Solar Minumums vs. Solar Maximums

[BethesdaWX]

I just showed that it wasn't.

And I just showed that it was, tough luck for you.

Not through proxy recon with "oops we lost the data" after congress forced them to release it....but through actual recorded events.

If you were smart, you'd know what happens when you use Bristlecone Pines, & Overly weight them at the end. Then you Have Insufficient data in the SH due to less land mass....

When you use Tree Rings, the Larger rings of course represent more growth. problem is, photosynthesis increases with higher CO2.....so its CO2 caused, not temperature caused.

Guess what happens when you use False regresssion?

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm

[beneficii]

And I just showed that it was, tough luck for you.

I understand it all now, or I'm starting to get the hang of it. I better get a foot of snow in Memphis this decade.

[BethesdaWX]

I understand it all now, or I'm starting to get the hang of it. I better get a foot of snow in Memphis this decade.

You'll be buried alive

[beneficii]

You'll be buried alive

Awesome.

[skierinvermont]

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.co2scienc...s/mwprussia.php

If you want more, I'll find more

He didn't say any of those things. Learn to read.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong.....

That's a pretty graph.. did you draw it in crayon?

here's mine.. I have way more sources to back this up than you do:

STOP POSTING inaccurate graphs with BS sources. The above graph is contradicted by ANY peer-reviewed source which show the MWP equal to or cooler than present (depending on the study and the proxy used).

[skierinvermont]

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?

Your first article seems to have nothing to do with the statement prior to it. If you are interested in the precision and accuracy of top of the atmosphere (TOA) satellite measurements read the peer-reviewed literature concerning them.

Concerning your second bullet, the surfacestations project hasn't revealed any bias in the surface temperature record.

None of your sources appear to be peer-reviewed.. they don't even discuss the peer reviewed literature.

Arrhenius' experiments showed that CO2 transmits SW radiation, like that from the sun, and absorbs LW radiation, like that from the earth. Therefore it traps heat in the atmosphere. This is again confirmed in nature by the TOA satellite measurements I spoke of earlier. The greenhouse effect, including that of CO2, is necessary to explain why the surface of the earth is not much colder than it is. The GH effect is well-accepted science that explains the surface temperature not only of earth but any planet.

[Vandy]

The GH effect is well-accepted science that explains the surface temperature not only of earth but any planet.

One has only to look at Venus to see the impacts of high (impossibly high on Earth) CO2 concentrations.

[BethesdaWX]

That's a pretty graph.. did you draw it in crayon?

here's mine.. I have way more sources to back this up than you do:

STOP POSTING inaccurate graphs with BS sources. The above graph is contradicted by ANY peer-reviewed source which show the MWP equal to or cooler than present (depending on the study and the proxy used).

The only peer reviewed studies that show the MWP cooler were ones using Bristlecone Pines, & "oops, we lost the Data!".

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

(This whole MWP/RWP/LIA thing is thru recon in individual proxies grouped into a general 5 subgroups). Roman Warm Period Discussed in Center above, but MWP & LIA are in there too.

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!!

[BethesdaWX]

Your first article seems to have nothing to do with the statement prior to it. If you are interested in the precision and accuracy of top of the atmosphere (TOA) satellite measurements read the peer-reviewed literature concerning them.

Concerning your second bullet, the surfacestations project hasn't revealed any bias in the surface temperature record.

None of your sources appear to be peer-reviewed.. they don't even discuss the peer reviewed literature.

Arrhenius' experiments showed that CO2 transmits SW radiation, like that from the sun, and absorbs LW radiation, like that from the earth. Therefore it traps heat in the atmosphere. This is again confirmed in nature by the TOA satellite measurements I spoke of earlier. The greenhouse effect, including that of CO2, is necessary to explain why the surface of the earth is not much colder than it is. The GH effect is well-accepted science that explains the surface temperature not only of earth but any planet.

Are you stupid? You cannot make these blatent posts without evidence to back them up... I can tell you didn't read, the magnitudue of your ignorance & error is immense.

Unlike you and your dipsh*t drawings, I post citations & evidence in my posts. You post anything that flows out of your mind, and its often incorrect.

[WeatherRusty]

Are you stupid? You cannot make these blatent posts without evidence to back them up... I can tell you didn't read, the magnitudue of your ignorance & error is immense.

Unlike you and your dipsh*t drawings, I post citations & evidence in my posts. You post anything that flows out of your mind, and its often incorrect.

What's with the anger you put on display? We know your going to post skeptic material. That's fine. Your entitled to your opinion. Please clean up your act and lay off the personal attack on people who disagree with you. After all, your the one posting material which contradicts standard scientific understandings.

In this one post you are calling someone stupid, irresponsible, illiterate, ignorant, wrong and dipped in excrement. Skier is citing information that most of science accepts, and in most circles that kind of knowledge is to be applauded rather than looked down upon. What's this world coming to?

[skierinvermont]

The only peer reviewed studies that show the MWP cooler were ones using Bristlecone Pines, & "oops, we lost the Data!".

Here are over a dozen peer reviewed reconstructions, many of which do not use bristlecone pines. There is not a single peer-reviewed study that supports that clown graph you posted earlier.

Moberg et al 2005:

D'Arrigo et al 2006:

Oerlemans 2005 based on 169 glaciers from around the globe:

Thompson et al 2006 ice isotopes:

Various other reconstructions:

All data available here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...paleo/data.html

http://books.nap.edu...d=11676&page=R1

[BethesdaWX]

What's with the anger you put on display? We know your going to post skeptic material. That's fine. Your entitled to your opinion. Please clean up your act and lay off the personal attack on people who disagree with you. After all, your the one posting material which contradicts standard scientific understandings.

In this one post you are calling someone stupid, irresponsible, illiterate, ignorant, wrong and dipped in excrement. Skier is citing information that most of science accepts, and in most circles that kind of knowledge is to be applauded rather than looked down upon. What's this world coming to?

I apologize if I sounded angry, I'm a bit miffed at the nitpicking/BS going on, but I'm by no means angry.

All this "consensus" & "mainstream" BS needs to to stop though. There is no "mainstream". If you want to call NOAA.IPCC mainstream, well, thats fine, but there are just as many scientistys outside of thos organizartions that feel the other way.

Read my link about over 1000 former scientists, some from the IPCC, changing sides due to "Bad science".

[BethesdaWX]

Here are over a dozen peer reviewed reconstructions, many of which do not use bristlecone pines. There is not a single peer-reviewed study that supports that clown map you posted earlier.

Moberg et al 2005:

D'Arrigo et al 2006:

Oerlemans 2005 based on 169 glaciers from around the globe:

Thompson et al 2006 ice isotopes:

Various other reconstructions:

All data available here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa...paleo/data.html

http://books.nap.edu...d=11676&page=R1

You and your nitpicking....why dont you read?

Skier, you didn't read my post, nor my link did you? You know the same proxy base was used for all of those hockeysticks, right? The fact that they were based upon data that has been DEBUNKED (the Hokcyestick). Bristlecone Pines weighted at the end didn;t help either. FYI... you cannot put instrumental & proxy data together in the same graph! WE do not measure the same way, & the fact that they need an excuse saying "tree rings stopped working" at 1950 basaically screws their entire theory.

Here.

Using Tree ring samples, aka, the larger tree rings, are a result of higher photosynthesis rates due to higher CO2, not temperature.

Now, will you read through this, proving the MWP was warmer?

I'm going to post this again

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

(This whole MWP/RWP/LIA thing is thru recon in individual proxies grouped into a general 5 subgroups). Roman Warm Period Discussed in Center above, but MWP & LIA are in there too.

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!!

I get annoyed with your nitpicking, its hilarious watching you scuffle through these debates though.

[skierinvermont]

Apparently you didn't read my post. I said specifically the above reconstructions were not based on bristlecone pine data. They are based on many independent proxies, including glacier length, ice isotopes, boreholes, lake sediment, coral etc.

The link you have reposted includes only obscure references to 'arid central asia' IE it is not global.

[BethesdaWX]

Apparently you didn't read my post. I said specifically the above reconstructions were not based on bristlecone pine data. They are based on many independent proxies.

Oh YOU said. they weren't...that explains the error!

Show me that they weren't................Or do you not have the data?

My post has all the data there...but first you have to READ IT. I'll keep posting it until you do.

[BethesdaWX]

Apparently you didn't read my post. I said specifically the above reconstructions were not based on bristlecone pine data. They are based on many independent proxies, including glacier length, ice isotopes, boreholes, lake sediment, coral etc.

The link you have reposted includes only obscure references to 'arid central asia' IE it is not global.

So, why were treelines higher in the MWP, why were glaciers smaller in the MWP, why were vinyards grown In Scandi, why was wheat & barley grown to 70N, why were asian citrus grown further north than current?

We're finding dead viking remains & Plant remains under todays glaciers... Plants were growing where we now are ice covered

[skierinvermont]

Oh YOU said. they weren't...that explains the error!

Show me that they weren't................Or do you not have the data?

My post has all the data there...but first you have to READ IT. I'll keep posting it until you do.

I did read it. It includes only obscure references to 'arid central Asia.' It is not global.

The studies and the raw data to the graphs I posted were included in the links at the end of the post.

[BethesdaWX]

I did read it. It includes only obscure references to 'arid central Asia.' It is not global.

The studies and the raw data to the graphs I posted were included in the links at the end of the post.

Imbedded within, you can find this:

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

Antarctic Ice melt......

You do realize that it also talks about the US rockies, Alps, Himi mountains, & The Greenland Glaciers... right?

You cant read it in 5 minutes anyway Drew...

[beneficii]

So, why were treelines higher in the MWP, why were glaciers smaller in the MWP, why were vinyards grown In Scandi, why was wheat & barley grown to 70N, why were asian citrus grown further north than current?

We're finding dead viking remains & Plant remains under todays glaciers... Plants were growing where we now are ice covered

This is getting a bit more and more like those anecdotal stories that are intended to overwhelm the general data we have on the MWP. I fail to see how this constant appeal to local climates is much different from anecdotal stories about how well something in alternative medicine works, while double-blind studies show it to be little better than a placebo. There's an awful lot of good cherries being picked.

[skierinvermont]

Imbedded within, you can find this:

http://www.co2scienc...pantarctica.php

Antarctic Ice melt......

You do realize that it also talks about the US rockies, Alps, Himi mountains, & The Greenland Glaciers... right?

You cant read it in 5 minutes anyway Drew...

That's not what you linked to originally.

All your links show is anecdotal evidence of a MWP. We already know a MWP existed.. all the peer reviewed reconstructions of global temperatures include a MWP and a LIA.

Your link doesn't reconstruct global temperature.. it just shows regional evidence, of some sort of warmth, sometime during the MWP.

In order to reconstruct global temperature, these anecdotes must be combined, synchronized and calibrated.

This is a common skeptic stratetegy... "well it was really warm in Greenland in 950 and really warm in arid central Asia in 1150 and warm in Antarctica in 1280.. so clearly global temperatures were much higher during the MWP." It's basically what Willie Soon did in his journal article that subsequently has been rejected because its methods did not support its conclusions.

We already know the MWP existed, the question is how warm was it. I see no evidence in your link that GLOBALLY the MWP was warmer than present for an extended period.

[beneficii]

That's not what you linked to originally.

All your links show is anecdotal evidence of a MWP. We already know a MWP existed.. all the peer reviewed reconstructions of global temperatures include a MWP and a LIA.

Your link doesn't reconstruct global temperature.. it just shows regional evidence, of some sort of warmth, sometime during the MWP.

In order to reconstruct global temperature, these anecdotes must be combined, synchronized and calibrated.

This is a common skeptic stratetegy... "well it was really warm in Greenland in 950 and really warm in arid central Asia in 1150 and warm in Antarctica in 1280.. so clearly global temperatures were much higher during the MWP." It's basically what Willie Soon did in his journal article that subsequently has been rejected because its methods did not support its conclusions.

I don't know why BethesdaWx keeps claiming that we are ignoring or denying the existence of the MWP and the LIA.

[skierinvermont]

This is getting a bit more and more like those anecdotal stories that are intended to overwhelm the general data we have on the MWP. I fail to see how this constant appeal to local climates is much different from anecdotal stories about how well something in alternative medicine works, while double-blind studies show it to be little better than a placebo. There's an awful lot of good cherries being picked.

A saying I have heard may be applicable here... the plural of anecdotes is not data.

[BethesdaWX]

That's not what you linked to originally.

All your links show is anecdotal evidence of a MWP. We already know a MWP existed.. all the peer reviewed reconstructions of global temperatures include a MWP and a LIA.

Your link doesn't reconstruct global temperature.. it just shows regional evidence, of some sort of warmth, sometime during the MWP.

In order to reconstruct global temperature, these anecdotes must be combined, synchronized and calibrated.

The link is in the 1st arcticle...which you didn't read or you'd see it.

We can either go by Direct Proof That Both the Antarctic and Arctic Has Less Ice...that Treelines were Higher Globally, that Vinyards were Grown near the Arctic Circle....................OR..............we can Use proxies, that apparently stopped working in 1950's (lol). and are by No means proven accurate, or even somewhat so at reconstructing temperature Anomaies.

I posted a link showing why alot of the proxies are botched.... but as always, you fail to read!

http://heliogenic.bl...than-today.html

READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to post this for a 3rd time now.....

Here.

Using Tree ring samples, aka, the larger tree rings, are a result of higher photosynthesis rates due to higher CO2, not temperature.

Now, will you read through this, proving the MWP was warmer?

I'm going to post this again

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

(This whole MWP/RWP/LIA thing is thru recon in individual proxies grouped into a general 5 subgroups). Roman Warm Period Discussed in Center above, but MWP & LIA are in there too.

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!!

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N37/C3.php

[BethesdaWX]

Beneficii......I see you posting......Its been 30 seconds... you didn't read!

Jeeze, what is it with this warmist/No reading relationship? Me & nzucker read everything...

[beneficii]

Beneficii......I see you posting......Its been 30 seconds... you didn't read!

Jeeze, what is it with this warmist/No reading relationship? Me & nzucker read everything...

Today is swell, isn't it? We might be getting an ice storm, though, Thursday night into Friday, per the Euro. So we shall see. How's the weather in Bethesda been?

[BethesdaWX]

Today is swell, isn't it? We might be getting an ice storm, though, Thursday night into Friday, per the Euro. So we shall see. How's the weather in Bethesda been?

Cold, Raw, & Gross.

[BethesdaWX]

I see you posting Skier....You didn't read!

That means you missed the 2 new links, and thus when you post, I'll have to correct you......again.

[skierinvermont]

I'm going to post this again

Good. I am tired of reading anecdotes.

[beneficii]

I see you posting Skier....You didn't read!

That means you missed the 2 new links, and thus when you post, I'll have to correct you......again.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.