Sunny and Warm Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 explosive robust gains, bordering on unprecedented.... well, if the data is by proxy, then we could probably fudge it to get the unprecedented and robust results we need. After all, there is a precedent for that in climate science. Or, we could just claim it to be true, and do so by invoking the "peer reviewed" moniker to push back the Alarmists. Both seemingly work well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 well, if the data is by proxy, then we could probably fudge it to get the unprecedented and robust results we need. After all, there is a precedent for that in climate science. Or, we could just claim it to be true, and do so by invoking the "peer reviewed" moniker to push back the Alarmists. Both seemingly work well. I am unaware of such precedent. Please post evidence. Your last attempt (Yamal) ended up in an embarrassing thread debunking your lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So can Climate models show us what the arctic ice looked like during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings were colonizing Greenland? How about during the Little Ice Age? These are two periods of rapid melt and refreeze of the arctic that had nothing to do with GHG or AGW. These two periods were due to natural cycles which is undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 So can Climate models show us what the arctic ice looked like during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings were colonizing Greenland? How about during the Little Ice Age? These are two periods of rapid melt and refreeze of the arctic that had nothing to do with GHG or AGW. These two periods were due to natural cycles which is undeniable. I also wonder why the early Britons around the Roman warm period would plant grape vines in such a cold climate, unless ... So, which climate are we trying to stabilize around. The one in 1981, 1856, 1702, 1354, 952, or 120 AD?? Seems climate is a moving target. Who chose 1981 as the ideal climate anyway?? I prefer 1702 myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I also wonder why the early Britons around the Roman warm period would plant grape vines in such a cold climate, unless ... So, which climate are we trying to stabilize around. The one in 1981, 1856, 1702, 1354, 952, or 120 AD?? Seems climate is a moving target. Who chose 1981 as the ideal climate anyway?? I prefer 1702 myself. Which denialist book of talking points have you patterned your style from? Do you have any original thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So can Climate models show us what the arctic ice looked like during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings were colonizing Greenland? How about during the Little Ice Age? These are two periods of rapid melt and refreeze of the arctic that had nothing to do with GHG or AGW. These two periods were due to natural cycles which is undeniable. Given current global and arctic temperatures are likely the warmest of the last 2000 years, there probably has been more ice throughout this period. We know this from multiple lines of evidence... sea level, boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores, lake sediment, coral, tree rings, glaciers etc. All of these multiple lines of evidence indicate that current temps are the warmest of the last 2000 years. Probably the most incontrovertible line is the fact that sea level will soon be the highest of the last 2000 years... this can only happen by warming the oceans and melting global glaciers. We have historical records from aircraft recon and ship data that gives an estimate of the last 100 years. There are also reconstructions of ice extent using proxies that can give an estimate of how much ice has existed over the last several thousand years. And we know that ice formations which are 5000+ years old are currently disintegrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Given current global and arctic temperatures are likely the warmest of the last 2000 years, there probably has been more ice throughout this period. We have historical records from aircraft recon and ship data that gives an estimate of the last 100 years. There are also reconstructions of ice extent using proxies that can give an estimate of how much ice has existed over the last several thousand years. And we know that ice formations which are 5000+ years old are currently disintegrating. Haven't you heard? We know so little of past climates that to assume today's warmth is anything but within the normal range of natural cycles can only be jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. The science is definitely not settled. Proxies are not a trustworthy means of assessing anything, even if several independent methodogies can be shown to generally agree with one another. The scientists tweak the data to give them the results they are looking for. EDIT: It's scary how I can read your mind while we (edit) cross post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Natural cycles....... What caused the Little Ice Age? Natural Cycles.. What could be causing our current sea ice melt? Natural cycles.... But, but it can't be natural cycles, it must be AGW, the science is settled.... See the general trend here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Natural cycles....... What caused the Little Ice Age? Natural Cycles.. What could be causing our current sea ice melt? Natural cycles.... See the general trend here? No I do not. First of all, the rapidity of this warming is much much greater than any of those changes. Second of all the magnitude is greater as current temperatures are unprecedented in the last 2k. Which is supported by multiple lines of evidence (sea level, ice cores, borehole, stalagmite, coral, lake sediments, and tree rings). And most importantly.. basic physics dictates that the current warming is caused by CO2. The warming has occurred despite all the aerosols we have emitted which are roughly equivalent to Tambora going off every 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Haven't you heard? We know so little of past climates that to assume today's warmth is anything but within the normal range of natural cycles can only be jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence. The science is definitely not settled. Proxies are not a trustworthy means of assessing anything, even if several independent methodogies can be shown to generally agree with one another. The scientists tweak the data to give them the results they are looking for. EDIT: It's scary how I can read your mind while we (edit) cross post! Haha yes.. the field of paleoclimatology is a classic example of multiple independent lines of evidence all coming together to corroborate each other. Really quite beautiful to see the progression of evidence that has been gathered over the last 20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Natural cycles....... What caused the Little Ice Age? Natural Cycles.. What could be causing our current sea ice melt? Natural cycles.... But, but it can't be natural cycles, it must be AGW, the science is settled.... See the general trend here? Forest fires occurred naturally before the dawn of man. Therefor man can not be causing forest fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Forest fires occurred naturally before the dawn of man. Therefor man can not be causing forest fires. How is that relevant to what he posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Natural cycles....... What caused the Little Ice Age? Natural Cycles.. What could be causing our current sea ice melt? Natural cycles.... But, but it can't be natural cycles, it must be AGW, the science is settled.... See the general trend here? Have you ever asked yourself which natural cycles where most likely behind the MWP and LIA or any of the other periods of naturally caused variability. Can those causes be attributed to our present case of GW. If so do they have the potential to move global temps. by several degrees Celsius as has happened many times in the past. Do those natural causes have the potential for increasing global temperatures to the extent which science has determined is likely by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How is that relevant to what he posted What he is trying to accomplish is to explain how there have been Natural warming and cooling cycles in the past. Just like forest fires have occured naturally. WeatherRusty believes however that the recent warming trend (post industrial age I assume) is mostly caused by Man. Just like how certain forest fires are caused by Man. Do not take my explanation as me agreeing with him. Just trying to explain what he may have meant by his posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Have you ever asked yourself which natural cycles where most likely behind the MWP and LIA or any of the other periods of naturally caused variability. Can those causes be attributed to our present case of GW. If so do they have the potential to move global temps. by several degrees Celsius as has happened many times in the past. Do those natural causes have the potential for increasing global temperatures to the extent which science has determined is likely by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration? Have you ever asked yourself if natural cycles could be the main driver in the amount of sea ice loss we have seen recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How is that relevant to what he posted Logical fallacy. The one does not preclude the occurrence of the other. Man can not be causing forest fires or global warming because those things have occurred naturally without the hand of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Have you ever asked yourself if natural cycles could be the main driver in the amount of sea ice loss we have seen recently? Of course I have asked and thought about that extensively and the answer is no for all of the reasons I provided above. Given current global and arctic temperatures are likely the warmest of the last 2000 years, there probably has been more ice throughout this period. We know this from multiple lines of evidence... sea level, boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores, lake sediment, coral, tree rings, glaciers etc. All of these multiple lines of evidence indicate that current temps are the warmest of the last 2000 years. Probably the most incontrovertible line is the fact that sea level will soon be the highest of the last 2000 years... this can only happen by warming the oceans and melting global glaciers. We have historical records from aircraft recon and ship data that gives an estimate of the last 100 years. There are also reconstructions of ice extent using proxies that can give an estimate of how much ice has existed over the last several thousand years. And we know that ice formations which are 5000+ years old are currently disintegrating. Ice shelves which have existed since the HTM do not disappear due to natural cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 No I do not. First of all, the rapidity of this warming is much much greater than any of those changes. Yes, looks very VERY rapid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 So what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Natural cycles....... What caused the Little Ice Age? Natural Cycles.. What could be causing our current sea ice melt? Natural cycles.... But, but it can't be natural cycles, it must be AGW, the science is settled.... See the general trend here? Forest fires occurred naturally before the dawn of man. Therefor man can not be causing forest fires. Logical fallacy. The one does not preclude the occurrence of the other. Man can not be causing forest fires or global warming because those things have occurred naturally without the hand of man. Read a little closer.... I used the word could which signifies uncertainty. So actually your comment does not make any sense based on what I posted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yes, looks very VERY rapid Yes, it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yes, it does. How about natural drivers being the main factor for ice loss? You don't see a natural cycle here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Have you ever asked yourself if natural cycles could be the main driver in the amount of sea ice loss we have seen recently? Scientists will of course ask that question and go one step further in asking which natural factors control the state of the sea ice. Actually natural "cycles" are involved to a large degree. However, those natural factors exist in a world which is warmer than decades and centuries ago. They carry with them additional warmth which further melts the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yes, looks very VERY rapid note the sine wave associated with the PDO phase. Of course, that is natural, so that can't be the reason. Also note that we've only seen one half of the entire PDO signature, which is roughly 65 years, and yet we are sure we can just throw that baby out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How about natural drivers being the main factor for ice loss? You don't see a natural cycle here? Whoever said natural cycles do not exist and how does the existence of natural cycles preclude the existence of anthropogenic ones? The cycle of ice ages and interglacials have well known physical causes which are not applicable to the warming of the last 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Whoever said natural cycles do not exist and how does the existence of natural cycles preclude the existence of anthropogenic ones? The cycle of ice ages and interglacials have well known physical causes which are not applicable to the warming of the last 100 years. Based on the chart I posted above, artic temps certainly are warmer then they have been in the past 2000 years which you pointed out to everyone. The problem is, natural cycles point to the fact that artic temps SHOULD be higher then they have in the past 2000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 Scientists will of course ask that question and go one step further in asking which natural factors control the state of the sea ice. Actually natural "cycles" are involved to a large degree. However, those natural factors exist in a world which is warmer than decades and centuries ago as we exited a mini ice age. They carry with them additional warmth which further melts the ice. fixed your quote Rusty. ... and why is it that we've gone from warm to cold and from cold to warm cycles in the past, but we cannot this time. Seems to me that powerful negative and positive feedbacks exist in our planetary system that it has suffered some truly catastrophic hits from above and below, and still maintains a relatively benign state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNAwx Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Whoever said natural cycles do not exist and how does the existence of natural cycles preclude the existence of anthropogenic ones? The cycle of ice ages and interglacials have well known physical causes which are not applicable to the warming of the last 100 years. Why are they not applicable? In the grand scheme of long term climate, we are still "coming out" of the last ice age. I don't think you can look at the last 100 years and say natural cycles do not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Based on the chart I posted above, artic temps certainly are warmer then they have been in the past 2000 years which you pointed out to everyone. The problem is, natural cycles point to the fact that artic temps SHOULD be higher then they have in the past 2000 years. Based on what? The last 2000 years don't even show up on your graph of the last 500,000 years. Why 'SHOULD' arctic temperatures be the warmest of the last 2,000 years? We have been in an interglacial for 10,000 years now in which temperatures have remained fairly steady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Why are they not applicable? In the grand scheme of long term climate, we are still "coming out" of the last ice age. I don't think you can look at the last 100 years and say natural cycles do not apply. "coming out of"... is that the scientific term? Temperatures have remained steady for the last 10,000 years.. actually were on a slow decreasing trend until 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 Why are they not applicable? In the grand scheme of long term climate, we are still "coming out" of the last ice age. I don't think you can look at the last 100 years and say natural cycles do not apply. agree completely. We've been under constant sea level rise since the holocene started 10-12,000 years ago, yet recent rises (last 40 years) are all due to AGW. That is what the alarmists want you to believe. It's hogwash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.