No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice

[BethesdaWX]

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).

Here is the actual abstract from the Journal of Paleoclimatology

(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 actual abstract

(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.

There is nothing non-factual being stated. The abstract overhaul and a detailed description... I'd rather see a detailed discription, wouldn't you? It really doesn't change the fact that not only were the scientists QUOTED, but also the data being presented is that of the scientists themselves....they would not falsify data.

Again, it doesn't change the fact that the MWP was warmer than today, and the fact that there was less ice, higher sea levels, and higher treelines.

I'll let you read my previous post on the matter....then read your post, and tell me if you notice something.

If you don't, I'll tell you.

Hint Hint.... 2 words

1) Quote

2) Time Period of Interest.

Think before you post.

[BethesdaWX]

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, Not to disprove the AGW hypothesis. Not sure why you would think that.....

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.

Skier

[skierinvermont]

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.

No it is reached through calculations.

Just another example how even intelligent skeptics understand that doubling CO2 will cause ~1C of warming, it's really only the feedbacks that are in question. Only the denialists like yourself fail to comprehend this fact.

[BethesdaWX]

No it is reached through calculations.

Just another example how even intelligent skeptics understand that doubling CO2 will cause ~1C of warming, it's really only the feedbacks that are in question. Only the denialists like yourself fail to comprehend this fact.

Yes...the calculations are estimations in themselves...

Either way, he never vouched support to the theory...nor did he go against it. The blog post wasmore focused on feedback mechanisms...which is why I posted it.

If we're missing 1 link, the entire chain is useless.

[skierinvermont]

Yes...the calculations are estimations in themselves...

Either way, he never vouched support to the theory...nor did he go against it. The blog post wasmore focused on feedback mechanisms...which is why I posted it.

If we're missing 1 link, the entire chain is useless.

Co2 is the first link in the chain and it known with high confidence.

[BethesdaWX]

Co2 is the first link in the chain and it known with high confidence.

Thats if you assume Co2 is the base for temperature on the planet....there is no "high confidence" in climate science, and the effect on the atmosphere manifesting in temperature itself is likely minor.

We'll know in 30yrs, so we shall see.

[WeatherRusty]

Thats if you assume Co2 is the base for temperature on the planet....there is no "high confidence" in climate science, and the effect on the atmosphere manifesting in temperature itself is likely minor.

We'll know in 30yrs, so we shall see.

Radiative forcing is what is known with high confidence. This is deduced by scientists studying radiative transfer through the atmosphere. It involves the study of radiative physics, not climate science. Climate scientists make us of this information as do infrared astronomers and those who design heat seeking missiles as examples. Do you really think that every aspect of the science underlying AGW is junk science. You must because you dispute EVERYTHING....and you as a skeptic are not alone in that regard. Then you go ahead and suggest alternatives to CO2 and greenhouse warming as if every plausible explanation should be given equal weight despite what the science says. Anything is possible, but the question really is what is likely given our knowledge.

You dispute the findings generally accepted in the annals of paleoclimatology. Who really cares whether the MWP was globally the equal of today's warmth. There have been plenty of times when the Earth was much warmer than today. The MWP was within +- a few tenths of a degree today. So what? What matters is where we go from here and our science informs us we will continue a general upward trend measured over decades and centuries with plenty of ups and downs about the mean along the way due to natural variability. Who cares what the global anomalies are this month or that. It's a waist of time and a diversionary tactic designed to obfuscate the longer term issue.

[skierinvermont]

Radiative forcing is what is known with high confidence. This is deduced by scientists studying radiative transfer through the atmosphere. It involves the study of radiative physics, not climate science. Climate scientists make us of this information as do infrared astronomers and those who design heat seeking missiles as examples. Do you really think that every aspect of the science underlying AGW is junk science. You must because you dispute EVERYTHING....and you as a skeptic are not alone in that regard. Then you go ahead and suggest alternatives to CO2 and greenhouse warming as if every plausible explanation should be given equal weight despite what the science says. Anything is possible, but the question really is what is likely given our knowledge.

You dispute the findings generally accepted in the annals of paleoclimatology. Who really cares whether the MWP was globally the equal of today's warmth. There have been plenty of times when the Earth was much warmer than today. The MWP was within +- a few tenths of a degree today. So what? What matters is where we go from here and our science informs us we will continue a general upward trend measured over decades and centuries with plenty of ups and downs about the mean along the way due to natural variability. Who cares what the global anomalies are this month or that. It's a waist of time and a diversionary tactic designed to obfuscate the longer term issue.

Yes this really is what is most ridiculous about some skeptics (more accurately deniers). They find nearly EVERYTHING remotely associated with climate science to be wrong. Every single prediction ever made by climatologists and all of the theory, mathematics and physics that is based upon is all wrong. Now how likely is it that this is actually true, unless of course it is one massive very complex conspiracy? Especially considering much of the science was originally developed in other fields outside of climatology. It would be far more likely that a few things here and there were wrong.

Oh and Rusty, Bethesda believes the MWP was >1C warmer than today not just a couple tenths.

And then it's funny to see the same people believe far-fetched things with far less evidence than there is for AGW.

[stellarfun]

There is nothing non-factual being stated. The abstract overhaul and a detailed description... I'd rather see a detailed discription, wouldn't you? It really doesn't change the fact that not only were the scientists QUOTED, but also the data being presented is that of the scientists themselves....they would not falsify data.

Again, it doesn't change the fact that the MWP was warmer than today, and the fact that there was less ice, higher sea levels, and higher treelines.

I'll let you read my previous post on the matter....then read your post, and tell me if you notice something.

If you don't, I'll tell you.

Hint Hint.... 2 words

1) Quote

2) Time Period of Interest.

Think before you post.

You only need a description if you don't understand what's written in the abstract; i.e., if you are a parrot, who has little background in science. In the two instances I cited, the conclusions of the scientists in the published papers differ from those in the description in CO2 Science. If you fail to perceive the differences even when these are bolded, then perhaps you suffer from a sort of dyslexia. If so, it's not your fault, but it would explain lots.

I didn't go to the North American subset of 'sources' on the CO2 site because those have been discussed before; e.g., the guy who is going for his Ph.D. in medieval law and is a climatology hobbyist. BTW, his paper was apparently not published in peer-reviewed literature; an English language version was published in an on-line compilation (a virtual book) that is put out by a publisher which seems to charge you a fee to publish your paper. You might try them, then CO2 science could add you to their list of sources showing that Mann et al had it all wrong.

I am curious why skeptics are so fixated on the MWP when it comes to the Arctic? There is a trove of well-documented science that the Arctic was a lot warmer and had a lot less ice during the HCO then it did during the MWP or today.

[WeatherRusty]

You only need a description if you don't understand what's written in the abstract; i.e., if you are a parrot, who has little background in science. In the two instances I cited, the conclusions of the scientists in the published papers differ from those in the description in CO2 Science. If you fail to perceive the differences even when these are bolded, then perhaps you suffer from a sort of dyslexia. If so, it's not your fault, but it would explain lots.

I didn't go to the North American subset of 'sources' on the CO2 site because those have been discussed before; e.g., the guy who is going for his Ph.D. in medieval law and is a climatology hobbyist. BTW, his paper was apparently not published in peer-reviewed literature; an English language version was published in an on-line compilation (a virtual book) that is put out by a publisher which seems to charge you a fee to publish your paper. You might try them, then CO2 science could add you to their list of sources showing that Mann et al had it all wrong.

I am curious why skeptics are so fixated on the MWP when it comes to the Arctic? There is a trove of well-documented science that the Arctic was a lot warmer and had a lot less ice during the HCO then it did during the MWP or today.

Yes to the bolded and Milankovich theory explains why this was so. Eight thousand years ago the Earth's northern hemisphere was directed towards the Sun during perihelion (Earth's closest approach to the Sun in it's elliptical orbit). This precession of Earth's spin axis takes about 22,300 years to complete so the configuration is approaching the near opposite. Thus the northern hemisphere has been receiving slightly less and less solar energy as time has passed on since the HCO and it has cooled.

This has nothing to due with the intrinsic output from the Sun, sunspots or GCR's. Yet the northern hemisphere has been in a natural cooling cycle due to precession of the equinoxes which should have continued for a few thousand years longer. Then, about 2,000 years ago it started to warm. Might this have been due to man's aggressive changes to the landscape in the development of agriculture and the clearing of forested areas?

[BethesdaWX]

You only need a description if you don't understand what's written in the abstract; i.e., if you are a parrot, who has little background in science. In the two instances I cited, the conclusions of the scientists in the published papers differ from those in the description in CO2 Science. If you fail to perceive the differences even when these are bolded, then perhaps you suffer from a sort of dyslexia. If so, it's not your fault, but it would explain lots.

I didn't go to the North American subset of 'sources' on the CO2 site because those have been discussed before; e.g., the guy who is going for his Ph.D. in medieval law and is a climatology hobbyist. BTW, his paper was apparently not published in peer-reviewed literature; an English language version was published in an on-line compilation (a virtual book) that is put out by a publisher which seems to charge you a fee to publish your paper. You might try them, then CO2 science could add you to their list of sources showing that Mann et al had it all wrong.

I am curious why skeptics are so fixated on the MWP when it comes to the Arctic? There is a trove of well-documented science that the Arctic was a lot warmer and had a lot less ice during the HCO then it did during the MWP or today.

Say whaaa?

I think you need at CAT scan too. What you tend to hone in upon is not the science, but rather the people writing it, their backgrounds, etc. That is not science. You just stated in your previous response that the science was taken out of context.....that is not true, as the scientists who wrote the peer reviewed literature were directly quoted.

Also......Which paper? There are many peer reviewed papers referenced in the project, be specific, ok?

Go tell the more than 1000 scientists who were directly quoted, that their data is wrong

Disprove the refered peer reviewed papers while your at it.

[stellarfun]

Say whaaa?

I think you need at CAT scan too. What you tend to hone in upon is not the science, but rather the people writing it, their backgrounds, etc. That is not science. You just stated in your previous response that the science was taken out of context.....that is not true, as the scientists who wrote the peer reviewed literature were directly quoted.

Also......Which paper? There are many peer reviewed papers referenced in the project, be specific, ok?

Go tell the more than 1000 scientists who were directly quoted, that their data is wrong

Disprove the refered peer reviewed papers while your at it.

You don't diagnose dyslexia through CAT scans.

Here is a paper cited by CO2 Science that I picked solely because it dealt with a site close to you: the Chesapeake Bay.

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay

Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A. 2003

Global and Planetary Change 36: 17-29

Here is CO2 Science's description of the paper.

Using the magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) proxy method as a paleothermometer, the authors reconstructed a 2200-year record of spring sea surface temperature from four sediment cores taken from Chesapeake Bay (~38.89°N, 76.40°W). Statistical analyses revealed mean 20th-century temperatures were 0.15°C cooler than mean temperatures during the first stage of the Medieval Warm Period, which they delineate as occurring between 450 and 900 AD.

Here is the actual abstract of the paper.

We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid (<100 yr) shifts of ~2-4ºC in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature ~2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (yr BP) reconstructed from magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) paleothermometry. These include large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (~1400-1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). Evidence is presented for a long period of sustained regional and North Atlantic-wide warmth with low-amplitude temperature variability between ~450 and 1000 AD. In addition to centennial-scale temperature shifts, the existence of numerous temperature maxima between 2200 and 250 yr BP (average ~70 years) suggests that multi-decadal processes typical of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) are an inherent feature of late Holocene climate. However, late 19th and 20th century temperature extremes in Chesapeake Bay associated with NAO climate variability exceeded those of the prior 2000 years , including the interval 450-1000 AD, by 2-3°C, suggesting anomalous recent behavior of the climate system.

True, the paper states that mean 20th Century temperatures were 0.15C cooler than the mean temperatures between 450 and 950 AD.

As the paper explains,

Mean 20th century CB [Chesapeake Bay] temperature at RD/2209 was significantly warmer than those during the cooler MWP-II (f1000–1300 AD), but not warmer than mean temperatures during MWP-I (450–900 AD), which experienced two notable temperature maxima f450 and 850 AD.

(the f is actually a symbol that is not picked up by the code for the board.)

The two temperature maxima occurred before the conventional start of the MWP. The maxima about 450 AD occurred at the start of the reign of the Roman Emperor Marcian During the more conventional MWP, the paper states that the CB mean temperature between 1000 and 1300 AD was 1.77C cooler than the mean 20th Century temperature. CO2 Science conveniently left that fact out because it directly undercut the claim they were trying to make.

CO2 Science also left out this nugget:

More generally, bay temperature maxima since f1850 AD are the warmest of the past 2000 years is consistent with instrumental

oceanic records.

And omitted this as well:

If the Chesapeake record for the period 450–1000 AD is viewed as a baseline for comparison to 19th and 20th century temperatures in lieu of pre-1000 AD atmospheric records, then the magnitude of recent Chesapeake temperature extremes are larger than those observed even during the relative warmth 1000–1500 years ago. Although this result may be partially due to greater sampling resolution in the last two centuries, it is nonetheless consistent with evidence from other studies suggesting that recent decadal climate variability in the North Atlantic region is extreme relative to long-term patterns and may be in part anthropogenic in origin. For example, Cullen et al. (2001) described anomalous patterns of 20th century sea level pressure reconstructed from 300-year tree ring records for the north Atlantic region. Similarly, modeling studies suggest that early 20th century ocean warming is anomalous and in part anthropogenic in origin (Delworth and Knutson, 2000). The seemingly anomalous behavior of 20th temperature patterns, if confirmed by additional records from high sedimentation rate ocean margin and deep sea regions for the pre-1000 AD period, suggest human influence and would complicate efforts to predict future climate variability associated with multi-decadal climate processes.

[BethesdaWX]

You expect the entire globe to reach peak warmth at the same time? From 1 study you claim that using the MWP early timeframe makes the Globe fall into such a category?

You forget that the warming trend overall globally began before 500AD, and was cooling by 1200AD......but all areas experienced peak warming at different times....and ONE STUDY changes the globe and the entire MWP project?

Examples...

-The peak warming didn't hit Antarctica for hundreds of years after it peaked in Europe,

-Africa saw it after North America, but before Eurasia

- You don't have Dislexia (neither do I), you have shrinkage in more areas than one

[skierinvermont]

You expect the entire globe to reach peak warmth at the same time? From 1 study you claim that using the MWP early timeframe makes the Globe fall into such a category?

You forget that the warming trend overall globally began before 500AD, and was cooling by 1200AD......but all areas experienced peak warming at different times....and ONE STUDY changes the globe and the entire MWP project?

Examples...

-The peak warming didn't hit Antarctica for hundreds of years after it peaked in Europe,

-Africa saw it after North America, but before Eurasia

- You don't have Dislexia (neither do I), you have shrinkage in more areas than one

That's the whole point Bethesda.

Chesapeake bay may have been warmer than present 450-900 AD and another place in Africa could have been warmer than present 1100-1300AD but the globe as a whole wasn't warmer than present in either period.

[BethesdaWX]

That's the whole point Bethesda.

Chesapeake bay may have been warmer than present 450-900 AD and another place in Africa could have been warmer than present 1100-1300AD but the globe as a whole wasn't warmer than present in either period.

Absolutly Not. Depends the timeframe you choose. The globe was a whole was warmer than today between 900AD to 1100AD, as evidenced by the accumulation of "warm" proxies globally at that time (majority of proxies in the MWP project have that timeframe clustered warm globally overall) higher sea levels, less ice on the Antarctic and Arctic Ice Sheets, Higher Global Treelines. However, the Entire MWP was not as warm as today, early on and later on.....obviously.

The beginnings of the MWP did not manifest in the SH, instead, it was seen in the mid lattidues of the NH. Arctic and Europe quickly followed, the Antarctic was hit hundreds of years later.

[BethesdaWX]

Radiative forcing is what is known with high confidence. This is deduced by scientists studying radiative transfer through the atmosphere. It involves the study of radiative physics, not climate science. Climate scientists make us of this information as do infrared astronomers and those who design heat seeking missiles as examples. Do you really think that every aspect of the science underlying AGW is junk science. You must because you dispute EVERYTHING....and you as a skeptic are not alone in that regard. Then you go ahead and suggest alternatives to CO2 and greenhouse warming as if every plausible explanation should be given equal weight despite what the science says. Anything is possible, but the question really is what is likely given our knowledge.

You dispute the findings generally accepted in the annals of paleoclimatology. Who really cares whether the MWP was globally the equal of today's warmth. There have been plenty of times when the Earth was much warmer than today. The MWP was within +- a few tenths of a degree today. So what? What matters is where we go from here and our science informs us we will continue a general upward trend measured over decades and centuries with plenty of ups and downs about the mean along the way due to natural variability. Who cares what the global anomalies are this month or that. It's a waist of time and a diversionary tactic designed to obfuscate the longer term issue.

Dude, Sea Levels were higher, (mostly from Antarctic Ice Melt on the WAIS) but both poles had less Ice, glaciers were 1/2 the size of todays in the NH. Treelines were higher globally..but only during the Timeframe of 900AD-1100AD. A misconception being thrown around is that the entire MWP was warmer than today...it wasn't. The peak of the MWP was likely 0.75C warmer than todays..at least.

Anyway

Forcings appied to the atmosphere don't mean the atmsphere will respond to them as we anticipate...it will not. Are you saying we can take measurement from a controlled impound and correlate them to the atmosphere?!?

Radiative forcings and the energy handled/trapped by the trace CO2 probably mean nothing, because we do not know how the atmosphere will respond.

The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

Again, the studies you keep referencing 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.

Now do you understand?

[stellarfun]

Absolutly Not. Depends the timeframe you choose. The globe was a whole was warmer than today between 900AD to 1100AD, as evidenced by the accumulation of "warm" proxies globally at that time (majority of proxies in the MWP project have that timeframe clustered warm globally overall) higher sea levels, less ice on the Antarctic and Arctic Ice Sheets, Higher Global Treelines. However, the Entire MWP was not as warm as today, early on and later on.....obviously.

The beginnings of the MWP did not manifest in the SH, instead, it was seen in the mid lattidues of the NH. Arctic and Europe quickly followed, the Antarctic was hit hundreds of years later.

LOL. You are like someone who sets out to prove the Redskins are the greatest football team ever by using only the statistics from the games they won (in a losing season).

Have you ever read this document? If you have read it, do you understand what it says?

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

CO2 Science is pretty straight-forward about its purpose. They will only list and describe those articles (some in peer-reviewed journals, some not) that supposedly show that the MWP was warmer than the CWP.

I have looked at 5 or 6 of the articles they cite, and find that CO2 Science's description is either selective (including only 'facts' that prove their point and omitting facts that are contrary); or creative (manipulate the data to reach conclusions that are not in the original paper); or irrelevant (using data from outside the period being studied).

[BethesdaWX]

LOL. You are like someone who sets out to prove the Redskins are the greatest football team ever by using only the statistics from the games they won (in a losing season).

Have you ever read this document? If you have read it, do you understand what it says?

http://www.nap.edu/c...record_id=11676

CO2 Science is pretty straight-forward about its purpose. They will only list and describe those articles (some in peer-reviewed journals, some not) that supposedly show that the MWP was warmer than the CWP.

I have looked at 5 or 6 of the articles they cite, and find that CO2 Science's description is either selective (including only 'facts' that prove their point and omitting facts that are contrary); or creative (manipulate the data to reach conclusions that are not in the original paper); or irrelevant (using data from outside the period being studied).

I have read it. You are like someone who obsesses over the weakenesses of a great team like the Steelers, fooling yourself in the process.

The thousands of scientists QUOTED DIRECTLY....in their statements... go tell them they are wrong.

FYI you are incorrect.....some of the studies posted by Co2 Science show the MWP cooler than today...but the fact is there is more evidence to the contrary.

The fact that sea level was higher cannot be disproved, and the fact that treelines were higher cannot be disproved, the fact that glaciers on both poles were substantially smaller cannot be disproved. The Notion that the MWP between 900AD and 1100 AD was warmer than today is disputable... however, it is likely that the warming seen was greater than that seen of today.

Proxies "cluser" very warm temperatures between 900Ad and 1100AD, substantially higher than anything we've seen today.

[WeatherRusty]

Dude, Sea Levels were higher, (mostly from Antarctic Ice Melt on the WAIS) but both poles had less Ice, glaciers were 1/2 the size of todays in the NH. Treelines were higher globally..but only during the Timeframe of 900AD-1100AD. A misconception being thrown around is that the entire MWP was warmer than today...it wasn't. The peak of the MWP was likely 0.75C warmer than todays..at least.

Anyway

Forcings appied to the atmosphere don't mean the atmsphere will respond to them as we anticipate...it will not. Are you saying we can take measurement from a controlled impound and correlate them to the atmosphere?!?

Radiative forcings and the energy handled/trapped by the trace CO2 probably mean nothing, because we do not know how the atmosphere will respond.

The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

Again, the studies you keep referencing 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.

Now do you understand?

Forcings appied to the atmosphere don't mean the atmsphere will respond to them as we anticipate...it will not. Are you saying we can take measurement from a controlled impound and correlate them to the atmosphere?!?

Radiative forcings and the energy handled/trapped by the trace CO2 probably mean nothing, because we do not know how the atmosphere will respond.

This has been explained to you earlier but here goes again for the sake of others who can corroborate what I will state elsewhere.

CO2 forcing is not determined in a lab setting. It is calculated utilizing well understood fundamentals of radiative transfer through our atmosphere. The forcing by a doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m^2. The net of all forcings ongoing as we speak is approximately + 0.9W/m^2 as measured at the top of Earth's atmosphere by satellite. The total net forcing from the Sun and anthropogenic sources since the beginning of the industrial revolution is about 1.6W/m^2. So we have (1.6 - 0.9 = 0.7W/m^2) that has warmed the surface since the industrial revolution. ( Interestingly, 0.7W has produced about 0.8C of warming to this point in time. 0.7W is about 1/5 of 3.7W. (0.8C X 5 = 4.0C) , so climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 plus short term feedbacks by this simple method is 4.0C)

The atmosphere is directly warmed very little by this forcing. It is the surface of the planet that is warmed as it absorbs the additional energy. Land warms, seas warm and ice melts. Since it is the surface that warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere only indirectly is warmed by the growing concentration of CO2. Warmer seas and warmer atmosphere can and will evaporate more water to the atmosphere, which as vapor is also a greenhouse gas which amplifies the initial warming.

If the surface and the atmosphere for some reason do not respond (as you say) by increasing in temperature the escaping IR radiation will not be of sufficient energy to close the TOA imbalance. If we continue to emit more and more CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases the imbalance will grow. Only by warming the surface will the surface radiate IR at increased energy.

[stellarfun]

Most children with DRD [Dyslexia] have normal intelligence, and many have above-average intelligence. The disorder is a specific information processing problem that is not connected with the ability to think or to understand complex ideas.

DRD may appear in combination with developmental writing disorder and developmental arithmetic disorder. All of these involve using symbols to convey information. These conditions may appear alone or in any combination.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002379

Some symptoms

Reading or writing shows repetitions, additions, transpositions, omissions, substitutions, and reversals in letters, numbers and/or words.

Reads and rereads with little comprehension.

Spells phonetically and inconsistently.

Excellent long-term memory for experiences, locations, and faces.

Poor memory for sequences, facts and information that has not been experienced.

Feels dumb; has poor self-esteem; hides or covers up weaknesses with ingenious compensatory strategies; easily frustrated and emotional about school reading or testing.

[BethesdaWX]

This has been explained to you earlier but here goes again for the sake of others who can corroborate what I will state elsewhere.

CO2 forcing is not determined in a lab setting. It is calculated utilizing well understood fundamentals of radiative transfer through our atmosphere. The forcing by a doubling of CO2 is 3.7W/m^2. The net of all forcings ongoing as we speak is approximately + 0.9W/m^2 as measured at the top of Earth's atmosphere by satellite. The total net forcing from the Sun and anthropogenic sources since the beginning of the industrial revolution is about 1.6W/m^2. So we have (1.6 - 0.9 = 0.7W/m^2) that has warmed the surface since the industrial revolution. ( Interestingly, 0.7W has produced about 0.8C of warming to this point in time. 0.7W is about 1/5 of 3.7W. (0.8C X 5 = 4.0C) , so climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 plus short term feedbacks by this simple method is 4.0C)

The atmosphere is directly warmed very little by this forcing. It is the surface of the planet that is warmed as it absorbs the additional energy. Land warms, seas warm and ice melts. Since it is the surface that warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere only indirectly is warmed by the growing concentration of CO2. Warmer seas and warmer atmosphere can and will evaporate more water to the atmosphere, which as vapor is also a greenhouse gas which amplifies the initial warming.

If the surface and the atmosphere for some reason do not respond (as you say) by increasing in temperature the escaping IR radiation will not be of sufficient energy to close the TOA imbalance. If we continue to emit more and more CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases the imbalance will grow. Only by warming the surface will the surface radiate IR at increased energy.

You skimmed my post, didn't you?

1) The Solar Formula is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the Cooling seen in the LIA, and DACP and the warming seen in the MWP & RWP. LIA was more then 2C colder than the MWP at its peak. Todays Solar Max is on the same level of the MWP....yet the two similar warm periods are caused by different things? Nope.

2) Again...radiative properties of CO2 is not the point here. The point is, our complicated atmosphere and the 0.038% of CO2 in it.....formulas assuming how the complex atmosphere will react to that are hypothesis...I never said it wouldn't repsond.......we don't know where all the enrgy goes in the complex atmosphere, what is done to it, and assuming we do is WRONG. Regardles of forcings are applied to the atmosphere, we know very little about the anatomy of our atmosphere and even our own GHE....hence the "missing heat" debate on whether it even exists. Point is, You Can't Add 2 and 2....to make 5!

3) The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance to the extent we believe it should, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

4) The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

5) Ifwe miss just 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. 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 more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere. CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

[BethesdaWX]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....alth/PMH0002379

Some symptoms

That describes you with epic detail and accuracy.

[WeatherRusty]

You skimmed my post, didn't you?

1) The Solar Formula is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the Cooling seen in the LIA, and DACP and the warming seen in the MWP & RWP. LIA was more then 2C colder than the MWP at its peak. Todays Solar Max is on the same level of the MWP....yet the two similar warm periods are caused by different things? Nope.

2) Again...radiative properties of CO2 is not the point here. The point is, our complicated atmosphere and the 0.038% of CO2 in it.....formulas assuming how the complex atmosphere will react to that are hypothesis...I never said it wouldn't repsond.......we don't know where all the enrgy goes in the complex atmosphere, what is done to it, and assuming we do is WRONG. Regardles of forcings are applied to the atmosphere, we know very little about the anatomy of our atmosphere and even our own GHE....hence the "missing heat" debate on whether it even exists. Point is, You Can't Add 2 and 2....to make 5!

3) The Straosphere is a big issue, the stratospheric cooling that was anticipated has not taken place to any significant extent! The oceans hold so much more energy than the Atmosphere..... If Co2 cannot influence the stratosphere and its weak energy balance to the extent we believe it should, how can we expect it to influence the oceans, which holds almost all of the energy on the planet? Unless our theories on the GHE are off....in that case, how can we assume this AGW GHE enhancement will even commence in the slightest?

4) The MWP, DACP, RWP, & LIA, were All Solar Caused. However, our current "formulas" state that Solar Could not Create that amount of warming! Knowing todays modern maximum is on the same level s the MWP maximum......why can todays warming NOT be solar? It makes no sense. Our science is off.

5) Ifwe miss just 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. 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 more related to the procesing response of the complicated atmosphere. CO2 and its radiative forcings/properties, and its heat/energy trapping abilities are well known. Our atmosphere is not well known.

You create so many strawmen and presumptive premises it's hard to keep track of let alone respond to. I feel no need to argue against faulty premises.

[BethesdaWX]

You create so many strawmen and presumptive premises it's hard to keep track of let alone respond to. I feel no need to argue against faulty premises.

huh? The point you are arguing has been unrelated to mine is the problem. Your point references studies of radiative energy and the formulas derived from Co2/GHG... I've never argued those properties...I've argued that forcings applied to the complex atmosphere won't force the Reaction we anticipate, the formulas are guesses assuming we have all the variables down and understand relative imbalances............we don't. The Solar Formulas are incorrect, there are many forcings that we know little about (GCR, MagF, GCC) that would change the Solar Formulas to a point where we have to change what we through would be resulting from CO2. Anyone who whinks we understand the complex energy system, and basing the formulas off such, is fooling themselves. Heck...we barely even understand our own GHE! "Missing Heat" debate is an example...we don't know if its going in the deep oceans, back into space...or if it EVEN EXISTED...meaning, what?

We do not KNOW the impact of solar on the globe to a high extent, and certainly dating back from the start of the industrial revolution is a guess at best. CO2 at 0.038%, our poor understanding of the complex energy systems, what is done to it, where it goes... quantify this as HYPOTHESIS, thats what it is! You cannot add 2+2 to get 5.

If anything is faulty/malfunctioning here, its your attitude and perception.....in my view.

Everything I said above...the Stratosphere, Solar, Model Formulas.....it all applies. There are disputable points in there, as there are in all scientific debates. However, thats not the same thing as throwing out the entire scientific method, which is what is usually done when it comes to AGW.

[WeatherRusty]

huh? The point you are arguing has been unrelated to mine is the problem. Your point references studies of radiative energy and the formulas derived from Co2/GHG... I've never argued those properties...I've argued that forcings applied to the complex atmosphere won't force the Reaction we anticipate, the formulas are guesses assuming we have all the variables down and understand relative imbalances............we don't. The Solar Formulas are incorrect, there are many forcings that we know little about (GCR, MagF, GCC) that would change the Solar Formulas to a point where we have to change what we through would be resulting from CO2. Anyone who whinks we understand the complex energy system, and basing the formulas off such, is fooling themselves. Heck...we barely even understand our own GHE! "Missing Heat" debate is an example...we don't know if its going in the deep oceans, back into space...or if it EVEN EXISTED...meaning, what?

We do not KNOW the impact of solar on the globe to a high extent, and certainly dating back from the start of the industrial revolution is a guess at best. CO2 at 0.038%, our poor understanding of the complex energy systems, what is done to it, where it goes... quantify this as HYPOTHESIS, thats what it is! You cannot add 2+2 to get 5.

If anything is faulty/malfunctioning here, its your attitude and perception.....in my view.

Everything I said above...the Stratosphere, Solar, Model Formulas.....it all applies. There are disputable points in there, as there are in all scientific debates. However, thats not the same thing as throwing out the entire scientific method, which is what is usually done when it comes to AGW.

The Earth has obtained the temperature it is at because of three reasons. First, the energy received from the Sun, second the Earth's albedo and third by the action of the greenhouse effect. Knowing those three variables allows us to compute the effective temperature of any planet and also the surface temperature which can differ from the effective temperature if the planet has an atmosphere. We can accurately figure out the surface temperature of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars and yes the Earth. If you wish to make it more complicated than that then you have some sort of ulterior motive.

[skierinvermont]

The thousands of scientists QUOTED DIRECTLY....in their statements... go tell them they are wrong.

We have no objections to the actual scientific studies themselves. No doubt most of the authors of these studies would strongly object the misuse of their work on your skeptic blog site.

What we object to is that the "descriptions" do not match the abstracts. Yes in some cases there are partial quotes, but then other parts of the descriptions are wrong and manipulative. And in many cases there are no quotes at all.

Not only do many of the "descriptions" not match the actual abstracts, but the ultimate conclusion to be drawn is incorrect as well. As I've said before, just because it was warmer than present in one place 450-900AD and warmer than present in another 1100-1300AD doesn't mean the globe was warmer than present in either period. It is very complicated to combine 100s of studies like this into one global record. I see no evidence that CO2 science has attempted to combine them.

[BethesdaWX]

The Earth has obtained the temperature it is at because of three reasons. First, the energy received from the Sun, second the Earth's albedo and third by the action of the greenhouse effect. Knowing those three variable allows us to compute the effective temperature of any planet and also the surface temperature which can differ from the effective temperature if the planet has an atmosphere. We can accurately figure out the surface temperature of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars and yes the Earth. If you wish to make it more complicated than that then you have some sort of ulterior motive.

Again, completely unrelated...

Yes, and we have poor understanding of the mechanisms involved in these variables, how they interact in our atmosphere, and the energy profiles involved.

Who cares if we can observe the surface temperature on other planets?...that doesn't mean we know the processes involved there.

Come on now!

[BethesdaWX]

We have no objections to the actual scientific studies themselves. No doubt most of the authors of these studies would strongly object the misuse of their work on your skeptic blog site.

What we object to is that the "descriptions" do not match the abstracts. Yes in some cases there are partial quotes, but then other parts of the descriptions are wrong and manipulative. And in many cases there are no quotes at all.

Not only do many of the "descriptions" not match the actual abstracts, but the ultimate conclusion to be drawn is incorrect as well. As I've said before, just because it was warmer than present in one place 450-900AD and warmer than present in another 1100-1300AD doesn't mean the globe was warmer than present in either period. It is very complicated to combine 100s of studies like this into one global record. I see no evidence that CO2 science has attempted to combine them.

What don't you understand about the clustering of warm proxy data between 900AD and 1100AD? That time period saw Both the Arctic ann Antarctic Ice Sheet shink smaller than today, treelines globally above those of today, Sea levels rise higher than those of today...all sugesting a period of maximum temperatures well above those of todays. You cannot use ONE outlying study, or even 10, out of 700+ to make a case that does not hold true with a huge clustering of warmth from 700 datapoints across the globe showing extreme warmth between 900AD - 1100AD.

Its not manipultive if the data/quotations being used are legitimate.

[WeatherRusty]

Again, completely unrelated...

Yes, and we have poor understanding of the mechanisms involved in these variables, how they interact in our atmosphere, and the energy profiles involved.

Who cares if we can observe the surface temperature on other planets?...that doesn't mean we know the processes involved there.

Come on now!

The point is you don't need to know the processes involved, all you need is the net effect in terms of energy in versus energy out and how it is broken down spectroscopically to determine a bodies temperature.

[BethesdaWX]

Say Whaaaaaaaaa?!

We cannot accurately determine the "net effect", let alone how much of it, will result from 0.038% of the atmosphere with basic, limited, understanding of the mechanisms/effects/variables involved with the Sun, the earths GHE/interprocessing, and the energy profiles and the various unknown interaction within and outside of the atmosphere.