Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Chris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 23

Neil, with regards to this graph:

Here is the list of references by colored line:

1. (dark blue ): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
2. (blue): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
3. (light blue): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
6. (yellow): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820.
7. (orange): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
9. (red): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karl..n (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
10. (dark red): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677.
11. (black): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre.

The mechanics used for these researches were independent from each other, and used various methods (especially multi-proxy information from ice, ocean and lakes, tree-rings), and include various mechanisms such a solar activity, volcanoes, internal natural forcings, and the like. There have been numerous mechanisms and locations used. A few examples:
Ice caps in Peru and Bolivia, tree-ring chronologies from northern
Patagonia, Stalagmite-derived regional annual maximum temperature for northeastern South Africa, tree rings in New Zealand, tree-rings and historical documents in China and Mongolia, delta18O from Sajama, Bolivia, delta18O from Huascaran, Peru, Lamination thickness in lake sediments at Baffin Island, N. Canada. (Bradley et al., 2003). There are plenty more examples there which would overcomplicate this post.

The concept of a Medieval Warm Period was suggestedd by Lamb in 1965. Lamb based his argument exclusively on historical and paleoclimatic data from western Europe. If solar irradiance was enhanced in the 12th century, conditions in northern and western Europe may have been relatively warm because of changes in large-scale circulation patterns associated with the Arctic Oscillation (Shindell et al., 2001). This mechanism may explain why some regions were relatively warm in Medieval times whereas others were not. You must understand that there are many mechanisms which interact to determine local and global phenomena involving a complex sun/atmosphere/earth/ocean/ice/land system.

I would also read theGulledge Testimony, which addresses both the MWP and the hockey stick
and, http://www.realclimate.org/index....medieval-warmth-and-english-wine/
http://www.realclimate.org/index....t-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/

Could you be more specific as far as other claimed warm periods and supporting references? I don't deny that natural variations exist, and the Earth's history has had considerably warmer periods in our ~4.6 billion years than today. However, they also involved considerably different solar, geological, and ecological circumstances. I can be more specific if you wish to point out a particular event. The onus is also on you to tell me what those natural variations are today which can explain the increase in temperature around 1900. Skeptics love to point to natural variations; we can even assume the MWP and RWP were warmer globally, why is the last 100 years getting warmer? What is the natural triggering?

With regards to the 1940-1970 decrease...During that time, output of sulfate aerosols and others, and particulate air pollution also increased exponentially (These are particularly good at scattering and deflecting solar radiation which decreases global temperatures. Pinatubo caused a reduction of approximately 0.5°C at its greatest impact.) This followed the Great Depression when industrial production had decreased significantly, corresponding to global warming growth in the early 1900's. Around 1970, American and European output of aerosols and particulates began decreasing over the next couple of decades (legislation on pollution). CO2 levels, however, had continued to increase during all of this time. Note that New Zealand climatologists reported that during this time and other parts of the Southern Hemisphere had been warming (Salinger and Gunn, 1975). Industrial production of sulfate aerosols and other atmospheric pollutants were much lower in the Southern Hemisphere.

It is also clear, temperatures are expected to significantly increase until 2100 and beyond. There is a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature. CO2 has become a forcing rather than a feedback mechanism. As global temperatures increase, feedback mechanisms kick in such as increased albedo due to ice melting, release of further of CO2 from the world's oceans, and melting of permafrost.

In reference to your article, there are far too many wrong or misleading claims to address in one post. If you would like to present a couple arguments at a time, then I will be happy to address them, or if I cannot, refer you to various sources that can. All the arguments are common ones, and all counter-arguments from "just another natural cycle" to "sun activity" have been refuted. It is also clear that this article is not up to date with science. Its main arguments are reports from the '90s. The '90s are credible, but if more up to date research concludes the old stuff was wrong, and shows why it is wrong, then I will refer to those. This is what Science does, correct errors. An example of a "not up to date" part is "A recent paper by John Lyman, of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, reports that the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years."

The article by Lyman, Willis, and Johnson asserted that approximately 20% of heat gained by the upper ocean from 1955 to 2003 had been lost from 2003 to 2005. However, in a paper entitled Correction to “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean”, by Willis, Lyman, Johnson, and Gilson, 2007, the authors recanted saying in their abstract "The recent cooling signal in the upper ocean reported by Lyman et al. (2006) is shown to be an artifact that was caused by a large cold bias discovered in a small fraction of Argo floats as well as a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data."

In essence, steric sea level rise continued unabated. Steric sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the ocean, which should only happen if the oceans continued to heat up. (As opposed to eustatic sea level rise which is due to the increasing volume of the oceans - currently due to the increasing amounts of water in the ocean from melting ice.)

I realize your source was written before this, so it is only commenting on what it had to work with. However, instead of referring me to scientific sources, you refer me to news sources, written by people who are not scientists. This is what happens with wrong sources. It says nothing about the science of climate change; It says an incredible amount about how science is politically polarised.

Screegor · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:55 am Post subject:

Okay 40s, 50s and 60s.
CO2 is not the only pollutant or thing that effects global T. That is why climate models account for many factors. Therefore the rise is not perfectly steady - you wouldn't expect this.
e.g. 1990 - a massive volcanic eruption by by Mount Pinatubo. Caused a slight drop in global T, by releasing sulfates into the atmosphere.

In the 40-60s, the same happened. CO2 warming was overridden by other pollutants. The major factor was human particulates and aerosols. Once these were cleaned from our pollutants, (due to smogs etc) the CO2 trend continued.

Neil · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:26 am Post subject:

To amplify:

Despite my asking you have produced no evidence for the claim that the Medieval & Roman warmings were limiteed to Europe. I have given 4 reasons against that (that atmosphere moves around the planet, that the sun shines form the same distance on the whole planet, that history shows the MWP affected Greenland, & that it indicats the same for China). If you are going to assert, as fact, that it was a purely European phenomena it is up to you to justify that. The ball is in your court.

I accept you are not a climate scientist. The self proclaimed climate scientist who debated this last time was also unable to provide evidience either & what is considerably worse, repeatedly caught out in simple errors so you are well ahead of him.
http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/about3508.html
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Holebender · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:06 am Post subject:

I have seen evidence cited above (ice samples, tree rings).
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Neil · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:43 am Post subject:

Do you intend to amplify or is that it?
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:33 pm Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject:

SLG
It is up to Screegor to produce evidence that the Medieval warming, whicich he admits happened in Europe & apparently North america didn't happen anywhere else for 2 reasons:

1) That having accepted it happened the assumption requiring fewest changes (check out Occam's Razor) is that it was the same all over. The onus is therefore on him to show that it isn't.

2) Since we are supposed to be spending £400 million a day on opposing warming it is incumbent on those proposing it to produce some evidence. Since the existence of the Medieval warming precludes any worry about us undergoing an unprecedented, or even harmful, warming it is incumbent on them to show that it didn't happen, or as Screegor now acknowledges did happen, but only within the range of written records.

In the same way if I, or you, were to inform the government that if we weren't paid an enormous postal order of £400 million a day a giant hummingbird would eat the planet, it would be wise of the government to seek some evidence before paying.

Screegor
Firstly the reason why Europe is warmer than Canada is not atmospheric but because of the Gulf Stream - water. An amazing example to use from somebody who, in the previous thread, made numerous cliams about your proficciency as a climate scientist.

Secondly your point about sunlight having to travel further to reach the far side of the Earth would be a foolish nitpick (the diameter of the Earth is 8,000 miles & the distance from the Sun 98,000,000 miles so the effect is irrelevant) were it not for one matter. The far side of the Earth doesn't get sunlight. This is known as night & it is also surprising that a "scientist" of your caliber has not noticed.

I must admit to having forgotten the name of the previous "scientist" who had done the last thread & eventually run away after he had been proven to to have contradicted himeself repeatedly & lied also repeatedly. I didn't therefore realise that you were the same "scientist". I accept that your claim then to have in 1972, shared responsibility for producing maps of all pollutants which retroactively created the Clean Air Act of 1956 represnts the standard of honesty to which you aspire & that many ofv your otherv statements represent an equal standard.

Now are you going to produce evidence that the Medieval, let alone late Roman warmings were, while equal to or in the latter case, warmer than the "catastrophe" that we are presently experienceing nonexistent beyond the range of European records? Or will you acknowledge that it is a claim made without evidence? No real scientist, or indeed any individual with any respect for science, would ever refuse to produce the alleged evidence behind their hypothesis.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Screegor · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject:

"Hahahaha, you obviously do not read my posts["

Gosh what I am missing.

Moderately seriously your repeated habit of bursting into paroxysms of written laughter make you look like something out of Monty Python. (The Holy Grail one).

Since you have already accepted the existence of the Medieval warming it is ridiculous for you to object to me not subsequently providing links.

The point is that you have claimed , without evidence, to know that warming was limited to Europe or nearby. That is something which nobody with any respeect whatspever for the scientific method would dream of doing without being willing to produce even a tiny amount of evidence.

Even a decent astrologer would be willing to say which particular planets were causing the effects he claims but you cannot.

I'm glad you now know that the Gulf Stream is in the sea. Well done.

I hope you won't mind my pointing out that your defence of your global warming theory - that it is colder at the North Pole than the equator - is very silly as this has nothing whatsoever to do with increasing CO2. To simplify for you since sunlight at the poles comes in at a sharp angle the same amount of sunlight is spread over a far larger area than at the equator. This is simple geometry. The poles have ALWAYS been cooler than the equator.[
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject:

1) No the onus really is on the person putting forward the more complex claim to produce some evidence. This iprinciple s a more important point than the actual question. It is a basic scientific & indeed real life principle that you require evidence rather than mere assertion, however authoratitive.

In fact there is some evidence of warming elsewhere in the world, it is just that written records in Eueope are clear, but not in Australasia. If I produced tthe evidence Screegor would merely change the subject again, as he has done many times before, which is why I am standing on the principle.

2) The £400 million a day is the assessed cost of Kyoto worldwide. Actually I very much doubt if it will be met because everybody is failing to meet their Kyoto targets & promising to instead do even better next decade. Our governments are failing to live down to their promises.

I wouldn't disbelieve that humanity might be making some change but since CO2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere & human beings cause only 3% of that small figure I think that solar variability must be orders of manitude more important. The existence of the Medieval & Roman warmings being warmer than now seems to support that. I am also oldenough to remember when these "environmentalists" were threatening us with an ice age.

3) I was being somewhat facetious but when you come down for it the actual evidence for catastrophic warming is the same as the hummingbird - zero. Lots of statements by the great & good. Lots of computer models (which don't tend to postdict previous weather either). Zero actual evidence. To be fair it is alsmost impossible to prove how anyhting will be in 2100 until we get there. The same applies to proving the non-existence of the hummingbird.

4) Since light at the poles is coming in at a slant it does indeed pass through more atmosphere & get absorbed slightly more. However this, like Screegor's entire point about the poles is completely irrelevant to changes in GLOBAL temperature, whether cuased by CO2 or not.

5) I have immense respect for scientists. All human progres ultimately depends on scientists & technologists (defined broadly enough to describe the tamer of fire as a scientist). What I have no time for is those who claim the mantle of science but do not stick to its rigorous requirements - that a theory requires evidence & must be falsifiable. There are many eminent people, a few of them with letters to their name who do not qualify. I know Screegor is your friend but I am afraid I put him in the same class.
_________________
The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

SLG · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject:

Screegor · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:14 am Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:02 am Post subject:

Now I remember why I undertook never to respond to Neil some time last year. He's a dick.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Neil · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:54 am Post subject:

SLG

1) It is a basic scientific principle, known as Mediocrity, that you assume things are pretty much the same all over. Thus since we know of the Medieval in areas where records are good, any working on scientific principle would take as a working assumption that this applied across the world. Screegor basis his assumption that the MWP did not exicst outside the European are on no evidence whatsover, with no theorectcal basis, merely that it is convenient since the catastrophic warming & Hockeystick theory fall apart otherwise.

1A) No until Screegor accepts the Principle of Mediocrity & produces some evidence.

2) Again it is theoretically possible that some new previously unknown effect could be causing present warming but again going for the simple theory, since we know greater warming has happened in the past naturally the optimum assumption would be that it is the same cause, not CO2 or indeed the Hummingbird.

The Ice Age threat, based on the fact that temperatures fell from 1940 to 1975 was very popular in "environmental" circles up till the early 1980s, at which point it was replaced by the warming scare. This got considerable support including from the, very political, leadership of the American academy of Scince.

3) Computer models mean nothing until they match reality. Most ofthe models have failed to correctly postdict how past weather has gone so it is unwise to rely on them being correct for the future. I would go for the conservative position that we should not assume a massive & unprecedented catastrophic change, from CO2 or Giant Hummingbirds, without strong evidence.

4) You misunderstand - the equator is not receiving more light than in the past or thepoles less. It is inherent in the circular shape of the Earth that exposure will unchangingly be as I said - that is why it has no relevence to the warming debate.

5)

SLG · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:

Neil · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject:

Chris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 16 Jun 2007 Posts: 23