarctica.php ASIA Reference Kalugin, I., Selegei, V., Goldberg, E. and Seret, G. 2005. Rhythmic fine-grained sediment deposition in Lake Teletskoye, Altai, Siberia, in relation to regional climate change. Quaternary International 136: 5-13. Description Sediment cores from Lake Teletskoye in the Altai Mountains of Southern Siberia (51°42.90'N, 87°39.50'E) were analyzed to produce a multi-proxy climate record spanning the past 800 years. The Medieval Warm Period was identifed as a climatic period evidenced between the start of the authors' record in 1210 AD and ending around 1480 AD that was "warmer and more humid than today." http://www.co2scienc...eteletskoye.php In this section http://www.co2scienc...egions/asia.php AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND Reference Eden, D.N and Page, M.J. 1998. Palaeoclimatic implications of a storm erosion record from late Holocene lake sediments, North Island, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 139: 37-58. Description Sediment cores from Lake Tutira, North Island, New Zealand (~39.23°S, 176.9°E) were analyzed to reconstruct a history of major storms for this region over the past 2,000 years. Results indicated six well-defined and "clearly distinguishable" storm periods of the pre-instrumental era, which are reproduced in the figure below. A seventh period based on data presented in Table 1 of the authors' paper has also been added to indicate comparable storms of the modern era. A comparison of these data with several independent climate proxies throughout the region led the authors to conclude that stormy periods occurred during times when the climate was warmer overall. In this regard, they note that "the Mapara 2 period corresponds to sustained warm temperatures in the Tasmanian and Chilean tree-ring records which might indicate that the period represents a Southern Hemisphere-wide climate anomaly." Additionally, they report that "the Tufa Trig 1 period [AD 864-1014] corresponds to the early part of the Medieval Warm Period suggesting warmer temperatures occurred in New Zealand at this time." Similar correlations were noted among the other storm periods, leading us to infer that given the large number of storm events during the RWP and MWP, as compared to the CWP, it is likely the CWP has been neither as warm nor as protracted as either of these two earlier warm periods. http://www.co2scienc..._laketutira.php In this section http://www.co2scienc..._laketutira.php EUROPE http://www.co2scienc...s/l2_gorner.php Reference Holzhauser, H., Magny, M. and Zumbuhl, H.J. 2005. Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene 15: 789-801. Description Holzhauser et al. present a high-resolution record of glacial variation for Gorner glacier, in the Alps of Valis, Switzerland (~46.05°N, 7.62°E), as part of an effort to develop a 3500-year climate history of west-central Europe. In their estimation, "at no other glacier in the Swiss Alps ... [is] the Mediaeval Climatic Optimum so well documented as at the Gorner glacier," especially when the glacier retreated to levels beyond that of the present-day between AD 800 and 1100. Because glaciers in mountain areas are "highly sensitive to climate changes and thus provide one of nature's clearest signals of warming or cooling and/or dry and wet climate periods," as they describe it, "one can say that the quasi periodical fluctuations of Alpine glaciers were driven by glacier-hostile (warm/dry) and glacier-friendly (cool/wet) periods." On this basis, therefore, one can cautiously conclude that temperatures at Gorner Glacier were likely warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than they have been recently In this section http://www.co2scienc...ions/europe.php NORTH AMERICA Donard Lake, Baffin Island, Canada Reference Moore, J.J., Hughen, K.A., Miller, G.H. and Overpeck, J.T. 2001. Little Ice Age recorded in summer temperature reconstruction from varved sediments of Donard Lake, Baffin Island, Canada. Journal of Paleolimnology 25: 503-517. Description Sediment cores collected from Donard Lake, Baffin Island, Canada (66.25°N, 62°W) were analyzed to produce a 1240-year record of average summer temperature for this region based on clastic varve thickness, which was demonstrated to reflect changes in the region's mean summer air temperature as measured at nearby Cape Dyer. And in the words of the researchers who did the work, "the most prominent feature of the record is a period of elevated summer temperatures from AD 1200-1375," the peak 10-year mean value of which was approximately 0.9°C warmer than the peak 10-year mean value in the vicinity of 1960 (the highest of the last hundred years), 1.2°C warmer than the peak 10-year mean value in the vicinity of 1980, and fully 2.0°C warmer than the last 10-year value of the record, which was centered on approximately 1987. http://www.co2scienc..._donardlake.php In this section http://www.co2scienc...orthamerica.php NORTHERN HEMISPHERE http://www.co2scienc...ions/nhemis.php OCEANS http://www.co2scienc...ions/oceans.php SOUTH AMERICA http://www.co2scienc...outhamerica.php Overall, overall, more than 700 of the studies support the MWP warmer than today, these are 700 regions scattered about the globe. ok? it is safe to say, that based on the higher global treelines, and higher sea levels........that the MWP was warmer than today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 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. Even the most hardened skeptics are in general agreement with the concept of radiative forcing. Bethesda is resorting to long ago dispenced with argument that radiative forcing by CO2 to small to matter. The idea that a doubling of CO2 produces a 3.7W/m^2 forcing is not just pulled out of thin air. It is a consequence of radiative transfer studies conducted by none other than the US Airforce HITRAN DATABASE of radiation codes. This value represents one of the most certain of all aspects relied on by AGW science. In the radiative forcing table I posted earlier the radiative forcing confidence level given by CO2 is rate as HIGH. Skier and I are on the same page on this forum with regard to what I have stated here. Neither of us are skeptical of this fundamental aspect of the science.There is little room to be. Where we may differ is in the feedback response to this forcing which most likely resides in the range of 2C-4.5C increase per doubling CO2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Even the most hardened skeptics are in general agreement with the concept of radiative forcing. Bethesda is resorting to long ago dispenced with argument that radiative forcing by CO2 to small to matter. The idea that a doubling of CO2 produces a 3.7W/m^2 forcing is not just pulled out of thin air. It is a consequence of radiative transfer studies conducted by none other than the US Airforce HITRAN DATABASE of radiation codes. This value represents one of the most certain of all aspects relied on by AGW science. In the radiative forcing table I posted earlier the radiative forcing confidence level given by CO2 is rate as HIGH. Skier and I are on the same page on this forum with regard to what I have stated here. Neither of us are skeptical of this fundamental aspect of the science.There is little room to be. Where we may differ is in the feedback response to this forcing which most likely resides in the range of 2C-4.5C increase per doubling CO2 I never have disputed CO2 properties, however, the impacts on the atmosphere are a seperat issue. 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. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 wow skier......posting already. dude.............really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known. CO2's radiative forcing is 3.7W/m2. You apparently agree that this is "well known." Therefore you agree that CO2 will cause a rate of energy gain to the planet of 3.7W/m2. After all, you said you agreed with CO2 radiative forcing figures. The figure is 3.7W/m2. Again you cannot differentiate radiative forcing of CO2 from the affect CO2 has on the atmosphere, because radiative forcing IS DEFINED AS the affect CO2 will have on the atmosphere. Radiative forcing is not a "property of the CO2 molecule." It is the actual effect that CO2 will have on the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 CO2's radiative forcing is 3.7W/m2. You apparently agree that this is "well known." Therefore you agree that CO2 will cause a rate of energy gain to the planet of 3.7W/m2. After all, you said you agreed with CO2 radiative forcing figures. The figure is 3.7W/m2. Again you cannot differentiate radiative forcing of CO2 from the affect CO2 has on the atmosphere, because radiative forcing IS DEFINED AS the affect CO2 will have on the atmosphere. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Is my point. If there is one thing you are not good at, it is making inferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 posting without reading the link again I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 This is the MWP project...in the timeframe of the MWP only. I am going to post A FEW snippets/quotes from a few articles out of the 1,000+ that are in here...ok? You are not posting snippets of the actual articles.. you are posting snippets of descriptions of the articles. These descriptions are written by the author of the skeptic website CO2 science. The descriptions are often not accurate and misrepresent the work of the original authors. One common way he has mislead the reader is by posting only the proxy record, even though the proxy record does not accurately show the rapid warming of the last 50 years because it is not as precise and is slow to respond to warming. Moreover, these are again regional data points. I have no doubt that at some point in the past 2000 year Nairobi has been warmer than present. I have no doubt that at some point in the past 2000 years Cancun Mexico has been warmer than present. I have no doubt that at some point in the past 2000 years Cairo Egypt has been warmer than present. Even if this is true, it does NOT mean that the GLOBE has been warmer than present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 You are not posting snippets of the actual articles.. you are posting snippets of descriptions of the articles. These descriptions are written by the author of the skeptic website CO2 science. The descriptions are often not accurate and misrepresent the work of the original authors. One common way he has mislead the reader is by posting only the proxy record, even though the proxy record does not accurately show the rapid warming of the last 50 years because it is not as precise and is slow to respond to warming. Moreover, these are again regional data points. I have no doubt that at some point in the past 2000 year Nairobi has been warmer than present. I have no doubt that at some point in the past 2000 years Cancun Mexico has been warmer than present. I have no doubt that at some point in the past 2000 years Cairo Egypt has been warmer than present. Even if this is true, it does NOT mean that the GLOBE has been warmer than present. Dude, he QUOTES the scientists in his discriptions! If you wanna go tell the scientists they are wrong, be my guest. :lol: These are all within the MWP timeframe......700 datapoints around the globe from all areas...eh? Not good enough for ya? Why don't you go to the scientists and tell them that data is wrong too.....ok? Fail You know what a "summarized conclusion" is, right? 700 data points scattered about the globe....yes...where do you think proxy data comes from? You are making no sense right now. What I posted were the descriptions and results from 7 studies out of the 700+ that show the MWP warmer through proxy data. Do you know how proxy data is derived? Obviously not. This data is gathered from peer reviewed data..................why don't you go ahead and post the REFERENCED scientists data that shows an ulterior conclusion, eh? Show examples of this "misrepresentation". You think they are purposely scewing data? prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Is my point. If there is one thing you are not good at, it is making inferences. This paper you just quoted actually agrees that a doubling of CO2 would produce 1.2C of warming. In fact, the author actually calculates a slightly higher figure of 1.5C per doubling of CO2. If their massive estimate of net greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is true then a worst case doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will still only produce a total warming under 1.5 °C (and we're thought to be almost half-way there already). http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ The above quote comes from halfway down the page. The author doesn't seem to dispute the well-accepted 1.2C response per doubling CO2. What he disputes is the feedback response. The link you have provided is is in DIRECT contradiction with your previous claims that changing CO2 will cause little to no warming. Perhaps you should read your own links. He repeats the fact that CO2 will cause a 1C of warming per doubling (actually it's 1.2C but whatever) in the conclusion. What he is disputing is the feedbacks NOT the actual effect of CO2 which even he accepts to be 1.2C/doubling. So your own link contradicts your previous baseless assertions that CO2 will have an effect of .1C. The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C. The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 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. waaaaaaaaat? All of the studies have the area of focus warmer in the MWP than today.....one proxy cannot represent the globe due to differing peaks...but overall, the globe was warmer. This is why he uses 700+ reference points around the globe, during the MWP timeframe only....to show that the MWP was overall warmer across the globe. He QUOTES the scientists directly....there are thousands of them referenced. Example, the US was warmer in the 1930's than today...but the globe wasn't. This is why he is using over 700 datapoints from around the globe,....during the MWP timeframe only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 These studies mentioned in Wikipedia overall show it warmer now than in the MWP. http://en.wikipedia...._Comparison.png http://commons.wikim..._Comparison.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 This paper you just quoted actually agrees that a doubling of CO2 would produce 1.2C of warming. In fact, the author actually calculates a slightly higher figure of 1.5C per doubling of CO2. If their massive estimate of net greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide is true then a worst case doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will still only produce a total warming under 1.5 °C (and we're thought to be almost half-way there already). http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ The above quote comes from halfway down the page. The author doesn't seem to dispute the well-accepted 1.2C response per doubling CO2. What he disputes is the feedback response. The link you have provided is is in DIRECT contradiction with your previous claims that changing CO2 will cause little to no warming. Perhaps you should read your own links. huh? My point was that the atmosphere is complicated as evidenced by the link...........In my previous post, I wrote "you are bad at making inferences".........knowing you would post this exact response! FYI, Lindzen does not agree with the 1.2C per/doubling.....not sure where you got that from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 These studies mentioned in Wikipedia overall show it warmer now than in the MWP. http://en.wikipedia...._Comparison.png The hockeystick proxies were debunked. Are you saying that the higher sea levels...........higher global treelines, etc, fit into that proxy? Sea levels were higher in the MWP because it was cooler! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 What does Bethesda think the amount of warming per doubling is. It must be something. I think the 3C is reasonable, particularly in the long term with feedbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 huh? My point was that the atmosphere is complicated as evidenced by the link...........In my previous post, I wrote "you are bad at making inferences".........knowing you would post this exact response! FYI, Lindzen does not agree with the 1.2C per/doubling.....not sure where you got that from. I didn't say Lindzen does. Rusty and I have explained that CO2 doubling produces a temperature response of 1.2C /doubling. You posted that link to supposedly disprove that fact. As I read it, what I found is that the author actually agrees that a doubling of CO2 produces 1.2C of warming. He says so right here in his bulleted conclusion: The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Unlike you, the author is actually making a reasonably intelligent argument against FEEDBACKS where most of the remaining uncertainty exists, and not against the actual effect of CO2, which every informed person understands will produce warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The hockeystick proxies were debunked. Are you saying that the higher sea levels...........higher global treelines, etc, fit into that proxy? Sea levels were higher in the MWP because it was cooler! Maybe you can add these other studies to the Wikipedia article if they are representative of global reconstructions? The warm period right now only exceeded the MWP in the past 25 to 50 years, so it takes more time for glaciers to melt and sea level to rise. Even treelines might take some time to set up a soil base in rocky areas. As you showed earlier sea level is projected to rise much above the MWP within just decades to a century from now. And don't we hear stories of thousands of years old mummies melting out of glaciers, along with mammoths? What was your reference for sea level? Let's get first things first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 What does Bethesda think the amount of warming per doubling is. It must be something. I think the 3C is reasonable, particularly in the long term with feedbacks. He has previously posted .1C although he seems to have just invented this number as some sort of compromise in his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The hockeystick proxies were debunked. Are you saying that the higher sea levels...........higher global treelines, etc, fit into that proxy? Sea levels were higher in the MWP because it was cooler! Treelines were not higher globally in the MWP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I didn't say Lindzen does. Rusty and I have explained that CO2 doubling produces a temperature response of 1.2C /doubling. You posted that link to supposedly disprove of. As I read it, what I found is that the author actually agrees that a doubling of CO2 produces 1.2C of warming. He says so right here in his bulleted conclusion: The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Unlike you, the author is actually making a reasonably intelligent argument against FEEDBACKS where most of the remaining uncertainty exists, and not against the actual effect of CO2, which every informed person understands will produce warming. hahaha. What do you think I mean when I say "complex inter-relationships"? No question Co2 produces warming. It just is not a significant source of it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Treelines were not higher globally in the MWP. Yes they were. Do you want me to post the studies on treelines now? I will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 hahaha. What do you think I mean when I say "complex inter-relationships"? No question Co2 produces warming. It just is not a significant source of it..... The author of the link you posted says a doubling of CO2 will produce 1C of warming. This directly contradicts your previous claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 You guys have been avoiding my main argument. Salbers...sourse from a WARMIST site http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/2009/01/09/faster-sea-level-rise http://www.springerlink.com/content/527178062596k202/ Believe it or not, I read blogs on both sides of the debate. Match to rapid warming...remember...aka,a hockeystick. Solar has leveled off...temps have leveled off too. Temps will drop rapidly beginning 2015. I never have disputed CO2 properties, however, the impacts on the atmosphere are a seperat issue. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The author of the link you posted says a doubling of CO2 will produce 1C of warming. This directly contradicts your previous claims. He says "It is estimated at near 1C per doubling". Does he say "I agree with it"? ESTIMATIONS ARE HYPOTHESIS. This is my point...we estimate based on our limited understanding of the atmosphere, that our increasing Co2 emissions will result in significant warming. However, there is evidence showing that our estimations of other factors are incorrect, and that increasing CO2 may not play as big a role as we thought. Hypothesis doesn't prove AGW.. There is something called "The Scientific Method"....what ever happend to that? Its one thing to say "we feel it is likely that increased CO2 will lead to mass warming"...it is another to say "Our Computer model results prove AGW". AGW is real....just not at a significant level... This is also a hypothiesis...one of us is gonna lose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Ok guys I gotta dinner date to head to. You can bash me free-will until I return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 He says "It is estimated at near 1C per doubling". Does he say "I agree with it"? He arrives at the same number via his own calculations. He agrees with it. What he disagrees with is the estimates of feedbacks. This is where there is still room for argument and where some of the more intelligent skepticism lies. So in short, you cited a link which says the effect of doubling CO2 is ~1C to disprove the assertion that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.2C of warming. The link directly supports what Rusty and I have been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Study is here http://www.co2scienc...ta/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.co2scienc...ions/europe.php This is using peer reviewed references, and data from hundreds of clasified scientists from around the world. CO2 Science is a favorite source for parrots. As you may recall, I posted that the site was run by scientists whose degrees focus on agronomy, and who concede they are funded by big oil. But putting that aside, I went to the list of Level I studies on the site, Level I being those studies published after Mann's hockey stick that suggest that the MWP was warmer than present. None of the Level I studies deal directly with the Vikings, or Viking exploration. Most of the sites studied and cited are elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. So taking a look at several of the studies for Iceland, where the Vikings were during the MWP, one discovers something interesting. Here is one study, Climate of the Little Ice Age and the past 2000 years in northeast Iceland inferred from chironomids and other lake sediment proxies. Here is how CO2 Science described the study (they chose not to publish the abstract). The authors developed a regional climatic record from a sediment core retrieved from lake Stora Viðarvatn in northeast Iceland (66°14.232'N, 15°50.083'W) in the summer of 2005, based on chironomid assemblage data that were well correlated with nearby measured temperatures over the 170-year period of the instrumental record. With respect to the MWP, the four researchers report that their data indicated "warm temperatures in the tenth and eleventh centuries, with one data point suggesting temperatures slightly warmer than present," which -- as best we can determine from the graph of their results, reproduced below, -- yields a peak MWP temperature 0.4°C greater than the peak CWP temperature.The authors developed a regional climatic record from a sediment core retrieved from lake Stora Viðarvatn in northeast Iceland (66°14.232'N, 15°50.083'W) in the summer of 2005, based on chironomid assemblage data that were well correlated with nearby measured temperatures over the 170-year period of the instrumental record. With respect to the MWP, the four researchers report that their data indicated "warm temperatures in the tenth and eleventh centuries, with one data point suggesting temperatures slightly warmer than present," which -- as best we can determine from the graph of their results, reproduced below, -- yields a peak MWP temperature 0.4°C greater than the peak CWP temperature. Here is the actual abstract from the Journal of Paleoclimatology A sedimentary record from lake Stora Vidarvatn in northeast Iceland records environmental changes over the past 2000 years. Downcore data include chironomid (Diptera: Chironomidae) assemblage data and total organic carbon, nitrogen, and biogenic silica content. Sample scores from detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) of chironomid assemblage data are well correlated with measured temperatures at Stykkishólmur over the 170 year instrumental record, indicating that chironomid assemblages at Stora Vidarvatn have responded sensitively to past temperature changes. DCA scores appear to be useful for quantitatively inferring past temperatures at this site. In contrast, a quantitative chironomid-temperature transfer function developed for northwestern Iceland does a relatively poor job of reconstructing temperature shifts, possibly due to the lake's large size and depth relative to the calibration sites or to the limited resolution of the subfossil taxonomy. The pre-instrumental climate history inferred from chironomids and other paleolimnological proxies is supported by prior inferences from historical documents, glacier reconstructions, and paleoceanographic studies. Much of the first millennium AD was relatively warm, with temperatures comparable to warm decades of the twentieth century. Temperatures during parts of the tenth and eleventh centuries AD may have been comparably warm. Biogenic silica concentrations declined, carbon:nitrogen ratios increased, and some chironomid taxa disappeared from the lake between the thirteenth and nineteenth centuries, recording the decline of temperatures into the Little Ice Age, increasing soil erosion, and declining lake productivity. All the proxy reconstructions indicate that the most severe Little Ice Age conditions occurred during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a period historically associated with maximum sea-ice and glacier extent around Iceland. (Bolding mine.) Another of their cited studies, Decadal variability of sea surface temperatures off North Iceland over the last 2000 years CO2 Science's description. (Again, they chose not to publish the abstract.) The authors developed a unique 2000-year-long summer sea surface temperature (SST) record with unprecedented temporal resolution (2-5 years) from a sediment core retrieved off North Iceland (66°33'N, 17°42'W), based on their analyses of alkenones synthesized primarily in the summer by the marine alga Emiliania huxleyi that grew in the overlying ocean's surface waters, while dating of the SST data was provided by tephrochronology. The results, pictured below, indicate that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was about 1°C higher than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period. The actual abstract Ocean variability at decadal time-scales remains poorly described partly because of the scarcity of high temporal resolution marine records. Here, we present a reconstruction of Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs) over the past two millennia at unprecedented temporal resolution (2 to 5 years), from a marine core located off North Iceland. Alkenone paleothermometry was used to infer SST variability, and tephrochronology to build the age model. Spectral analyses of the SST signal indicate intermittent 20–25 year oscillations, with periods of strong and weak power, that are likely reflecting the ocean response to wind forcing, presumably the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Warmer SSTs and paleo-magnetic proxy data, between 1000 and 1350 year A.D., overlapping the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), suggest enhanced heat transport across the Denmark Strait by the North Icelandic Irminger Current (NIIC). This is in contrast with the subsequent period, which includes the Little Ice Age (LIA), showing continuous cooling towards the 20th century. Reduced NIIC flow through the Denmark Strait likely resulting from higher freshwater and sea ice export from the Arctic would account for the observed colder conditions. (Bolding mine.) So the actual study said elevated SST lasted until 1350 AD. CO2 science found that period to be inconvenient from the standpoint of having to match with the peak time of the MWP, so they lopped off about 200 years of the data record. Parrots don't know any better, so the blame goes to CO2 Science, not to those who rely on it as a source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Yes stellarfun i found the same thing in many of the dozen or so "descriptions" I have sampled from that site. The descriptions don't match the abstracts. And there's the fundamental problem that the warm periods being identified in one particular region are not for the same decades or centuries found in other regions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 He arrives at the same number via his own calculations. He agrees with it. What he disagrees with is the estimates of feedbacks. This is where there is still room for argument and where some of the more intelligent skepticism lies. So in short, you cited a link which says the effect of doubling CO2 is ~1C to disprove the assertion that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.2C of warming. The link directly supports what Rusty and I have been saying. Again, you suck at making inferences, assuming I have some sort of ulterior motive I posted the link to show the complexities of the atmosphere. Can you find his quote? And........So what?! The number is reached thru estimations...because thats what it is. You pretty much restated everything I did, just in a different context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.