UPDATE: 3/30/12 Since a number of commenters that are getting bent out of shape over the issue can’t apparently be bothered to read the paper, and since the authors at Syracuse themselves are under pressure because the alarmosphere has gone ballistic over the possibility that Mike Mann’s “there is no MWP much less global” gospel might be challenged, I offer readers this passage from the actual paper:
The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere, but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region
have had mixed results.
I realize that because the authors chose a really poor place to publish it, in Elsevier, which is being boycotted worldwide for their draconian policies on scientific publishing, that many people haven’t read the actual paper, but instead rely on others to interpret it for them, sparing them the effort of having to think or investigate for themselves. Of course the same sorts of people that claim my headline is wrong won’t believe the passage I’ve cited above, therefore I’m reproducing page 114 of the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters 325ā326 (2012) with the relevant passage highlighted:
Some media (The Daily Mail for example) have oversold the conclusions of the paper, and thus this is why the authors have issued a statement. Based on their words above in their own paper,Ā I stand by my headline.Ā Note that the authors at Syracuse have NOT asked me to change my headline nor any part of my post on the issue. – Anthony
==============================================================
Oxygen 16/18 isotope ratios show the Medieval Warm Period was globalĀ – all the way to Antarctica
Despite this poorly written press release with the “topsy-turvy” first paragraph written by some PR person at Syracuse University who doesn’t even mention the name of the paper, there’s some interesting science in the paper once you figure out what the name of the paper is. Unfortunately, this is published by Elsevier, and like a growing number of people in the scientific community (8500+ now), I refuse to purchase anything from Elsevier (especially when they want $40 to read a paper already funded by taxpayers) since they pulled that stunt trying to lobby our legislature. Hopefully the authors themselves will liberate this important paper and put it on one of their own websites.Ā (Update: I’ve been in touch with Judy L. Holmes of Syracuse who has been very gracious. It seems Eurekalert botched the press release, excluding important info and that is now being corrected) – Anthony
Scientists use rare mineral to correlate past climate events in Europe, Antarctica
New study published in April issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters
The first day of spring brought record high temperatures across the northern part of the United States, while much of the Southwest was digging out from a record-breaking spring snowstorm. The weather, it seems, has gone topsy-turvy. Are the phenomena related? Are climate changes in one part of the world felt half a world away?
To understand the present, scientists look for ways to unlock information about past climate hidden in the fossil record. A team of scientists led by Syracuse University geochemist Zunli Lu has found a new key in the form of ikaite, a rare mineral that forms in cold waters. Composed of calcium carbonate and water, ikaite crystals can be found off the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland.
“Ikaite is an icy version of limestone,” say Lu, assistant professor of earth sciences in SU’s College of Arts and Sciences. “The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature.”
It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together (called the hydration water) traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed. This finding by Lu’s research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable proxy for studying past climate conditions. The research was recently published online in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1. Lu conducted most of the experimental work for the study while a post-doctoral researcher at Oxford University. Data interpretation was done after he arrived at SU.
The scientists studied ikaite crystals from sediment cores drilled off the coast of Antarctica. The sediment layers were deposited over 2,000 years. The scientists were particularly interested in crystals found in layers deposited during the “Little Ice Age,” approximately 300 to 500 years ago, and during the “Medieval Warm Period,” approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago. Both climate events have been documented in Northern Europe, but studies have been inconclusive as to whether the conditions in Northern Europe extended to Antarctica.
Ikaite crystals incorporate ocean bottom water into their structure as they form. During cooling periods, when ice sheets are expanding, ocean bottom water accumulates heavy oxygen isotopes (oxygen 18). When glaciers melt, fresh water, enriched in light oxygen isotopes (oxygen 16), mixes with the bottom water. The scientists analyzed the ratio of the oxygen isotopes in the hydration water and in the calcium carbonate. They compared the results with climate conditions established in Northern Europe across a 2,000-year time frame. They found a direct correlation between the rise and fall of oxygen 18 in the crystals and the documented warming and cooling periods.
“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
Ā ###
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659
Zunli Lu, Rosalind E.M. Rickaby, Hilary Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Richard D. Pancost, Samuel Shaw, Alistair Lennie, Julia Wellner, John B. Anderson
Abstract
Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the Ī“18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing Ī“18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore Ī“18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and Ī“18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord Ī“18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
UPDATE: A colleague has forwarded a copy of the paper, allowing me to cite some additional information that I have presented below:
From the discussion section:
…
The MWP has not yet been unambiguously established around the
AP. Three Ī“18Ohydra values fall in this period and all of them are significantly
lighter than those values of older crystals by 2ā3ā°, a difference
too large to be explained by analytical uncertainties and
variability among crystals formed at the same time (0.33ā° at
JPC24), and are associated with lower Ī“18OCaCO3.We tentatively interpret
this shift in ikaite isotopic values as the result of meltwater invasion,
and warming in the Firth of Tay during the MWP. The ~5ā°
decrease in Ī“18Ohydra at the beginning of the MWP must indicate
very strong freshening at the bottom of fjord, likely due to meltwater
cascading to depth. How such a distinct isotopic signal might be preserved
to such great depth in the fjord is beyond the scope of this
paper. However, meltwater beneath the ice-sheet is known to be
injected into fjords at different water depths including the base of
the fjord (Domack and Ishman, 1993). Although meltwater typically
mixes quickly with fjord water, it can be trapped at the base of the
inner fjord sometimes (e.g. when there is a sill preventing it from
moving forward) (Domack and Ishman, 1993). We hypothesize that
such subglacial meltwater may be the cause of strong meltwater signal
at the beginning of MWP. Other evidence supports the meltwater
signal inferred from Ī“18Ohydra. At the Firth of Tay, MS shifted to mostly
below average values between 1 and 0.6 ka (Fig. 6A). Low MS was
also found for the same period of time in Bransfield Strait sediments
and was considered to mark the MWP (Khim et al., 2002). Elemental
ratio records from Maxwell Bay, northern Bransfield Strait, allow
identification of both the MWP and the Little Ice Age (Monien et al.,
2011). Moss exposed by recent ice retreat on Anvers Island, West
AP, were radiocarbon dated to 0.7ā0.97 ka, contrary to the much
older ages of reworked marine shells in the same sections, indicating
that the ice-sheet was reduced during that period to an extent of similar
magnitude to today (Hall et al., 2010). Ī“18OEPICA (Stenni et al.,
2006) shows warming at 0.6ā0.8 ka, but with a brief cooling in between.
SST at Palmer Deep was even higher than modern during
this period (Shevenell et al., 2011). There is a notable lag between
the onset of MWP at the western AP and at the eastern AP according
to this SST record and our ikaite record although this observation
needs to be confirmed by additional records. On the eastern AP, no
significant change in foraminifera assemblage at Firth of Tay was observed
that could correspond with the Medieval Warm Period, Little
Ice Age, or the warming over the last century (Majewski and
Anderson, 2009). Also signals of the MWP or LIA, if any, were not
up to a magnitude that influenced glacial sedimentation
(Michalchuk et al., 2009).
…
Our most recent crystals suggest a warming relative to
the LIA in the last century, possibly as part of the regional recent
rapid warming, but this climatic signature is not yet as extreme in nature
as the MWP. The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,
but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the
MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as
far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region
have had mixed results.
Conclusions
We report the first comprehensive geochemical study on an
ikaite-containing core to demonstrate the potential of using hydration
water Ī“18Ohydra as a paleoenvironmental proxy. Porewater solute
concentrations indicate that these authigenic carbonate minerals
form in a narrow and shallow zone where Ca and DIC are both relatively
enriched. Coupling Ī“13C of ikaite crystals and Ī“13C of porewater
DIC, allows estimation of formation depth for individual crystal. The
ikaite formation depths are then used to calculate the time of crystallization
relative to the ambient sediments. Ī“18Ohydra and Ī“18OCaCO3
throughout JPC2 at Firth of Tay are reported. The youngest crystal
precipitated in modern porewater validates the fractionation factor
obtained in the previous study (Rickaby et al., 2006). The late Holocene
climate pattern inferred from Ī“18Ohydra and Ī“18OCaCO3 is comparable
to other records from the region and our ikaite record provides
new support that the MWP and LIA might have influenced the AP. In
the future, paired Ī“18Ohydra and Ī“18OCaCO3 may be used to calculate
Ī“18O of paleo-porewater indicating temperature changes. At this
stage, the geochemistry of ikaite serves as a qualitative, rather than
a quantitative, climatic proxy, because it remains challenging to account
for kinetic effects on uptake of Ī“18O into the carbonate during
crystallization and any post-crystallization exchange of Ī“18Ohydra
signal.
Sounds like a good addition to so many papers which support that the MWP was real, global and as warm or warmer then the current T. It is amazing that a few tree rings from a few, mostly NH locations, can be considered to outweigh a far more diverse selections of proxies, from thousands of locations.
To understand why the “team” is so desparate to destroy the MWP is crucial to the debate. In trying to support the “cause” they trapped themselves. They flatlined CO2 and temperatures for the one to two thousand year HS reconstructions. This allowed them to assign an artificially high weight to modern CO2 increases. They further increased the weight of CO2 by only considering solar influence on climate to be a lineal response to TSI changes, ignoring many other possbilties within the peer reviewed literature. They allowed these flawed studies to set the CO@ senstivity used in the models. Now, having flatlined CO2 for the period of the reconstuctions, if the MWP is shown to be real then their theory is destroyed, and their failed models are sent to the garbage pile. (What a tangled mess we weave…..)
The Antarctic Peninsula? That extends well north of the Antarctic Circle, and may as well be considered part of the North Atlantic.
Sure, just like the Arctic Archipelago, Sargasso Sea, Central America, the Western United States, Siberia and New Zealand. What in the world isn’t in Western Europe and the North Atlantic?
Oops, my “sarc” tags disappeared.
Because of the lack of accurate dating in Antarctic ice cores, correlation with the Greenland ice cores and with other Northern Hemisphere paleotemperature proxies has been uncertain. The land record in New Zealand shows a consistent paleotemperature record in lockstep with the NH, but correlation with Antarctica has remained a problem. This new research is therefore significant. If anyone gets a copy of the paper, I’d sure like to see it.
āWe showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,ā Lu says.
Do we know climate events in Antarctica didn’t influence climate conditions in Northern Europe?
George V.
NIce paper, but:
“āWe showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,ā Lu says.”
This is an ingenuous statement. The results show that the LIttle Ice Age was global, but NOT that events in Northern Europe affected the Antarctic. Whatever caused the events in Europe ALSO caused a cold phase in the Antarctic.
Correlation does NOT mean causation.
Unfortunately, this is published by Elsevier, and like a growing number of people in the scientific community (8500+ now), I refuse to purchase anything from Elsevier (especially when they want $40 to read a paper already funded by taxpayers) since they pulled that stunt trying to lobby our legislature.
i found this interesting.
The qualifying remarks in this paper allow Mann et al to say that there is no solid evidence from this study. The authors show a concept, an example that is qualitative, not quantitative, and “may” indicate support for a global MWP event. They allow the writers to write subsequent papers either way. They don’t stake a position. Nicely done.
There are geoscientists and there are “prospect makers” in the field of petroleum geology. One postulates, the other predicts. The climate scientists like these guys, Mann, Trenberth et al are the geo-scientist equivalents. Bastardi, Corbyn, Watts, are the prospect maker type, using their skills to advance the actuality of the human condition, not the imaginative fancy of the elite.
If scientists of all stripes were forced, by convention, to append all of their papers with definitive statements without the words “may”, “should” or “could”- with the principle that all such statements could be repudiated later, on the inclusion of additional information – we would be in a better position to use their work. Or falsify their positions.
Imagine if Mann had to say: my work says this happened, then. All we’d have to do is show that other work says it didn’t. And so his position would be falsified. Right now, how he/Gore present it, it cannot be falsified, as he never says A is. He says A might be, probably is. Never just “is”.
Arm-waving rhetoric. There should be a paper in that subject. Maybe, or it could be written. Possibly in Russian.
The evidence for Global MWP is so strong, you could really make an article like this a weekly installment for WUWT along the lines of “MWP Update”. Surely drought in N Mex and SW US are tied to this Global trend too…ironic that the MWP phrase was first coined by HH Lamb who helped establish!
Why has the Ī“18O panel A in the graph got its x-axis going the other way compared to the rest.
Am I missing something?
To David (first post)-flat-lining is intrinsic to dendro-chronology, as detrending (accounting for differential biomass of trees, and thus relative width of rings, when deriving a width oscillation between trees of a given regional sequence), as a mathematical auto-function (see Jan Esper in Science 2002). Special requirements for long-term low-frequency pattern recognition are not understood it seems by Mann in this respect. I do not think he was a PhD in dendro-studies before his appointment, which makes one wonder about the motives of those appointing him in the first place! Many dendro-people will avoid employment of there data to make long-term reconstructions as a result, although high-frequency patterns, like there was a drought on a specific year, are less problematical.
Quiet sun,vertically weak polar vortices become more extensive horizontally at the surface, climate zones and jetstreams move towards the equator from BOTH poles.
Active sun, polar vortices become more intense vertically but become smaller and more focused at the surface, climate zones and jetstreams move towards BOTH poles.
“They flatlined CO2 and temperatures for the one to two thousand year HS reconstructions. This allowed them to assign an artificially high weight to modern CO2 increases.”
wrong. Estimates of climate sensitivity of 3 happened well before the HS
Also, the estimates are constrained by MWP recons. LGM reconstructions
drive the central estimate for the ECR.
In short the HS is not that interesting or important.
Please note that modern warming does not happen in the SH,
as far as yet.
My overall average is 0.00 for the past 40 years in the SH
It seems the extra heat coming especially into the SH (as noted by increasing maxima) is moved by currents and weather systems to the NH where we find ca. 0,03 degrees C per annum warming for the past 40 years or so.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I am not saying it did not happen in the past, I am just saying it is not happening now.
I suspect a greater influence of the absence of ozone playing a role here, but there could also be other factors.
Doubly interesting. It’s always nice to see a bit more support for the full-scale MWP, plus, ikaite (is that pronounced “eeka-ite”?) has to be the weirdest form of calcium carbonate ever. I’d say I want a bit, except it would melt!
Steven Mosher says: March 22, 2012 at 9:11 am
HS restrained by MWP, while LGM drives off the ECR (?!).
The MWP is embarrasing for alarmists for the other side of the CO2-causes-warming equation too.
Remember, the ice cores show temperature changes preceding changes in CO2 (not the other way round) by about 800 years. If the MWP was global then how do we distinguish between the output of CO2 from the oceans and the CO2 output of industrial civilisation?
Indeed, the ouput of the oceans may dwarf the industrial output. And that would be very embarrassing.
This is what a lawyer would call “circumstantial” evidence. WHile historical records are not perfect, there have been dozens of studies from human civilization that indicated the MWP was global in nature. These have been documented by anthropologists, and thus not part of the enforced dogma of the AGW cabal. Still, as scientists look for proof of the MWP, it appears they are finding it more and more.
I guess that was an unMANN made global climate change.
Steven Mosher said @ March 22, 2012 at 9:11 am
Little Green Men reconstructions drive the central estimate for the European Commission Representation. Sounds about right…
If the MWP is as warm as the modern warm period was, it was not caused by CO2. It was not caused by solar irradiance either. What was it then? Do the same factor(s) contribute to the modern warming?
Calcium carbonate in its many forms coupled with its unusual solubility characteristics (it’s more soluble in cold water than warm due to bicarbonate forms) just keeps on amazing me. A very interesting study.
āāWe showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,ā Lu says.ā
LOL. I must have missed that section.
Pat says:
āāWe showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,ā Lu says.ā
LOL. I must have missed that section.
Stephen Wilde says:
Quiet sun,vertically weak polar vortices become more extensive horizontally at the surface, climate zones and jetstreams move towards the equator from BOTH poles.
Active sun, polar vortices become more intense vertically but become smaller and more focused at the surface, climate zones and jetstreams move towards BOTH poles.
Henry says:
sorry guys.
In both cases you/they are wrong at least from the observed data from the past 40 years or so.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
At the moment, (I mean the past 40 years or so) extra heat is going into the SH, presumably into the oceans, but it does not get any warmer there. It simply seems to travel to the NH where it does get warmer. Probably via currents and weather.
My data suggest that warming is due to, either
1) more intense heat from the sun
and/or
2) less clouds
and/or
3) less ozone
It seems to me the latter possibility is becoming the more critical option to look at.
Remember that that little layer of ozone upstairs cuts off almost 20% of all incoming (UV) sunlight. Water aborbs in the UV, and therefore a lot of it (the extra UV, or the more than normal UV) is converted to heat in the water.
Doug Proctor says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:19 am
There should be a paper in that subject. Maybe, or it could be written. Possibly in Russian.
Russians have done their best for the global warming.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/69-71.htm
Steven Mosher: In short the HS is not that interesting or important.
To whom?
Mann has found it interesting enough and important enough to write a book accusing HS critics of misdeeds, and his book has earned high marks from climate scientists who agree with him about the importance of AGW. It was for a time so interesting and important as to be subjected to a review by the National Academy of Sciences, and it was defended by Schmidt et al in their critique of McShane and Wyner. It was for a time so interesting and important as to be on the home page of the IPCC.
I believe that most of the problem in trying to differentiate past climate in the far reaches of the Southern Hemisphere as to do with the very low resolution of Antarctic Ice cores. This is most defitely the case I beleive with the Younger Dryas. The one core near to the coast of the great ice continent (Taylor Dome) displays a climate lock step with the climate shifts in the Northern Hemisphere
Niels A Nielsen says:
“If the MWP is as warm as the modern warm period was, it was not caused by CO2. It was not caused by solar irradiance either. What was it then? Do the same factor(s) contribute to the modern warming?”
Dark energy flux š
Reading between the lines, it seems fairly certain that the authors of this paper all agree with the consensus on AGW. Just saying.
Niels A Nielsen says:
March 22, 2012 at 9:33 am
_________________________
The distribution of heat by ocean currents has been proposed as a principal factor in global temperature. The large and ongoing drop in temperature at about the time that Central America emerged to close the seaway between the tropical Pacific and Atlantic supports this hypothesis.
vukcevic said on March 22, 2012 at 9:22 am:
Nah.
He’s talking about problems with emission controls, obviously. Maybe he posted to the wrong blog.
š
Steven Mosher says:
March 22, 2012 at 9:11 am
āThey flatlined CO2 and temperatures for the one to two thousand year HS reconstructions. This allowed them to assign an artificially high weight to modern CO2 increases.ā
wrong. Estimates of climate sensitivity of 3 happened well before the HS
Also, the estimates are constrained by MWP recons. LGM reconstructions
drive the central estimate for the ECR.
In short the HS is not that interesting or important.
============================================
Intresting comment Mr Mosher. I hope you stick around to actually dialoge and not do your normal hit and run.
You may be right, however, If so, you are telling me that climate models, using the current IPCC CO2 weighting, applied to a “non” hockey stick reconstruction of past temperature, for instance Craig Lehole, or the 6000 borehole reconstruction, (both of which produce a MWP) and at the same time flatlining CO2 levels as the IPCC claims, will still produce a MWP given the same IPCC weightings to solar and other known factors. I challenge you to produce such a historic model using IPCC senstivity numbers and IPCC non peer reviewed models.
If you cannot, then perhaps once again you are not seeing the forrest, because of your propensity to over examine a few trees.
Hi Anthony.
there is a mountain of peer reviewed evidence that the MWP was world wide. I have looked at and recorded most of them over the years. There are many great skeptical sites that report on this fact, your blog is one of the most important. Another great one is CO2 Headline’s it is all peer reviewed, a short essay and easy to digest with links to the authors papers.
Here is an Example and link:
Mann’s Discredited Hockey Stick Takes Another Huge Hit: South America’s Hot Medieval Temperatures
New research determines that South America did experience the Medieval Warming and temperatures were higher during MWP, contrary to Michael Mann’s hockey stick “science”
Read here. As hundreds of scientists have discovered and published, the Medieval Warming (MWP) climate was global in nature, with temperatures that in many areas of the world were higher than today’s temperatures.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/manns-discredited-hockey-stick-takes-another-huge-hit-south-americas-hot-medieval-temperatures.html
Steven Mosher says:
March 22, 2012 at 9:11 am
” LGM reconstructions drive the central estimate for the ECR.”
which I take it means Last Glacial Maximum reconstructions drive the central estimate (of 3 K) for the Equilibrium Climate Response, otherwise known as climate sensitivity.
That may be Hansen’s view, but I don’t think it’s the IPCC “consensus” view.
Apart from the supposed “evidence” as to climate sensitivity from GCM simulations, AR4 WG1 included ten studies that provided observational constraints on climate sensitivity in the key Table 9.3 and Figure 9.20 (also included in Box 10.2) in Chapter 9. Seven of those studies were based on instrumental data and provided PDFs (probability density graphs). Five of those PDFs peaked in the range 1.3 K to 3 K.
Only two of the ten studies featured in Figure 9.20 involved the LGM: Schneider von Deimling et al. (2006) and Annan et al. (2005). Per Table 9.3, the former gave an estimated climate sensitivity range of 1.2 K to 4.3 K, while the latter – which did not even consider sensitivities of <4 K – merely gave a <7% chance of sensitivity exceeding 6 K.
Moreover, AR4 WG1 concluded that LGM proxy data was so uncertain that the climate sensitivity estimates derived from it did not even provide primary evidence as to sensitivity:
"Therefore, LGM proxy data provide support for the range of climate sensitivity based on other lines of evidence." (Box 10.2, Ch.10)
"Overall, estimates of climate sensitivity from the LGM are broadly consistent with other estimates of climate sensitivity derived, for example, from the instrumental period." (Ch.9)
Doug Proctor says:
March 22, 2012 at 8:19 am
….Arm-waving rhetoric. There should be a paper in that subject. Maybe, or it could be written. Possibly in Russian.
There already is a paper on it and it was written quite a WHILE AGO. (I hope my links are still good)
Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals. Written by Dick Pothier. If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/Armstrong/Mass%20Media/Inquirer%201982b.pdf
J. Scott Armstrong (1980), Bafflegab Pays, Psychology Today, 12: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Bafflegab%20Pays.pdf
The article would be very amusing if it did not have such serious ramifications in the field of science.
Scott Armstrong has done some other very good studies on research and how it is perceived.
(see: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/people/publications.cfm?id=226¤t_flag=0 )
Hey, watch that! Only Warmistas get to use ‘global’ and ‘warming’ in the same sentence.
Perhaps we could assert that Viking fire-raids temporarily drove up medieval CO2, but for too short a time for the Greenland ice bubbles to register it..
Stever Mosher: “wrong. Estimates of climate sensitivity of 3 happened well before the HS
Also, the estimates are constrained by MWP recons. LGM reconstructions
drive the central estimate for the ECR.
In short the HS is not that interesting or important.”
______________________________
Technically correct, in that high sensitivities were claimed by the IPCC before the HS come out, but also misleading The HS was important in trying to justify these claims of high sensitivity, which otherwise seem quite implausible. Also, the LGMs themselves rely on paleoclimate reconstructions to determine sensitivity, of which the HS is a crucial part.
Come on now — the Idso team at co2science has been running a special study on the global nature of the MWP for quite some time. From the first page of http://www.co2science.org
“Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 1060 individual scientists from 608 research institutions in 44 different countries.”
This site should invite an essay from the Idso group on this and other topics they have examined, such as the dimethylsulfide feedback.
When it comes to the MWP, the science is settled, and a consensus has obtained — outside of the AGW wonderland.
āWe showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,ā Lu says…..!!! choke splutter…..
Did Lu actually say that? Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse!
Maybe Lu should take a few moments to glance at a map or even better look at the Antarctic satellite chart.
Loopy Lu!
Septic Matthew/Matthew R Marler says:
March 22, 2012 at 10:27 am
“Mann has found it interesting enough and important enough to write a book accusing HS critics of misdeeds, and his book has earned high marks from climate scientists who agree with him about the importance of AGW.”
If you think about it, this MWP paper makes the AGW conjecture even more questionable. The planet has been naturally warming within well defined parameters and along the same trend line since the LIA, with no evidence of temperatures accelerating above those parameters. Based on that fact alone, AGW appears to be not much more than hand-waving.
“Henry says:
sorry guys.
In both cases you/they are wrong at least from the observed data from the past 40 years or so.”
Hi Henry. I don’t see that my proposal is inconsistent with your findings. It is the shifting of the climate zones that produces the energy distribution that you report.
Smokey says:
March 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm
=============================
Smokey, please read my first comment, the first on this post, and read my reply to Mr Mosher here. David A says: March 22, 2012 at 11:19 am. I am very curious as to your thoughts on this??
…so it skipped right over Africa and South America
“The ~5ā° decrease in Ī“18Ohydra at the beginning of the MWP must indicate
very strong freshening at the bottom of fjord, likely due to meltwater
cascading to depth.”
============================================
Meltwater would experience some significant difficulties trying to “cascade” to the bottom of fjord, because it has lower density, than sea water (saltwater).
Since this “cascading” point is crucial, I would be a little bit sceptical about the conclusions.
The HS was bad science from the beginning, but great PR. Therefore, it was very important to the AGW community and was displayed prominently in the IPCC report that followed. Once it was discredited, IPCC supporters like Steve M. started saying that it was not important science. True enough! It would be nice if Steve M. would just admit that it was an emotionally provocative tool used to influence the ignorant masses to support the AGW agenda, since the REAL science was not (and is not) convincing enough to do it.
What is important is that the models cannot produce the natural climate variability of the past, because we do not know what drove it. Therefore, we can not determine what percentage of the recent warming is natural and what is man-made, and we can not predict future climate. Without a good understanding of natural climate variability, we can not determine the climates sensitivity to increasing CO2 with any accuracy, and the IPCC’s current estimate of that sensitivity is an agenda driven wild-a#% guess.
Was there a global medieval warm period?
This question could be answered in the positive upon the evidence if it were re-phrased such:
However, this is not the question.
Most people think of a global warm period, or climate optimum, as a general (average) increase in temperatures across the globe. Much of the evidence actually suggests that the warming occurred at different times in different areas. In many cases a warming of up to 2 centuries is preceeded and/or succeeded by cooling. Therefore, in a global account, these coolings might tend to cancel out warming elsewhere.
Therefore, I dont think it is very helpful for us to say: Look more evidence of a global MWP! whenever we see regional warming for a century or two somewere within a 5 century timeframe.
Why are we still discussing Global temperatures? We already know this is a meaningless metric!
Because we had a birdstrike and my warm clothes were still on the plane, I was wandering around Gander, Newfoundland in February in shirtsleeves. Yes it was damned cold but not intolerable! The energy content, and also its capacity to extract energy is entirely related to humidity.
So, Without information on humidity, temperature is useless! A corollary to this is that yes, Global warming will be seen in the Arctic, amplified! Work it out Mosh!
DaveE.
This paper provides further vindication for Soon and Baliunas (2003) ā see Excerpt below.
What hurts is not just the vicious lies, fraud and the intimidation of the warmist camp.
It is the criminal waste of a trillion dollars of scarce global resources that could have been used to ease the plight of the worldās poorest people, instead of being squandered on the global warming scam. A trillion dollars would go a long way to providing clean drinking water and sanitary systems for every person on Earth.
A few million kids die from drinking contaminated every year. In the years since the 1972 Rio summit, the number of kids who have died from bad water probably exceeds all those people of all ages killed in WW2ā¦ ā¦ and so it continues to this day.
What also hurts is the damaged and destroyed careers of some honorable, talented people, who have been driven out of their positions by the dirty political game that global warming mania has engendered.
I believe the time will soon come when natural global cooling will finally and utterly falsify the CAGW Hypothesis, and consign it to the dustbin of history.
But huge damage will have been done, and the perpetrators of this horribly expensive, wasteful CAGW fraud will sail on.
______________
Excerpt
In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints ā contradicting Mannās hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.
Source: Energy and Environment (2005)
Full article: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/
Allan MacRae says:
March 22, 2012 at 10:14 pm
I believe the time will soon come when natural global cooling will finally and utterly falsify the CAGW Hypothesis, and consign it to the dustbin of history.
=================================
Yeah, very optimistic. Global cooling can also be attributed to the human activities and we will have the same game again.
āWe showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,ā Lu says
European’s climate RULED the Antarctic! It was what would be Europe’s first insatiable taste of colonialism.
HenryP says:
March 22, 2012 at 10:17 am
In both cases you/they are wrong at least from the observed data from the past 40 years or so.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
At the moment, (I mean the past 40 years or so) extra heat is going into the SH, presumably into the oceans, but it does not get any warmer there. It simply seems to travel to the NH where it does get warmer. Probably via currents and weather.
My data suggest that warming is due to, either
1) more intense heat from the sun
and/or
2) less clouds
and/or
3) less ozone
It seems to me the latter possibility is becoming the more critical option to look at.
Remember that that little layer of ozone upstairs cuts off almost 20% of all incoming (UV) sunlight. Water aborbs in the UV, and therefore a lot of it (the extra UV, or the more than normal UV) is converted to heat in the water.
Even with the reduction in Ozone, the amount of UV (which is vary small percentage of TSI anyway) reaching the surface is still very small. I suggest less clouds from ~1980-1998 as empirically measured by ISCCP and Palle et al’s Earthshine project are the more likely cause of the modern warming period, (and quite possibly the medieval warm period too).
Tallbloke says
Even with the reduction in Ozone, the amount of UV (which is very small percentage of TSI anyway) reaching the surface is still very small. I suggest less clouds from ~1980-1998 as empirically measured by ISCCP and Palle et alās Earthshine project are the more likely cause of the modern warming period, (and quite possibly the medieval warm period too).
Henry@Stephen Wilde & Tallbloke
Thanks for both your reactions and I am not saying you are both wrong neither are you both completely correct. I am thinking there could be a combination of factors of either more sunshine/less clouds/less ozone of which the latter is mostly ignored. If I get some time I will see if I can get some figures on the ozone.
Carefully check this graph/representation of a cloudless day here:
http://www.google.co.za/imgres?imgurl=http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page11.htm&h=965&w=963&sz=341&tbnid=I4bPEwmMiTNtKM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=90&zoom=1&docid=Y0dkNn0-Wh0hUM&sa=X&ei=OOtaT8WOK8LMhAeXx8yoBA&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBQ&dur=2256
Note how much UV (and what comes before UV?) is back radiated away from the atmosphere by the ozone? It is the white area on the left hand side between the red line and the red area. That is not a very small % of TSI. It looks to me like 15-20% of the sun’s irradiance. Remember also that it is the UV that first makes the ozone:
UV + O2 => 2O
2O +2O2 => 2O3
so less UV also makes less O3 and that may cause some shrinkage in that white area in my graph/representation quoted above. There is also some evidence of man’s involvement with the destruction of some of the ozone layer by fluor and chlorine containing compounds.
Paradoxically, perhaps to make it more difficult for us to determine what is the bigger factor,
it seems solar minimum causes less UV (Am I correct?)
as far as Palle et alās Earthshine is concerned, what year is their latest measurement? Is there anything done after 2007?
HenryP says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:40 am
Tallbloke says
Even with the reduction in Ozone, the amount of UV (which is very small percentage of TSI anyway) reaching the surface is still very small. I suggest less clouds from ~1980-1998 as empirically measured by ISCCP and Palle et alās Earthshine project are the more likely cause of the modern warming period, (and quite possibly the medieval warm period too).
Henry@Stephen Wilde & Tallbloke
Thanks for both your reactions and I am not saying you are both wrong neither are you both completely correct. I am thinking there could be a combination of factors of either more sunshine/less clouds/less ozone of which the latter is mostly ignored….
as far as Palle et alās Earthshine is concerned, what year is their latest measurement? Is there anything done after 2007?
___________________________________
Henry, I have looked and looked and have found nothing. Projects that are not consistent with CO2 => global warming, generally get killed and Earthshine was a government funded project.
I remembered that Sceptical science had an article showing that ozone had stopped declining only from 1995. But it seems when I now wanted to check that article again they have banned me from even coming on their website. Can you believe that? How did they know it was me?
(I remember after the last time I visited there they even did an article on “rogue scientists” like me).
This is the msg I got:
Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Access denied for user ‘skept’@’10.194.10.120’ (using password: YES) in /home/7-web/74/95/skepticalscience.com/public/www/stoof/database.php on line 844
Database error: Link-ID == false, connect failed
MySQL Error: 0 ()
Session halted.
Anyone else here who can try and find that article for me again?
Just copy it and paste it for me here.
Anyway,
A study by Yang says:
Multiple satellite and ground-based observations provide consistent evidence that the thickness of Earth’s protective ozone layer has stopped declining since 1997,
see
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006371.shtml
but if I remember the Scep.Science article correctly then the reported 1980 levels were much higher than today’s (by Yang:2005) level.
I am just remembering this argument,
that many sceptics have suspected lower ozone levels to be one of the (other) main causes of warming rather than CO2, whether man made or natural. It seems they (and me) could be right, at least partially. CO2 is not a factor and it has never been a factor, as evident from the pattern of the warming – maxima driving up means and minima. Clearly the main factors driving modern warming are 1) more intense sunshine, or 2) less clouds or 3) less ozone or 4) a combination of 2 or all 3 factors
Gail Combs says:
Henry, I have looked and looked and have found nothing. Projects that are not consistent with CO2 => global warming, generally get killed and Earthshine was a government funded project.
Henry@Gail
Thanks! I do appreciate! I did not think there was anything new. In fact, if you look at Hansen’s latest paper about some missing 0.5 W/m2 : he does not even include earth’s albedo as a factor to evaluate. Can you believe that?
David A says
To understand why the āteamā is so desparate to destroy the MWP is crucial to the debate.
————–
You are caught in a logical fallacy here. You are assuming the things you want to prove.
I assert that they are not desperate to destroy the MWP. I also assert that the evidence is mixed about the geographical extent of the MWP and the variation of it’s strength around the globe. It is a genuine scientific controversy that will be resolved by more evidence.
I am having trouble interpreting the graphs shown here, but considering the number of data points collected the evidence is weak.
I have also not noticed a comparison of measurements between the Arctic and Antarctic. This, in principle, would give some idea about how the strength of the MWP varied between hemispheres. But the technique is not a qualitative one, so no such comparisons are possible.
You have to remember that even the attribution of the MWP and the Little ice age are not settled.
LazyT,
Wrong again. The way you are so wrong so often is amazing. How do you do it?
The MWP was established, mainstream science [you would call it the consensus] until Michael Mann mendaciously tried to erase it along with the LIA. As we know, MBH98/99 were thoroughly debunked, but ever since, scientific know-nothings have been trying to claim the MWP was only regional, and that its existence is questionable. That is deliberate misinformation, as Dr. David Deming made clear in his report to Congress. Deming had no motive to lie, while Mann had a huge motive to lie.
Both hemispheres experienced the same warming and cooling phases at the same time, verifying that the MWP was global, as was the LIA. You may be able to get away with your nonsense on alarmist echo chamber blogs, but not here, where we have the facts.
There is still the idea very common in scietific circles that the two hemisheres are often out of phace (bipolar seesaw). I am not so certain. I believe that another important, though far older interval, the Younger Dryas may well have displayed a similar pattern as the Little Ice Age and also the Medieval Warm Period. The problem is of course that the Antarctic proxy (up until now at least has been based primarily upon very low resolution ice cores. These cores are not relaible in depicting relatively short-term climate periods.
henry@mysteryseeker
Please note the difference between the NH and the SH when evaluating modern warming:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Yes, Henry there may well be times when the so called “bipolar seesaw” is operative, Where at least the Antarctic is warmer than perhaps all areas to the north of the ice continent (and vice versa).
It seems likely that the two hemispheres are always out of phase:
The AGW proponents contradict themselves in seeking a ‘global’ MWP signal, when most of their evidence of older ‘global’ temperatures comes from a very few, mainly northern hemisphere (NH) temperature proxies.
The few available SH proxies ALL show an MWP signal, just not completely ‘in phase’ with the NH signals.
And, that may be perfectly normal.
LazyTeenager :March 24, 2012 at 6:11 pm
said: “… I also assert that the evidence is mixed about the geographical extent of the MWP and the variation of its strength around the globe. It is a genuine scientific controversy that will be resolved by more evidence. …”
Here we are finally in some agreement.
We don’t really understand what is happening, or what has happened. We’d be very wise to hasten slowly and understand this science before leaping in with the world economy in tow, with the only certain result being a very small minority will become a lot richer and more powerful.
Observe, record, and hasten slowly, the science is NOT settled.
Given what we know about trade wind effects on warming and cooling large pools of water, it makes sense that regional trends during the periods under consideration (MWP and the little ice age) would be correlated to the movement of warmed or cooled waters along the paths the currents take them to.
Bottom line, the biggest conveyors of land warmth and cold would be ocean currents bringing those conditions to regional areas. It makes perfect sense then to study the archeological ocean and seashore environment (shells, crystals, etc) for proxy measures of warmth and cold and leave land based tree rings to professional foresters.
How quick does it get how cold?
Greg House says:
March 22, 2012 at 11:08 pm
….. Yeah, very optimistic. Global cooling can also be attributed to the human activities and we will have the same game again.
____________________________________
Unfortunately you are correct that is why it changed from “Global Cooling” (1970’s) to “Global Warming” (1980’s) and is now called “Climate Change” They finally got the propaganda slogan correct. Now ANY change in weather is mankind’s fault.
To Unattorney: That depends upon tne mechanism (or trigger) that caused the cold interval. If we assume a cosmic forcing, as I do with the Younger Dryas and many other cold intervals since (perhaps including the Little Ice Age), we might be talking about as little time as a year or less.
HenryP says:
March 23, 2012 at 4:40 am
….Henry@Stephen Wilde & Tallbloke
Thanks for both your reactions and I am not saying you are both wrong neither are you both completely correct. I am thinking there could be a combination of factors of either more sunshine/less clouds/less ozone….
_____________________________________
Do not forget vukcevic’s work on Magnetism. That could have an effect on ozone.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/vukcevic-correlation-mag-fields-and-arctic-temps/
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/m-a-vukcevic-earthquakes-and-geomagnetic-storms/
Stalactites! About 2 years ago there were two papers that came out several months apart. One was on stalactites in a cave in NZ and the other on a similar analysis from a cave in China. Both papers concluded that the LIA and MWP were evidenced in the stalactites and that both periods were world wide in nature. I can’t find my links to these two papers. Appears they were quickly hushed in the “peer reviewed” circles but they are another nail in the coffin for Mann’s Hockey Stick and the various IPCC AR’s.
Bill Yarber
Unattorney says:
March 27, 2012 at 8:32 am
How quick does it get how cold?
________________________________________________
Depends on the input. usually years.
āTiming of Major Climate Terminationsā, M.E. Raymo, Paleoceanography, 1997
Also of interest:
NOAA: Northern Hemisphere forcing of climatic cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years Nature Vol. 448, Number 7156, pp. 912-917, 23 August 2007. doi:10.1038/nature06015.
LuboÅ” Motl over at the Reference Frame reports on a new modification to the Milankovitch theroy: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html
In defense of Milankovitch, Geophysical Research Letters , Vol. 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817, 2006 (full text PDF) http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/MilanDefense_GRL.pdf
Gail Combs says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/more-evidence-the-medieval-warm-period-was-global/#comment-936525
Henry@Gail
Hi Gail, I am not saying you are wrong, I just did not make the connection that you saw, at all.
He is talking about the arctic getting warmer when compared with certain magnetic activity from the sun. I am seeing from my own data sets that currently (i.e. the last 4 decades) more energy is going in the SH but it does not stay there. The extra warmth moves by currents and weather to the NH where it is getting warmer, including the arctic, where most of the condensation and subsequent release of energy takes place. Have you evcer have seen a place like Norway cloudless? I feel sorry for the people living there.
There is a possibilty that magnetic flux can influence the movements of clouds because if there is no wind they would be inclined to move wherever the magnetic flux moves them. (In Dutch they call the Pacific the “Stille” Oceaan, the quiet ocean). I know from my own analysis of rain water that rain does contain iron. If somehow this magnetic flux has an influence on the the clouds to move them more towards the poles rather than towards the equator, then you do have a form of natural warming, as Stephen proposes. Namely at the equator the W/M2 from the sun is 684, double that of the average on earth, becoming less so towards the poles.
So I see a connection with the magnetic forces of earth competing with that of the sun as having an influence on cloud movement, and therefore also on warming, but not with the presence of ozone. Ozone is a different story altogether. Ozone is formed by UV and unfortunately, I think man may have had a destructive influence on the ozone layer in the past, especially in the SH, which could account for some portion of modern warming.
All of you appear to be assuming the oceans are invloved in climate changes that we are talking about here, that may well be the case in some situations. However, there are times, and the Little Ice Age may have been one, as was almost certainly the Younger Dryas, when cold onset may have been in a matter of months. This assumes that a cosmic link is involved. See my website and book if you are interested. http//www.bcclmate.com
HenryP Is this the article that you were after?
It’s ozone
Link to this page
The skeptic argument…
It’s ozone
The Ozone Layer stops UV radiation from entering our atmosphere. As the ozone layer has been declining in recent decades, that may be causing global warming.
What the science says…
Multiple satellite measurements and ground-based observations have determined the ozone layer has stopped declining since 1995 while temperature trends continue upwards.
Multiple satellite measurements and ground-based observations have determined the ozone layer has stopped declining since 1995 (Yang 2005) while temperature trends continue upwards.
Figure 1: Antarctic ozone minimum (Atmoz).
Last updated on 26 June 2010 by John Cook.
Printable Version | Link to this page
Comments
Comments 1 to 12:
GMB at 09:43 AM on 6 January, 2008
This is another case of folks expecting everything to be simultaneous. Since temperature is a reflection primarily of ACCUMULATED joules in the oceans and planet, leading to a buildup of water vapour in the air, there is no reason to ever suspect that the peak of anything else would match to the hour the peak of temperature.
Ozone is thought to be a strong greenhouse gas. But thats far less relevant then its blocking potential for UV since that affects joules punched directly into the oceans.
So if industrial chemicals were destroying ozone there is the very real potential for less ozone to account for part of the alleged 1978-2000 divergence between solar irradiation trends and global temperatures.
Mizimi at 04:57 AM on 29 August, 2008
A decline in ozone levels has a direct effect on the removal mechanism of methane from the atmosphere.
Ozone is split by UV and the O atom combines with H to form hydroxyl radical OH. Methane reacts with the hydroxyl radical producing a methyl radical which bonds with another hydroxyl radical to produce formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde reacts with hydroxyl radicals forming carbon dioxide and water vapor.
You could summarise the reactions into:
(3)CH4 + (4)O3 = (3)CO2 + (6)H2O
Oxidation of methane is the main source of water vapor in the upper stratosphere
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 21:43 PM on 2 December, 2008
āwhile temperature trends continue upwardsā – I donāt see it. And I looking in: the 1996-2008 period ( see for example http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/to-tell-the-truth-will-the-real-global-average-temperature-trend-please-rise-part1/)) GISS , HadCRUT, UAH_MSU and RSS_MSU – cumulative seasonal differences temperature. The trends is reverse, not upwards, but same decreased or = 0, Ā± as exactly the ozone trend.
All arguments for āIt’s the ozoneā¦ā are on: http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm. About UV radiation on the Earth surface, decide a ozone concentration with lover stratosphere, so temperature in this layer (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/1385.jpg – itās same different than above-mentioned Figure).
Henry Pool at 02:30 AM on 12 November, 2009
Nice. I asked everyone to give me the latest ozone graph and nobody says anything. Then I find it here on same site!
Did you notice the upward trend since 1998? We or on the road back up the hill – but true – it is going slowly.Unfortunately the damage done by the CFC’s must not be underestimated. But we are going up. I am confident that this will result in more of the sun’s radiation being blocked. The CO2 going up will also help!~
jenikhollan at 06:03 AM on 22 May, 2010
The second link (to science.nasa) for the quoted JGR paper works no more, its abstract is here. A fully accessible link to the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006 might replace it – or directly its Questions and Answers (2 MB).
Re#3: For rising temperatures see e.g. here.
Response: I’ve updated the broken link, thanks for the heads up.
Shibui at 13:50 PM on 4 October, 2011
I wonder how the above chart explains the current ozone hole in the arctic …
Response:
[DB] Actually, the chart does nothing to explain Arctic ozone holes, as the chart above deals with the Antarctic. š
The Arctic ozone hole that formed this winter (2010/2011) was primarily due to prolonged cold in the stratosphere during the long Arctic winter:
“at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss”
This NOAA page does an excellent job differentiating between the Antarctic and Arctic ozone depletions.
Note that stratospheric cooling is an expected effect of AGW…
Shibui at 23:01 PM on 4 October, 2011
OK – so it’s the cold rather than a drop in CFCs?
Or, maybe it’s due to the cold, period(?).
IanC at 23:55 PM on 4 October, 2011
Shibui,
The ozone hole is a result of both the cold and CFCs.
The abnormally cold stratosphere allows the formation of clouds, which serves as a catalyst for the destruction of ozone. The reaction also requires chlorine, which is supplied by CFCs.
Shibui at 13:20 PM on 5 October, 2011
Ian,
Thank you.
The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area …
KR at 14:34 PM on 5 October, 2011
Shibui – Note that a cooling stratosphere is one of the fingerprints of greenhouse gas increases. The troposphere warms, the stratosphere cools, as heat is increasingly kept lower in the atmosphere.
A cooling stratosphere is entirely expected given current forcings.
Shibui at 16:43 PM on 5 October, 2011
KR – Yes. Science of Doom concurs, but only just :)…
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/18/stratospheric-cooling/
IanC at 01:33 AM on 6 October, 2011
Shibui,
The reason for the colder stratosphere is a somewhat grey area …
The abnormally cold arctic stratosphere this spring is attributed to a lack of polar vortex disruption (which is turn is a result of weak planetary waves). The strong vortex keeps the arctic stratospheric air isolated, allowing it to cool sufficiently to form clouds.
As the stratosphere continues to cool due to an increase in green house gas, it’ll be interesting to see if this occurs more frequently.
Post a Comment
Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy…
You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you’re new, register here.
Link to this page
THE ESCALATOR
(free to republish)
THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK
BOOK NOW AVAILABLE
The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism
Ā© Copyright 2012 John Cook
[Moderator’s Note: Could you please next time just supply the URL rather than reproducing a thread that could haven linked to? Thanks. -REP]
Henry@ntesdorf
yes this was what I was looking for but I still don’t get or see that graph (of the ozone concentration on the y and time on the x) that was at the beginning
I will try and google it when I get some time.
When the skeptics get all the proxy data together, account for timings in the regional warming/cooling episodes, and show a global anomaly map for the medieval warm period that is based on all the data, not just the data that supports the preferred contention, then maybe there will be something worth paying attention to.
Making noise about what Michael Mann did or didn’t do just won’t be as effective as doing some hard work, crunching a hell of a lot of data, and showing the honest results. Until then, sure, I can find you a bunch of papers showing a warming period in some regions at any time during, as well as just before or after, the MWP. I can also find papers showing cool periods around then in other regions. But none of that means squat until someone puts it all together. Nope, it’s not going to be me, so I guess I have the right, along with every other armchair critic here, to pontificate and practise my put-downs. I could go and acquaint myself with all the papers written on millennial reconstructions, and get a good overview, but that might interfere with my predilections, so, better not.
I do appreciate the hard-nosed skepticism displayed round these parts.
[Your appreciation is . . appreciated. . . kbmod]
“….Several media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study āthrows doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,ā completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend….ā
Zunli Lu – Author of the paper in question
mandas,
What’s your point? That the author is now tap dancing? No doubt he was given a talking to. But nowhere does the author deny that the MWP was global.
The comment: “Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trendā¦.ā is a non sequitur and thus can be discarded as grantsmanship. And the real “orthodoxy” is that the MWP was global in extent. This new proxy adds to the extensive mountain of evidence that already exists.
From the Abstract: This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
Michael Mann is the reason people still try to erase the MWP, or call it an “anomaly”, and claim it was regional, not global. This paper is more strong evidence that the MWP was a global event.
Also, MBH98, MBH99 and Mann08 have all been falsified. Mann was caught using an extremely cherry-picked proxy, while hiding a much larger proxy in an ftp file labeled “censored” that showed exactly the opposite result. In Mann08 he used the known corrupted Tiljander proxy. And of course he hid the decline in temperature.
None of Mann’s work has stood up to scrutiny. He hides his data, methods, metadata and methodologies. There is no transparency in his work, therefore those who accept his conclusions are basing their beliefs on what amounts to religious faith.
Did you see this?
http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html
I don’t know what the argument is about. Modern warming (of the past 4 decades) is also not global. On the SH, including Antarctica, there has been no warming in the past 40 years. Zilth. Zero. My estimate after looking at 12 SH weather stations is 0.000 degrees C per annum.
But maxima in the SH were higher than those in the NH………
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Smokey
What are you talking about? What has Mann got to do with this discussion?
This is really, really simple. This thread is entitled “More Evidence the MWP was Global”, and cites Dr Lu’s study as evidence. Yet Dr Lu has come out and said unequivocably that his study does NOT say that and that it CANNOT be used as evidence to claim that.
How much clearer can it get for you?
mandas,
Apparently you’re not up to speed on the MWP/LIA issue; and Michael Mann has everything to do with this discussion. The MWP would not even be questioned if it were not for Mann’s dishonest attempt to erase the LIA and the MWP.
Dr. Lu’s statement is flatly contradicted by his own Abstract: “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” <— That is ‘more evidence’ that the MWP was global, and that is what the headline is referring to. Lu is just tap dancing now because someone gave him a talking to. Otherwise he would not be in the uncomfortable position of contradicting his own words.
How much “more clearer” can it get for you?
Unattorney says:
March 27, 2012 at 8:32 am
“How quick does it get how cold?”
Half a K in a decade seems to be the usual rate.
Anthony, you are wrong. You have turned the world on its head. The botch was that this has been allowed to be played as though it in any way proved what you maintain it does, not that Syracuse ‘graciously’ acknowledges failing to sufficiently spell-out what should be iron-clad support for your position!
This looking-glass world stuff simply will not do. Already we see that in response to the lead author exasperatedly pointing out that your spin on the paper is just that – pure spin – the locals are coming up with compounding nonsense, such as –
Yep, it’s up to the authors to fireproof everything they write in such a way as it cannot possibly be misinterpreted by those with an agenda. It is also up to the authors to prove that your interpretation is not, in fact, the correct one! Also, the author has so little integrity that he’s now ‘tap dancing’ after a ‘talking to’. Probably Mike Mann is responsible! I notice that this outrageous little aspersion is still lying here quite unmolested…
In the circumstances this is grotesque! She needs to be gracious to you?
Here’s Judy Homes correction. Firstly, the paper doesn’t say what you said it said, and any correction that is required from Syracuse is only to correct any wording that allowed for the propagation of misinformation – i.e. almost all of the above.
The concerning thing is that this was all obvious to anyone who actually read the original Syracuse press release with an intent to understand what the paper actually said.
As you can see the ‘authors themselves’ have indeed ‘liberated’ crucial information on this matter – and it says the exact opposite of what you imply!
So, where is it? Where’s the update? If the major point is the science then you’ll correct the record, surely? You’ll certainly include Zunli Lu’s own response to your ‘interpretation’, I hope. Where is this correction?
No, instead we get ‘Yes, I know, I covered it first: The Medieval Warm Period was Global’.
You’re choosing to play the same game as the Daily Mail.
REPLY: I never take complaints from anonymous cowards with āgreenā in the email seriously, yours even less so.
The correction they make says:
I made no claims of āglobal warming is a mythā. I did say āMore evidence the Medieval Warm Period was globalā and I stand by that. Further, I was in contact with the Syracuse press agent Judy Holmes, and she read my article within minutes of publication and made no request for corrections then or now. It stays as is. Be as upset as you wish.
– Anthony
‘Anonymous cowards’?
Charming.
Like ‘Smokey’, ‘ntesdorf’, ‘mysteryseeker’, ‘pat’, ‘sean 2829’?
It’s a profile. Funny way to react to it.
Getting back to the point;
The Syracuse response press release, which you’ve culled part of above, initially says
Syracuse Press Agent Judy Holmes is just that; a Press Agent. Anyone who’s worked with them knows they – unsurprisingly – don’t have full command of your area of expertise, they just frame it for the public. Such a ‘review’ of your piece is scarcely crucial.
No – the opinion that counts is the author’s.
So why is the response from the author himself not included as an update in the main body of either of your articles on this subject? Especially as its clear you’re effectively going to go on the record as claiming that your interpretation is more correct than his own?
Here’s what he says, and you still have not published:
And I suggest you contend with the argument – inassailable, surely? – that this is the least you owe the author, rather than venting at me for putting a clearly discomfiting point to you.
REPLY: I’m not discomfited, but quite amused. The headline is accurate and stays. Syracuse is well aware and was within minutes, and has no issues with it. Again, with my sincere blessings, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
billzog,
Give it up, you’re not making a good case. Lu says: “Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.ā Being that there is no testable, falsifiable evidence showing an ‘anthropogenic’ warming trend, that comment was undoubtedly added because Lu was given a talking to. If not, why is he throwing that conjecture in? You are naive if you believe the grant-motivated climate clique doesn’t try to keep everyone on the CAGW reservation. The Climategate emails are full of examples.
Once more: the headline is not Lu’s. It is the article’s title. This article shows that knowledge of the MWP and LIA has been increased by this strong new evidence showing that those events were global in extent. It extends that knowledge, as Lu’s Abstract asserts. And the Syracuse article says nothing of value. Lu is just backing and filling when he says: “Other statements, such as the study ‘throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,’ completely misrepresent our conclusions.” They may misrepresent Lu’s own conclusions, but IIRC, no one ever said those were Lu’s words. But to reasonable people that is certainly a logical conclusion, since it provides more solid evidence of a global MWP.
Like Lu, you don’t appear to be up to speed on the rising long term temperature trend line since the LIA. That trend has remained within the same parameters whether CO2 was 280 ppm, or 390 ppm. The rising CO2 concentration has not caused the temperature trend line to accelerate — a required event, if the CO2=AGW conjecture was correct. CO2 may cause some minuscule warming, but it is too small to measure. The temperature record proves it.
So Lu is just throwing a sop to his handlers when he parrots the “well-established anthropogenic warming trend.” There is no testable, verifiable “anthropogenic” trend observed in the temperature record.
Finally, I am not anonymous to Anthony, who is the one that counts. I am only anonymous to you. If you have something substantive to say, I’m all ears. And I should point out that I’ve deconstructed both your points and Dr. Lu’s. And as Anthony points out, the headline is absolutely correct. You’re just trying to frame the argument your way, by implying that the headline is what Lu said. It isn’t. There is no other way to interpret Lu’s evidence than to show that the MWP extended even farther south.
Actually ‘Smokey’ you’re exactly what Anthony defines as an ‘anonymous coward’.
Oh really, “”Phil.””??
As I pointed out, Anthony knows me personally. He knows my name, my home address, my email address, and my phone number. We have met several times.
But what about you, you anonymous coward? Who is “Phil.”? You slink away whenever I catch you making a blunder, then you tiptoe back after a few days as if nothing happened. You are no smarter than the average WUWT commentator, and you certainly trail far behind the best.
So no, I am not what Anthony defines as an ‘anonymous coward.’ I am not anonymous to him, and that is what matters. As far as you are concerned, you can make your impotent guesses regarding my identity. Good luck with that, coward.
“Phil.” personally fits the description of “anonymous coward”. So run along now to your thinly trafficked echo chamber blog, “Phil.” We don’t need prevaricators like you projecting your own personal faults onto others.
Phil. says:
March 30, 2012 at 7:21 am
Actually āSmokeyā youāre exactly what Anthony defines as an āanonymous cowardā.
Actually, Phil, I don’t think Anthony has ever presented us with his definition of an anonymous coward. Care to enlighten us on where you found that info, or are you merely projecting?
Phil. says:
Actually āSmokeyā youāre exactly what Anthony defines as an āanonymous cowardā
Henry@Phil.
I see Smokey already reacted to your remark, Phil.
But I had my mind already set on making this point:
you Phil. surely are the pot, calling the kettle black.
Having learned about your “scientific” arguments in the past, to be quite honest with you, I think you are a tireless old twit who taught your students wrongly that man causes global warming, when clearly all the evidence available to me now points to natural causes, and now you desperately want to hold on to your beliefs, just because you cannot admit to yourself and the world that you were wrong….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
You might want to think about your life (of which there might not be much left) before you continue on your road of lies. Perhaps today is your day. This is your day on the road to Damascus. There is still time. Mercyfully.
\Appropriately, at this time of the year (Easter), it is always good to go back to what Jesus said when He was asked by Pilate (just before His death) : What is truth? To find out, exactly what is truth, I recommend you read the whole discussion that Pilate had with Jesus.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/what-was-that-what-henry-said-3
Anthony Watts says “More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global”
The author of the paper says “The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe”
These do not seem to be compatible statements. Who is most likely to be correct?
REPLY: Apparently Louise puts more stock in the back-tracking due all the alarmists freaking out and putting pressure on the authors than the original words, for your much needed enlightenment, hereās the authors own words from their paper:
The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain
the ages of these climatic oscillations in the Southern
hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere,
but our ikaite record builds the case that the oscillations of the
MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as
far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in the AP region
have had mixed results.
– Anthony
Bill Tuttle says:
March 30, 2012 at 8:33 am
Phil. says:
March 30, 2012 at 7:21 am
“Actually āSmokeyā youāre exactly what Anthony defines as an āanonymous cowardā.”
Actually, Phil, I donāt think Anthony has ever presented us with his definition of an anonymous coward. Care to enlighten us on where you found that info, or are you merely projecting?
Anthony has called me an ‘anonymous coward’, for ‘not having the courage’ to post here under my name. The same description fits ‘Smokey’.
Louise,
Both statements are 100% compatible. Dr. Lu is simply defining the limits of his paper. He is not saying the MWP and LIA were not global events. But his study does in fact increase our knowledge, and the great preponderance of the evidence from both hemispheres points to a global MWP and LIA.
Smokey says:
March 30, 2012 at 7:58 am
Oh really, āāPhil.ā”??
As I pointed out, Anthony knows me personally. He knows my name, my home address, my email address, and my phone number. We have met several times.
But what about you, you anonymous coward? Who is āPhil.ā?
Anthony knows who I am, that is not the point, just as it doesn’t matter that he knows you. You are still unafraid to use your own name when attacking others, even using a pseudonym which I don’t do. Anthony has described that behavior as cowardly.
You slink away whenever I catch you making a blunder, then you tiptoe back after a few days as if nothing happened.
In your dreams, I ignore most of your rants since they contribute little to the discussion and are usually wrong.
So no, I am not what Anthony defines as an āanonymous coward.ā I am not anonymous to him, and that is what matters.
As explained above you are, Anthony knows who I am too and that is clearly not ‘what matters’. I noticed you had the nerve a few days ago to demand another poster’s CV to prove his scientific credentials, from someone who hides behind a pseudonym (he appeared to be using a real name) that’s rich!
As far as you are concerned, you can make your impotent guesses regarding my identity. Good luck with that, coward.
I’m not in the slightest bit interested in your identity and have made no attempts at guessing it. It has been obvious for some time that you have a privileged status as far as Anthony is concerned though.
āPhil.ā personally fits the description of āanonymous cowardā. So run along now to your thinly trafficked echo chamber blog, āPhil.ā
I don’t have a blog, ‘thinly trafficked’ or otherwise.
[Moderator’s Note: This has gone on long enough. Some people do have valid reasons for using a pseudonym and Smokey is one of them. Drop the bickering and engage substantively. -REP]
Both Phil and Smokey can take a time out until next Monday. I’m tired of all of the pathetic whining on both sides. Phil this will be your fourth time out. Smokey’s second. I do expect more from Phil though as he is a university professor. Clearly he has issues too.
Thanks Anthony for the time out. I wanted to make a comment on something raised a couple of times here at this site, and that is how quicky a cold interval can take hold. This may apply to many cold intervals over the past 10,000 + years (the Holocence). Certainly the interesting cold interval just prior to the Holocene, the Younger Dryas, I believe started extremely quickly, perhaps in only a matter of months. This may even apply to the Little Ice Age, though the severity was not nearly as intense as during the Younger Dryas.
henry@mysteryseeker
you may want to carefully examine these graphs as shown in the link below. I remember that at the time after I had finished studying them, I became completely sceptical of global warming as such being caused by man. Remember that I warned you!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data
all that remained for me to do was just to prove it for myself that it was indeed mostly natural:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Remember: it is the snow falling on land or on ice that forms the basis for the ice age trap: more snowcover means more sunlight deflected and less heat absorbed by earth. That can happen fast, especially if there is no one around to prevent this from happening. Certainly it can happen in months, if there one year there is “no summer”. Perhaps it is mans’ removal of snow that may well contribute to some “global warming” that btw is not global. Namely, on the other hand, it appears more greening traps more heat.
Based on the historical records, we are overdue for an ice age. However, I doubt that we need to be alarmed about this. I am thinking that if people see too much snow heaping up around them, they will do something about it to try and melt it down. We could also try and cover the extra snow with carbon dust to prevent an onset of an ice age. God is good! He meticulously made earth to be at the exact right temperature for life to exist and develop and then He gave us the ability and means to stop earth from falling back into an ice age again…..
Dr. Lu:
“We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe.”
What he states IN the abstract AND in his response is 100% correct. His study shows that Antarctica was PART of the MWP. Another proxy study among the 100’s of proxy studies that show the MWP was most certainly global.
Why is that so hard for folks to agree on?
New temperature data with an annual resolution taken from ice cores in Greenland show that the current warmth of the Greenland area is cold compared to the temps of the MWP. Approx 2.5-3.0C cooler at present.
The Greenland temp proxy record shows that temps in that area were most deffff warmer than present. No big deal…..history. Now lets’ get a new proxy temp record that uses ALL of the new proxies, AND the Sargasso Sea data to show past temperature records. AS of right now, any previous publications are so out of date that they are useless.
In response to Henry P’s comment. I too have become very leary of all the claims as to man caused global temperature rise. I think the graphs that you refer to in your link are very interesting, in that they show just how statistics (in this graphs) can be made to reinforce almost any premise a researcher wishes.
Mann erases the MWP renames it MCA:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf
Note with only 6 temperature proxies in the southern hemisphere, at least 4 of which show warming, Mann shows the vast majority of the SH as having cooled (fig 2)
Yes, by modelling.
Henry@mysteryseeker
You might find this very interesting….
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
…….
let me know what you think.
(don’t ask me how many evenings work that was…..)
It is also interesting that MWP, LIA and modern warming correlate much better with sunspot activity than with CO2 levels.
Charles Russell