Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[BethesdaWX]

If you're going to try to insult someone, learn how to ****ing spell. You embarrass yourself.

Aren't typos fun?

[Kevin Druff]

Haha

Maybe you should take some Geography classes, and read about the Tree remains we've found up over 11,000ft

Um, since you repeatedly ask for citations of everything, I'm going to demand that you submit citations for evidence of tree remains at over 11,000 feet that are carbon dated to the medieval warming period.

Again, I call bull****.

[BethesdaWX]

I think you just debunked yourself.

The MWP being caused by Solar......why is our current WarmPeriod not caused by Solar? But the MWP was? Solar is the Same, Except the MWP was most likey Much Warmer.

During the MWP, the Glaciers were MUCH smaller than today (dead vikings & plant/tree remains are found under the melting permafrost), Vinyards were grown in Scandi, The Treeline in the Alps was 6000ft higher than it is currently, and Asia saw citrus grown farther north in the 13th Century than anytime else. Unlike Our Current Warm period, there is also evidence of heavy Antarctic ice Melt in the MWP, and sea level was likely Much higher as well.

That is ALL solar caused. Yet the modern max is not responsible for our current warming? With Solar hovering around the same for most of the Modern max, and With Solar Causing the LIA, MWP, & RWP, (RWP probably reached 2C above today).............why is our current WP, which is alot less impressive, NOT be solar caused?

Answer... it is solar caused!

I like this graph, so I'll post it again.....

Wait.....Solar Activity looks a bit like a Hockeystick! Look carefully now.....

This has been Fantastic!

Any Friggin Warmist who cannot argue the logic behind an argument (MWP/solar in this case) goes in and tries to change words around, nitpick arguments, then goes to the Media & Cums up a huge bashing on how wrong they are.

This is exactly whats taking place here. I make a post with scientific evidence, and then y'all go and point out TYPOS/mispelling for crying aloud...instead of trying to defend your argument. Or in skiers case....taking a random picture of a mountain in the alps.....ignoring the science of Tree remians found at 11,000ft in the alps... & the published documents in this case.

Still waiting for a legit rebuttal.

[BethesdaWX]

Um, since you repeatedly ask for citations of everything, I'm going to demand that you submit citations for evidence of tree remains at over 11,000 feet that are carbon dated to the medieval warming period.

Again, I call bull****.

Ok. So you argue that the viking remains/burial grounds we're finding under glaciers/permafrost, the Vinyards grown in Scandi by the vikings, wheat grown to 70N....are all false as well?

Anyhow, read these.

http://books.google....0period&f=false

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwprussia.php

If you want more, I'll find more

[Kevin Druff]

Ok. So you argue that the viking remains/burial grounds we're finding under glaciers/permafrost, the Vinyards grown in Scandi by the vikings, wheat grown to 70N....are all false as well?

I have argued nothing of the sort. Please, do not turn my requests for evidence of your assertions into a strawman which you can pillory.

I thought Vandy made an excellent point in regards to the vineyards and other farming taking place much farther north than today's climate:

This is true, but the Vikings did not set off at the beginning of the MWP. Who's to say that one hundred years of the high global temps we saw during the early 2000s would not result in similar Greenland conditions? Takes time to melt that ice!

http://books.google....0period&f=false

What does the Canadian Rockies have to do with trees over 11,000 feet in the Alps?

http://www.co2scienc...s/mwprussia.php

What does the Medieval Warm Period in Russia have to do with trees over 11,000 feet in the Alps?

[BethesdaWX]

I have argued nothing of the sort. Please, do not turn my requests for evidence of your assertions into a strawman which you can pillory.

I thought Vandy made an excellent point in regards to the vineyards and other farming taking place much farther north than today's climate:

What does the Canadian Rockies have to do with trees over 11,000 feet in the Alps?

What does the Medieval Warm Period in Russia have to do with trees over 11,000 feet in the Alps?

You obviously didn't read them, or you'd know (as evidenced by your response 5 minutes after my post). Anyone who argues the MWP was not global is Wrong.....this is my starting point. ok?

I'm trying to go through this logically with you, as I was expecting you to READ them, then ask questions. Aparently you either cannot read, or you don't care to, & responding to me is more important to you.

[Kevin Druff]

http://www.co2scienc...s/mwprussia.php

Also, even though we were not talking about Russia, the above article only argues for a 100-150 meter increase in treeline elevation. Not a 2,000 meter increase.

[Kevin Druff]

You obviously didn't read them, or you'd know (as evidenced by your response 5 minutes after my post). Anyone who argues the MWP was not global is Wrong.....this is my starting point. ok?

I'm trying to go through this logically with you, as I was expecting you to READ them, then ask questions. Aparently you either cannot read, or you don't care to, & responding to me is more important to you.

First, read.

Also, even though we were not talking about Russia, the above article only argues for a 100-150 meter increase in treeline elevation. Not a 2,000 meter increase.

Secondly, you asserted that the treeline during the MWP was 6,000 feet higher than today. I asked for evidence. You still have not provided evidence to support your claim.

[BethesdaWX]

First, read.

Secondly, you asserted that the treeline during the MWP was 6,000 feet higher than today. I asked for evidence. You still have not provided evidence to support your claim.

When you're reading a mile a minute, as I was, a Simple Comma can make a HUGE difference I take fault for this one.....

(In red)

Also the global retreat of glaciers that occurred in the period between about 900 to 1300 [2] speaks for the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. An interesting detail is that many glaciers pulling back since 1850 reveal plant remnants from the Middle Ages, which is a clear proof that the extent of the glaciers at that time was lower than today [3].

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

Clear evidence of the warm phase of the Middle Ages can also be found in the limits of crop cultivation. The treeline in the Alps climbed to 2000 meters, higher than current levels are [5]. Winery was possible in Germany at the Rhine and Mosel up to 200 meters above the present limits, in Pomerania, East Prussia, England and southern Scotland, and in southern Norway, therefore, much farther north than is the case today [6]. On the basis of pollen record there is evidence that during the Middle Ages, right up to Trondheim in Norway, wheat was grown and until nearly the 70th parallel/latitude barley was cultivated[4]. In many parts of the UK arable land reached heights that were never reached again later.

Also in Asia historical sources report that the margin of cultivation of citrus fruits was never as far north as in the 13th century. Accordingly, it must have been warmer at the time about 1 ° C than today [7].

http://wattsupwithth...a-manipulation/

F**K these stupid commas

[beneficii]

How is it not? The formulas being hypothesized underestimate solar... If similar solar can create the MWP, they can do the same now. Thats the point, its physically impossible for our solar theory to be correct based on what happened in the MWP & RWP, where temps rose upwards of 1-2C above avg

How do they underestimate solar, and how are conclusions from experiments such as Arrhenius's hypotheses?

[vortmax]

I think I answered that in my last post:

1) Disprove the satellite measurements at the top of the atmosphere which show that less and less LW radiation is passing through the atmosphere at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

2) The entire earth is shown NOT to be accumulating heat (this includes oceans, ice, land, and troposphere). They have been accumulating an extraordinary amount of heat over the last 100 years (especially the oceans).

3) Disprove Arrhenius's experiments from the late 1800s.

1) NASA chose to throw out or reduce the statistical significance of satellite temperature measurements, which showed far cooler temperatures over the globe, so it's possible that the satellite measurements of LW radiation could be seen as unreliable as well...Article1

2) If the average temperature of the entire earth drop consistentely over the next decade or two, then I'd imaging that would be proof that the oceans, ice, land and troposphere aren't accumulating an extraordinary amount of heat. Hopefully many of the temperature stations are corrected for their current warm bias as well...Article2 Article3

3) Arrhenius's experiments from the late 1800s don't prove AGW is real so I think if your first two points are debunked, then it would satisfy debunking the whole theory.

Agreed?

[BethesdaWX]

How do they underestimate solar, and how are conclusions from experiments such as Arrhenius's hypotheses?

According to those formulas, Solar is not strong enough to enact the global temps of 1-2C above avg as seen in the MWP/RWP (which was even warmer than the MWP)...Its hard to contemplate how warm the MWP & RWP actually were. Glaciers were alot smaller than today, Wheat/Barley & Vinyards were grown in Scandi...Viking expedictions through the arctic were rarely hindered by ice. In Asia, Citrus fruits were grown Further north in the 13th century than anytime else. Viking Cemetaries are being uncovered from todays Melted Glaciers....even Plant Material is being revealed. This evidence points to the temps avging on the order of 1-2C above avg, or, over 1C warmer than todays. The RWP was even warmer.

Point is, Our Current/recent solar max is about the Same in the Modern max as it was in the MWP...only the MWP lasted Longer, as evidenced by the warmer temps. Yet, how can our current warming not Be Solar, when the MWP was?

By Hypothesis, our "scientific" formulas are not evidence or proof, they are educated guesses & estimations, otherwise known as "hypothesis".

[beneficii]

According to those formulas, Solar is not strong enough to enact the global temps of 1-2C above avg as seen in the MWP/RWP (which was even warmer than the MWP)...Its hard to contemplate how warm the MWP & RWP actually were. Glaciers were alot smaller than today, Wheat/Barley & Vinyards were grown in Scandi...Viking expedictions through the arctic were rarely hindered by ice. In Asia, Citrus fruits were grown Further north in the 13th century than anytime else. Viking Cemetaries are being uncovered from todays Melted Glaciers....even Plant Material is being revealed. This evidence points to the temps avging on the order of 1-2C above avg, or, over 1C warmer than todays. The RWP was even warmer.

Point is, Our Current/recent solar max is about the Same in the Modern max as it was in the MWP...only the MWP lasted Longer, as evidenced by the warmer temps. Yet, how can our current warming not Be Solar, when the MWP was?

By Hypothesis, our "scientific" formulas are not evidence or proof, they are educated guesses & estimations, otherwise known as "hypothesis".

MWP was not warmer than today and solar was not the only significant forcing. Volanoes were the other significant forcing.

[BethesdaWX]

MWP was not warmer than today and solar was not the only significant forcing. Volanoes were the other significant forcing.

This is the most Idiotic post I've ever seen. Volcanoes COOL the earth buddy, they only enact "Forcing" when they Erupt..... LMAO

The MWP was clearly warmer than today my friend.

During the MWP.....

-Glaciers in the Arctic were Much Smaller than they are now, Viking Cemetaries & Plant matter are being uncovered from todays melting glaciers...

-Wheat, Barley, & Vinyards were Grown In Scandi, near the Arctic Circle....

- In Asia, Citrus was grown further north in the 13th Century than Any othe time

-Treelines were higher Globally

-Antarctic Ice was Lower as evidenced by ice cores

-Viking Expeditions through the arctic were rarely hindered by ice...even in winter

-Sea Levels were higher

- RWP was even Warmer! Armies actually CROSSED the alps without struggle.

The RWP blows the MWP away. I just don't get how you can have such a limited knowledge base.

Volcanoes WARM the earth? Thats the first time I've hear that one! I suppose you dont have any evidence of this?

[beneficii]

This is the most Idiotic post I've ever seen. Volcanoes COOL the earth buddy, they only enact "Forcing" when they Erupt..... LMAO

In the MWP.........

-Glaciers in the Arctic were Much Smaller, Viking Cemetaries & Plant matter are being uncovered from todays melting glaciers.

-Wheat, Barley, & Vinyards were Grown In Scandi, near the Arctic Circle

-Volcanoes Cool the Earth

- In Asia, Citrus was grown further north in the 13th Century than Any othe time

-Treelines were higher Globally

-Antarctic Ice was Lower as evidenced by ice cores

-Viking Expeditions through the arctic were rarely hindered by ice...even in winter

-Sea Levels were higher

- RWP was even Warmer! Armies actually CROSSED the alps without struggle.

The RWP blows the MWP away. I just don't get how you can have such a limited knowledge base.

Volcanoes WARM the earth? Thats the first time I've hear that one! I suppose you dont have any evidence of this?

You're quick to take the bait. I think that you're a little young and uninformed to be taking part in this conversation and putting yourself out as well-studied. Let me explain it more thoroughly: Less volcanic activity means more warming. That is what happened during the MWP:

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we'll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists' reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

http://www.utexas.edu/know/2010/11/11/climate_myth4/

[BethesdaWX]

You're quick to take the bait. I think that you're a little young and uninformed to be taking part in this conversation and putting yourself out as well-studied. Let me explain it more thoroughly: Less volcanic activity means more warming. That is what happened during the MWP:

http://www.utexas.ed.../climate_myth4/

Haha. You were just saying it wasn't warmer thn today.... it obviously was...read my previous post...........Lets see...+1C - +2C above avg..........vs..........+0.45C above avg

Look at Glaciers from the MWP & From Today....there is no comparison. Plants Grew where Ice now covers year round

[beneficii]

Haha. You were just saying it wasn't warmer thn today.... it obviously was...read my previous post...........Lets see...+1C - +2C above avg..........vs..........+0.45C above avg

Look at Glaciers from the MWP & From Today....there is no comparison. Plants Grew where Ice now covers year round

The MWP was not as warm as today, not even in the Northern Hemisphere:

[BethesdaWX]

The MWP was not as warm as today, not even in the Northern Hemisphere:

Wrong.....

[BethesdaWX]

LOL. Did you just copy and paste that without attribution? I found most of this here:

http://green-agenda.com/greenland.html

Fact is Fact no matter where it came from. This isn't some proxy..... Its actual history. Ice was alot lower.......meaning... Merthane should have created a major feedback, right?

FYI "link" is after every passage. You loose dude.

[beneficii]

Fact is Fact no matter where it came from. This isn't some proxy..... Its actual history. Ice was alot lower.......meaning... Merthane should have created a major feedback, right?

FYI "link" is after every passage. You loose dude.

I didn't see the link for where most of that came from. I had to go to Google to find it. It looks to me like you wanted to hide the unreliability of your source by putting it out as something you researched and wrote yourself.

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't see the link for where most of that came from. I had to go to Google to find it. It looks to me like you wanted to hide the unreliability of your source by putting it out as something you researched and wrote yourself.

How is it unreliable? Everything on there is linked to the same source where it came from. Green-Agenda isn't even the maker of the data....ROFL.

Fact is Fact. This isn't some proxy and a "Lost" Data Code, its actually recorded history.

[Sickman]

Fact is Fact no matter where it came from. This isn't some proxy..... Its actual history. Ice was alot lower.......meaning... Merthane should have created a major feedback, right?

FYI "link" is after every passage. You loose dude.

You can post a snippet, but not the entire article, or large portions of the article. Furthermore, you need to post the source, not just provide a link.

Oh, and lastly, it's "lose", not "loose".

[BethesdaWX]

You can post a snippet, but not the entire article, or large portions of the article. Furthermore, you need to post the source, not just provide a link.

Oh, and lastly, it's "lose", not "loose".

kk

The "source" was the same for every link on there, the original article was sourced by a blog called "green agenda", which then featured numerous hyperlinks, so each one went right to the original source.

[WeatherRusty]

Wrong.....

Someone here is presenting peer-reviewed, well documented information. Someone else is presenting non-peer-reviewed unsubstantiated propaganda. I leave it to the reader to decide who is who.

[BethesdaWX]

Someone here is presenting peer-reviewed, well documented information. Someone else is presenting non-peer-reviewed unsubstantiated propaganda. I leave it to the reader to decide who is who.

Haha! You know the hockeystick has been debunked, right? Even the upward "bump" has been so.

Why would congress have to force Mann to give up data, only for him to "loose" it?

So now, there is no Code available. Even so, the "pre sequestered" Numbers are still unknown. So, no, there is no real data but a Computer.

They also found out that Manns computer would create a "hockeystick" no matter what data was put in.

[WeatherRusty]

Haha! You know the hockeystick has been debunked, right? Even the upward "bump" has been so.

Why would congress have to force Mann to give up data, only for him to "loose" it?

So now, there is no Code available. Even so, the "pre sequestered" Numbers are still unknown. So, no, there is no real data but a Computer.

They also found out that Manns computer would create a "hockeystick" no matter what data was put in.

You're a very good parrot of the info put out by the disinformation machine.

I don't know that the "hockeystick" has been debunked. Skeptics and climate change deniers claim as much, but the main stream of science has confirmed Mann's original data in general using independent research methodologies.

The data of The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is readily available to anyone.

HERE is one source.

And Another

[BethesdaWX]

You're a very good parrot of the info put out by the disinformation machine.

I don't know that the "hockeystick" has been debunked. Skeptics and climate change deniers claim as much, but the main stream of science has confirmed Mann's original data in general using independent research methodologies.

The data of The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is readily available to anyone.

HERE is one source.

The Warmista Deniers will claim anything they want, but whatever source I find for you, its always the same with your response.

I dont want to get pulled into Mann & his Data, but there is really no way around it.

http://www.co2scienc...ies/rwpasia.php

(This whole MWP/RWP/LIA thing is thru recon in individual proxies grouped into a general 5 subgroups).

Similar results were obtained by Xu et al. (2002), who studied plant cellulose δ¹⁸O variations in cores retrieved from peat deposits at the northeastern edge of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China. Following the demise of the Roman Warm Period, they observed the existence of three cold events centered at approximately AD 500, 700 and 900, during the Dark Ages Cold Period. Then, from AD 1100-1300, they report that "the δ¹⁸O of Hongyuan peat cellulose increased, consistent with that of Jinchuan peat cellulose and corresponding to the 'Medieval Warm Period'." Finally, they note the existence of three cold periods (AD 1370-1400, AD 1550-1610 and AD 1780-1880) that correspond to the Little Ice Age, after which modern warming begins

OK?.....What many don't understand, or seem to contemplate properly, is what Caused the MWP, & When our Warming trend began.......(after the LIA)...not at the industrial Revolution. Honestly, there is no doubt in what we're seeing here. The MWP was Caused by Solar. So was the RWP & LIA. Our Current solar formulas DO NOT WORK!!

[WeatherRusty]

The Warmista Deniers will claim anything they want, but whatever source I find for you, its always the same with your response.

I dont want to get pulled into Mann & his Data, but there is really no way around it.

http://www.co2scienc...ies/rwpasia.php

(This whole MWP/RWP/LIA thing is thru recon in individual proxies grouped into a general 5 subgroups).

Similar results were obtained by Xu et al. (2002), who studied plant cellulose δ¹⁸O variations in cores retrieved from peat deposits at the northeastern edge of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China. Following the demise of the Roman Warm Period, they observed the existence of three cold events centered at approximately AD 500, 700 and 900, during the Dark Ages Cold Period. Then, from AD 1100-1300, they report that "the δ¹⁸O of Hongyuan peat cellulose increased, consistent with that of Jinchuan peat cellulose and corresponding to the 'Medieval Warm Period'." Finally, they note the existence of three cold periods (AD 1370-1400, AD 1550-1610 and AD 1780-1880) that correspond to the Little Ice Age, after which modern warming begins

OK?.....What many don't understand, or seem to contemplate properly, is what Caused the MWP, & When our Warming trend began.......(after the LIA)...not at the industrial Revolution. Honestly, there is no doubt in what we're seeing here. The MWP was Caused by Solar. So was the RWP & LIA. Our Current solar formulas DO NOT WORK!!

Who is saying those periods you state were not caused at least in part or even mostly by solar variability. Not me.The warming we have seen to this point has not been dramatically above that of any in the past 10,000 years or so of natural variability. It's the very real potential for continued warming into the future that is of concern.

The Warmista Deniers will claim anything they want, but whatever source I find for you, its always the same with your response.

And that will continue to be the case unless or until the particular aspect of the science you attack is overturned in the peer-reviewed literature. My responses are similar because you attack the same basic science from 1,000 different angles.

[BethesdaWX]

Who is saying those periods you state were not caused at least in part or even mostly by solar variability. Not me.The warming we have seen to this point has not been dramatically above that of any in the past 10,000 years or so of natural variability. It's the very real potential for continued warming into the future that is of concern.

And that will continue to be the case unless or until the particular aspect of the science you attack is overturned in the peer-reviewed literature. My responses are similar because you attack the same basic science from 1,000 different angles.

#1. Exactly! The MWP/RWP being 100% Solar/Ocean caused in the long run...............which is why our current warming COULD be predominately Solar as well, given the two maxes were similar. I do believe there is a very slight amount of AGW taking place, I'm not a "denialist" who says the Earth has not warmed.

The MWP was alot Warmer than today in the NH.....(SH is quite Vague unfortunately, but there is evidence of Antarctic Ice Loss). The RWP tops Both our Current warm period & the MWP.

...............That SH discrepancy (lack of data) is what causes alot of the discrepancies between "graphs"... the SH has alot less land mass, & alot less to go off, so, thats why we see differences in the magnitude of the MWP in proxy graphs.

The formulas you gave do not quite fit in with the MWP/RWP scenario...both maxes were quite similar.

#2 Its because it can be attacked from 1000 different angles. There has been peer reviewed literature on Both sides of the debate that Conflict with each other, Peer reviewed science isn't necessarily correct science.....we as man kind are a major error ourselves

[beneficii]

#1. Exactly! The MWP/RWP being 100% Solar/Ocean caused in the long run

I just showed that it wasn't.