Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[Crick]

how they manage to put them all together and come up with an uncertainty range of less than 0.5C is a mystery to me.

Then think about going back to school.

 

[Old Rocks]

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000
doi: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?

Thomas J. Crowley1 and Thomas S. Lowery2



[email protected]

[email protected]



Abstract
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Nope, MWP was not warmer than the present.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

• T.M Cronin, a, ,
• G.S Dwyerb,
• T Kamiyac,
• S Schwedea,
• D.A Willarda

Show more



Abstract
We present paleoclimate evidence for rapid (<100 years) shifts of ∼2–4 °C in Chesapeake Bay (CB) temperature ∼2100, 1600, 950, 650, 400 and 150 years before present (years 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 years 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.

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

Present warmer here, also.

 

[Old Rocks]

Was there a medieval warm period and if so where and when - Springer

Abstract
It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as theMedieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobalMedieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.

The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

Again, no support for the contention the the MWP was particularly warmer for the globe.

 

[bripat9643]

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000
doi: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie



How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?

Thomas J. Crowley1 and Thomas S. Lowery2



[email protected]

[email protected]



Abstract
A frequent conclusion based on study of individual records from the so-called Medieval Warm Period (∼1000-1300 A.D.) is that the present warmth of the 20 th century is not unusual and therefore cannot be taken as an indication of forced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged. In this paper, we revisit the controversy by incorporating additional time series not used in earlier hemispheric compilations. Another difference is that the present reconstruction uses records that are only 900–1000 years long, thereby, avoiding the potential problem of uncertainties introduced by using different numbers of records at different times. Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th century warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of Medieval warmth and its relevance to interpretation of late 20 th century warming.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Nope, MWP was not warmer than the present.

"This conclusion is not supported by published composites of Northern Hemisphere climate change, but the conclusions of such syntheses are often either ignored or challenged."

In other words, the conclusion isn't supported by the Hockey Stick fraud.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Crick]

So you're one of those who will simply ignore those conclusions, justifiably or not.

 

[westwall]

Was there a medieval warm period and if so where and when - Springer

Abstract
It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as theMedieval Warm Period, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobalMedieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.

The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.

Again, no support for the contention the the MWP was particularly warmer for the globe.

HOLY CRAP! You had to go all the way back to 1994 for a paper that bad! Try coming up with something a little more current why don't ya!

Here's the MWP in Patagonia, you know... Argentina. That far enough away for ya?


Abstract
Climate and environmental reconstructions from natural archives are important for the interpretation of current climatic change. Few quantitative high-resolution reconstructions exist for South America which is the only land mass extending from the tropics to the southern high latitudes at 56°S. We analyzed sediment cores from two adjacent lakes in Northern Chilean Patagonia, Lago Castor (45°36′S, 71°47′W) and Laguna Escondida (45°31′S, 71°49′W). Radiometric dating (210Pb, 137Cs, 14C-AMS) suggests that the cores reach back to c. 900 BC (Laguna Escondida) and c. 1900 BC (Lago Castor). Both lakes show similarities and reproducibility in sedimentation rate changes and tephra layer deposition. We found eight macroscopic tephras (0.2–5.5 cm thick) dated at 1950 BC, 1700 BC, at 300 BC, 50 BC, 90 AD, 160 AD, 400 AD and at 900 AD. These can be used as regional time-synchronous stratigraphic markers. The two thickest tephras represent known well-dated explosive eruptions of Hudson volcano around 1950 and 300 BC. Biogenic silica flux revealed in both lakes a climate signal and correlation with annual temperature reanalysis data (calibration 1900–2006 AD; Lago Castor r = 0.37; Laguna Escondida r = 0.42, seven years filtered data). We used a linear inverse regression plus scaling model for calibration and leave-one-out cross-validation (RMSEv = 0.56 °C) to reconstruct sub decadal-scale temperature variability for Laguna Escondida back to AD 400. The lower part of the core from Laguna Escondida prior to AD 400 and the core of Lago Castor are strongly influenced by primary and secondary tephras and, therefore, not used for the temperature reconstruction. The temperature reconstruction from Laguna Escondida shows cold conditions in the 5th century (relative to the 20th century mean), warmer temperatures from AD 600 to AD 1150 and colder temperatures from AD 1200 to AD 1450. From AD 1450 to AD 1700 our reconstruction shows a period with stronger variability and on average higher values than the 20th century mean. Until AD 1900 the temperature values decrease but stay slightly above the 20th century mean. Most of the centennial-scale features are reproduced in the few other natural climate archives in the region. The early onset of cool conditions from c. AD 1200 onward seems to be confirmed for this region.




Late Holocene air temperature variability reconstructed from the sediments of Laguna Escondida Patagonia Chile 45 30 S

 

[Wyld Kard]

At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets

Take away the overwhelming majority opinion of mainstream science and you get crickets? That would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it's not true. Take away the good science and you get crap. Like yours.

Take away the good science and you get crap.

Just like what the IPCC has been putting out.

 

[Crick]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

 

[IanC]

the IPCC uses a subsection of science papers that are heavily skewed to the positions of the lead authors.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality. The IPCC even admitted that it was true. You are such a shill..

 

[jc456]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

why is it you k00ks always go full off whack job with your replies? 'all science' So because someone challenges a piece of science it has to be 'all science'?

 

[jc456]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality. The IPCC even admitted that it was true. You are such a shill..

View attachment 38636

I thought we were questioning all science, now you're saying there isn't any science? holy crap batman.

 

[Crick]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality. The IPCC even admitted that it was true. You are such a shill..

View attachment 38636

The magazines they are drawing from are peer reviewed science journals - THE basis of science. Show us where the IPCC admits they'e working from conjecture with no basis in science or reality. Or admit you're a stinking, unmitigated liar.

 

[Crick]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

why is it you k00ks always go full off whack job with your replies? 'all science' So because someone challenges a piece of science it has to be 'all science'?

When someone states that a position held by the vast majority of all scientists is a lie or a conspiracy or incompetent science, then, yes, that is a challenge to all science,

God you people are stupid.

 

[Wyld Kard]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

If it's crap, all science is crap.

All science isn't crap. The information that IPCC claims and puts out about global warming / climate change is crap.

 

[Muhammed]

Global warming nutjobs are idiots and scum.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

You actually wrote this knowing that much of their "peer" reviewed data comes from magazine articles with no basis in science. Pure conjecture with no basis in reality. The IPCC even admitted that it was true. You are such a shill..

View attachment 38636

The magazines they are drawing from are peer reviewed science journals - THE basis of science. Show us where the IPCC admits they'e working from conjecture with no basis in science or reality. Or admit you're a stinking, unmitigated liar.

OMG!!! No they are not... This is like trying to convince a wall that it is a floor.. The only one lying here is you..

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You realize that the IPCC's output is based entirely on the sum of the peer reviewed science in the field. If it's crap, all science is crap. Is that your position?

why is it you k00ks always go full off whack job with your replies? 'all science' So because someone challenges a piece of science it has to be 'all science'?

When someone states that a position held by the vast majority of all scientists is a lie or a conspiracy or incompetent science, then, yes, that is a challenge to all science,

God you people are stupid.

Science isn't working for you.. The Earth is showing the meme a farce all by itself without any help from anyone.. So what does Crick do... The same thing that Old Crock does, post debunked papers from 1994 and call names...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At USMB, the Decline Hiders "debate" by pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking, "AGW YOU FUCKING DENIER!!! DIE YOU DENIER!!! AGW AKBAR!!! WE HAVE CONSENSUS"

Take that away and you get crickets

Take away the overwhelming majority opinion of mainstream science and you get crickets? That would be a good thing. Unfortunately, it's not true. Take away the good science and you get crap. Like yours.

Science isn't done by "Consensus" dickwad. Anyone claiming to have Consensus by definition, is not a scientist