Scientists Admit to AGW Pause, lol

[Mushroom]

It isn't a prediction. It is an observation based on tons of data from global temperature readings on the ground, air, in the oceans, in space, and by proxy.

So that is what caused the Medieval Climate Optimum! Airplanes!

 

[daveman]

And I notice that my questions are still unanswered, but the attacks continue.

I am a real geologist, registered in three states, and am published in the Journal of paleontology. Are you sure you want to wave credentials?

Pssst! Geology is not climatology.

But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions.

 

[orogenicman]

And I notice that my questions are still unanswered, but the attacks continue.

I am a real geologist, registered in three states, and am published in the Journal of paleontology. Are you sure you want to wave credentials?

Pssst! Geology is not climatology.

But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions.

No it is not strictly climatology. But many climatologists are geophysicists. And atmospheric science certainly does fall under the domain of planetary and Earth science, of which geology is the umbrella discipline. You cannot understand paleoenvironments if you don't understand the atmosphere.

 

[orogenicman]

It isn't a prediction. It is an observation based on tons of data from global temperature readings on the ground, air, in the oceans, in space, and by proxy.

So that is what caused the Medieval Climate Optimum! Airplanes!

Don't be obtuse.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

Thus, current evidence does not support the notion of a Medieval Climatic Optimum as an interval of hemispheric or global warmth comparable to the latter 20th century. Astronomical climate forcing may have contributed to a long-term cooling trend throughout the second millennium that terminated in the 20th century. Increased northward
heat transport by an accelerated Atlantic thermohaline ocean circulation during Medieval times may have warmed the North Atlantic and neighboring regions, causing the warmest temperatures to be evident in Europe and lands neighboring the North Atlantic (albeit at notably varying times within the broader period of AD 900–1300).

A variety of factors thus may have contributed to both the moderate warmth of the Northern Hemisphere and the more sizeable and distinct North Atlantic/European warming
during the early centuries of the second millennium.

Now, you have to ask yourself, if similar conditions found themselves forming in Earth's current climate, over and above the current AGW, what do you think that would look like, and how would the planet's inhabitants cope?

 

[daveman]

I am a real geologist, registered in three states, and am published in the Journal of paleontology. Are you sure you want to wave credentials?

Pssst! Geology is not climatology.

But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions.

No it is not strictly climatology. But many climatologists are geophysicists. And atmospheric science certainly does fall under the domain of planetary and Earth science, of which geology is the umbrella discipline. You cannot understand paleoenvironments if you don't understand the atmosphere.

"But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions."

Unless, of course, you simply can't.

 

[orogenicman]

Pssst! Geology is not climatology.

But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions.

No it is not strictly climatology. But many climatologists are geophysicists. And atmospheric science certainly does fall under the domain of planetary and Earth science, of which geology is the umbrella discipline. You cannot understand paleoenvironments if you don't understand the atmosphere.

"But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions."

Unless, of course, you simply can't.

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:

What caused the Little Ice Age, and what made it end?
Why are we accepting as a "standard temperature" a temperature that was established in the middle of one of the coldest periods in the last 2,000 years?
What happened to the wet marshlands of North Africa?
What happened to the fertile crescent?
What happened to the large inland wetlands in what is now Death Valley?

These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

 

[flacaltenn]

No it is not strictly climatology. But many climatologists are geophysicists. And atmospheric science certainly does fall under the domain of planetary and Earth science, of which geology is the umbrella discipline. You cannot understand paleoenvironments if you don't understand the atmosphere.

"But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions."

Unless, of course, you simply can't.

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:

What caused the Little Ice Age, and what made it end?
Why are we accepting as a "standard temperature" a temperature that was established in the middle of one of the coldest periods in the last 2,000 years?
What happened to the wet marshlands of North Africa?
What happened to the fertile crescent?
What happened to the large inland wetlands in what is now Death Valley?

These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

Largely because the only assertion you really have is that present period RATE of warming is "unprecendented". (you don't even aim for the AMOUNT).

There is ample science that needs to be IGNORED to make that statement and more importantly what that implies about this single-minded wild goose chase about CO2 theory..

The 2nd inconsistency is your belief that CO2 forcing will be amplified by factors of 3 to 5. If the MAGnitude of the MWP was comparable (or larger) than today's warming --- where was the amplification and the run-away destruction of the planet that you are jonesing for?

 

[orogenicman]

"But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions."

Unless, of course, you simply can't.

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:

What caused the Little Ice Age, and what made it end?
Why are we accepting as a "standard temperature" a temperature that was established in the middle of one of the coldest periods in the last 2,000 years?
What happened to the wet marshlands of North Africa?
What happened to the fertile crescent?
What happened to the large inland wetlands in what is now Death Valley?

These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

Largely because the only assertion you really have is that present period RATE of warming is "unprecendented". (you don't even aim for the AMOUNT).

There is ample science that needs to be IGNORED to make that statement and more importantly what that implies about this single-minded wild goose chase about CO2 theory..

The 2nd inconsistency is your belief that CO2 forcing will be amplified by factors of 3 to 5. If the MAGnitude of the MWP was comparable (or larger) than today's warming --- where was the amplification and the run-away destruction of the planet that you are jonesing for?

Then don't make such a statement. We don't know if it (the rate of increase) is unprecedented in the history of the Earth. It likely is within the last 11,000 years, based on some rather large databases. There is no evidence that temperatures were higher globally during the MWP than they are now. The differences between WMP and AGW are the rate of increase, the extent of the warming, and the cause.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:



These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

Largely because the only assertion you really have is that present period RATE of warming is "unprecendented". (you don't even aim for the AMOUNT).

There is ample science that needs to be IGNORED to make that statement and more importantly what that implies about this single-minded wild goose chase about CO2 theory..

The 2nd inconsistency is your belief that CO2 forcing will be amplified by factors of 3 to 5. If the MAGnitude of the MWP was comparable (or larger) than today's warming --- where was the amplification and the run-away destruction of the planet that you are jonesing for?

Then don't make such a statement. We don't know if it (the rate of increase) is unprecedented in the history of the Earth. It likely is within the last 11,000 years, based on some rather large databases. There is no evidence that temperatures were higher globally during the MWP than they are now. The differences between WMP and AGW are the rate of increase, the extent of the warming, and the cause.

What do you mean "no evidence" that temperatures were higher globally during the MWP.. I just went thru that since you were here. MAJORITY of WORLD-WIDE studies show responses to MWP warming. And the majority of them claim a larger warming by at least 0.25degC.. Mann et al had to IGNORE all that to declare the MWP not global..

I swear you were reading those threads last week. It was given to Abraham who also claimed he had NEVER SEEN NO evidence...

You need a link?

BTW: what did you do with Abraham?? He came on here within HOURS of your arrival. :LOL:

 

[daveman]

No it is not strictly climatology. But many climatologists are geophysicists. And atmospheric science certainly does fall under the domain of planetary and Earth science, of which geology is the umbrella discipline. You cannot understand paleoenvironments if you don't understand the atmosphere.

"But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions."

Unless, of course, you simply can't.

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:

What caused the Little Ice Age, and what made it end?
Why are we accepting as a "standard temperature" a temperature that was established in the middle of one of the coldest periods in the last 2,000 years?
What happened to the wet marshlands of North Africa?
What happened to the fertile crescent?
What happened to the large inland wetlands in what is now Death Valley?

These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

What bearing? Really? What bearing do the historical consequences of climate change have on AGW?



Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[flacaltenn]

It isn't a prediction. It is an observation based on tons of data from global temperature readings on the ground, air, in the oceans, in space, and by proxy.

So that is what caused the Medieval Climate Optimum! Airplanes!

Don't be obtuse.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

Thus, current evidence does not support the notion of a Medieval Climatic Optimum as an interval of hemispheric or global warmth comparable to the latter 20th century. Astronomical climate forcing may have contributed to a long-term cooling trend throughout the second millennium that terminated in the 20th century. Increased northward
heat transport by an accelerated Atlantic thermohaline ocean circulation during Medieval times may have warmed the North Atlantic and neighboring regions, causing the warmest temperatures to be evident in Europe and lands neighboring the North Atlantic (albeit at notably varying times within the broader period of AD 900–1300).

A variety of factors thus may have contributed to both the moderate warmth of the Northern Hemisphere and the more sizeable and distinct North Atlantic/European warming
during the early centuries of the second millennium.

Now, you have to ask yourself, if similar conditions found themselves forming in Earth's current climate, over and above the current AGW, what do you think that would look like, and how would the planet's inhabitants cope?

Nice theory.. Doesn't pan out tho.. I've got a dozen cites of finding the signals of MWPeriod from Venezuela to Japan and Africa.. The cop-out of "it wasn't global" doesn't really fly..

 

[orogenicman]

Largely because the only assertion you really have is that present period RATE of warming is "unprecendented". (you don't even aim for the AMOUNT).

There is ample science that needs to be IGNORED to make that statement and more importantly what that implies about this single-minded wild goose chase about CO2 theory..

The 2nd inconsistency is your belief that CO2 forcing will be amplified by factors of 3 to 5. If the MAGnitude of the MWP was comparable (or larger) than today's warming --- where was the amplification and the run-away destruction of the planet that you are jonesing for?

Then don't make such a statement. We don't know if it (the rate of increase) is unprecedented in the history of the Earth. It likely is within the last 11,000 years, based on some rather large databases. There is no evidence that temperatures were higher globally during the MWP than they are now. The differences between WMP and AGW are the rate of increase, the extent of the warming, and the cause.

What do you mean "no evidence" that temperatures were higher globally during the MWP.. I just went thru that since you were here. MAJORITY of WORLD-WIDE studies show responses to MWP warming. And the majority of them claim a larger warming by at least 0.25degC.. Mann et al had to IGNORE all that to declare the MWP not global..

This is not true. Try reading the papers instead of the political blogs.

I swear you were reading those threads last week. It was given to Abraham who also claimed he had NEVER SEEN NO evidence...

Abe disagreed with you because he also knows it isn't true.

BTW: what did you do with Abraham?? He came on here within HOURS of your arrival. :LOL:

Abe is a very busy man. He'll be back when he has time.

 

[orogenicman]

"But it would be amusing if you'd at least try to answer his questions."

Unless, of course, you simply can't.

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:

What caused the Little Ice Age, and what made it end?
Why are we accepting as a "standard temperature" a temperature that was established in the middle of one of the coldest periods in the last 2,000 years?
What happened to the wet marshlands of North Africa?
What happened to the fertile crescent?
What happened to the large inland wetlands in what is now Death Valley?

These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

What bearing? Really? What bearing do the historical consequences of climate change have on AGW?

None of the above has any bearing on the current AGW. You apparently believe they do. So, I suggest you spell out to us exactly how they have any bearing on AGW.

 

[orogenicman]

So that is what caused the Medieval Climate Optimum! Airplanes!

Don't be obtuse.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

Thus, current evidence does not support the notion of a Medieval Climatic Optimum as an interval of hemispheric or global warmth comparable to the latter 20th century. Astronomical climate forcing may have contributed to a long-term cooling trend throughout the second millennium that terminated in the 20th century. Increased northward
heat transport by an accelerated Atlantic thermohaline ocean circulation during Medieval times may have warmed the North Atlantic and neighboring regions, causing the warmest temperatures to be evident in Europe and lands neighboring the North Atlantic (albeit at notably varying times within the broader period of AD 900–1300).

A variety of factors thus may have contributed to both the moderate warmth of the Northern Hemisphere and the more sizeable and distinct North Atlantic/European warming
during the early centuries of the second millennium.

Now, you have to ask yourself, if similar conditions found themselves forming in Earth's current climate, over and above the current AGW, what do you think that would look like, and how would the planet's inhabitants cope?

Nice theory.. Doesn't pan out tho.. I've got a dozen cites of finding the signals of MWPeriod from Venezuela to Japan and Africa.. The cop-out of "it wasn't global" doesn't really fly..

So you wouldn't mind providing us with this bibliography you have of those papers, right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't be obtuse.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf



Now, you have to ask yourself, if similar conditions found themselves forming in Earth's current climate, over and above the current AGW, what do you think that would look like, and how would the planet's inhabitants cope?

Nice theory.. Doesn't pan out tho.. I've got a dozen cites of finding the signals of MWPeriod from Venezuela to Japan and Africa.. The cop-out of "it wasn't global" doesn't really fly..

So you wouldn't mind providing us with this bibliography you have of those papers, right?

Poor memory or are you not yet subscribing to follow threads?? Turns out it was YOU and not Abraham that I provided those to just a few days ago..

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/7592351-post14.html

Or post #7 above that for a histogram summary of MWPeriod warming results..

 

[orogenicman]

Nice theory.. Doesn't pan out tho.. I've got a dozen cites of finding the signals of MWPeriod from Venezuela to Japan and Africa.. The cop-out of "it wasn't global" doesn't really fly..

So you wouldn't mind providing us with this bibliography you have of those papers, right?

Poor memory or are you not yet subscribing to follow threads?? Turns out it was YOU and not Abraham that I provided those to just a few days ago..

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/7592351-post14.html

Or post #7 above that for a histogram summary of MWPeriod warming results..

As your quote pointed out:

Their paper was about 'A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic temperature/salinity reconstruction'. That's THE CARIBBEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC, which we already knew experienced the MWP. What about the rest of the planet? This is all you have? Look, I'll give it to you free of charge; there are other samples that have been found, a few in the Southern hemisphere, but like your author says, it's very complicated, and the signals outside of the Atlantic basin aren't strong like they are within the basin itself. Furthermore, nothing you've provide has yet to back up your claim that the MWP was warmer than today. And we certainly know the MWP didn't come on as rapidly.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you wouldn't mind providing us with this bibliography you have of those papers, right?

Poor memory or are you not yet subscribing to follow threads?? Turns out it was YOU and not Abraham that I provided those to just a few days ago..

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/7592351-post14.html

Or post #7 above that for a histogram summary of MWPeriod warming results..

As your quote pointed out:

Their paper was about 'A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic temperature/salinity reconstruction'. That's THE CARIBBEAN AND NORTH ATLANTIC, which we already knew experienced the MWP. What about the rest of the planet? This is all you have? Look, I'll give it to you free of charge; there are other samples that have been found, a few in the Southern hemisphere, but like your author says, it's very complicated, and the signals outside of the Atlantic basin aren't strong like they are within the basin itself. Furthermore, nothing you've provide has yet to back up your claim that the MWP was warmer than today. And we certainly know the MWP didn't come on as rapidly.

You really didn't read a thing there didya? Quoted studies from CHILE, VENEZUELA, FRreaking JAPAN and New Zealand. And you stopped at the Mann study that admitted MWPeriod was warmer but isolated to North Atlantic.. ((Mann had to ignore 20 or 30 proxy studies to make that assertion -- the little cheat))

Not building street cred ignoring that much.. Try the link AGAIN..

It was a 300 yr EVENT.. 400 tops.. I'll give you 150 up and 150 dwn. If the peak was greater than or equal to CEra warming -- then you got nothing to claim that the RATE was not different from today.

Or maybe you're not paying attention to what your heroes are saying TODAY -- after their simplistic story goes off the rails. That GLOBAL atmos temp. doesn't MATTER anymore. That "we should only care about the REGIONAL signals". That's fresh from a Senate panel of climate jerks ((um experts).. Seems like the game has no fixed of rules sometimes. And CONSISTENCY really isn't that important..

Which is it? Regional signals? No one world "Climate Sensitivity" OR it's got to be Global to count? I need to know what game you're playing today...

 

[orogenicman]

 

[daveman]

Did you not see my response #64? That answered at least one of his questions. As for the rest:



These are all academic questions that have answers in many scientific papers, and even College textbooks. I suggest to 'shroom to either buy a textbook, subscribe to the GSA journal, or take a friggin class. I'm not his freshman science professor. Now, somebody answer my earlier question, and this one: What bearing, if any, do any of those questions have on the fact of AGW?

What bearing? Really? What bearing do the historical consequences of climate change have on AGW?

None of the above has any bearing on the current AGW. You apparently believe they do. So, I suggest you spell out to us exactly how they have any bearing on AGW.

You're right. Climate change in the past has absolutely NOTHING to do with current climate change.

Of course, that holds true only if you believe manmade CO2 is the sole driving force in current climate change.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[rdean]

A scientific assessment of the planet’s heat balance has found that the most likely explanation for the recent hiatus in global warming is the continual absorption of thermal energy by the huge “heat sink” of the deep ocean many hundreds of metres below the sea surface, according to scientists from the Met Office.

Senior climate scientists said that they had always expected periods when the rate of increase in temperatures would level off for a few years and emphasised that the last decade was still warmer than any previous decade, with 12 of the 14 hottest years on record occurring since 2000.

-----------------------------------------------------------

These right wingers didn't even bother to read the article they linked to. And they get "hurt" when I call the fucking idiots. They say I'm mean and I have no friends.