From the University of Arizona, one wonders how such a thing could happen when CO2 was at “safe” levels. They are using bristlecone pines again, which may very well be a better proxy for rainfall than for temperature. At least there was no competition bias from sheep ranching then. It seems they also confirmed a drought in the medieval warm period in the 12th century.
UA scientists find evidence of Roman period megadrought
A new study at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research has revealed a previously unknown multi-decade drought period in the second century A.D.
IMAGE: Dendrochronologists extract a small, pencil-shaped sample of wood from a tree with a tool called an increment borer. The tiny hole left in the tree’s trunk quickly heals as the…Click here for more information.
Almost nine hundred years ago, in the mid-12th century, the southwestern U.S. was in the middle of a multi-decade megadrought. It was the most recent extended period of severe drought known for this region. But it was not the first.
The second century A.D. saw an extended dry period of more than 100 years characterized by a multi-decade drought lasting nearly 50 years, says a new study from scientists at the University of Arizona.
UA geoscientists Cody Routson, Connie Woodhouse and Jonathan Overpeck conducted a study of the southern San Juan Mountains in south-central Colorado. The region serves as a primary drainage site for the Rio Grande and San Juan rivers.
“These mountains are very important for both the San Juan River and the Rio Grande River,” said Routson, a doctoral candidate in the environmental studies laboratory of the UA’s department of geosciences and the primary author of the study, which is upcoming in Geophysical Research Letters.
The San Juan River is a tributary for the Colorado River, meaning any climate changes that affect the San Juan drainage also likely would affect the Colorado River and its watershed. Said Routson: “We wanted to develop as long a record as possible for that region.”
Dendrochronology is a precise science of using annual growth rings of trees to understand climate in the past. Because trees add a normally clearly defined growth ring around their trunk each year, counting the rings backwards from a tree’s bark allows scientists to determine not only the age of the tree, but which years were good for growth and which years were more difficult.
IMAGE: A cross section of wood shows the annual growth rings trees add with each growing season. Dark bands of latewood form the boundary between each ring and the next. Counting…Click here for more information.
“If it’s a wet year, they grow a wide ring, and if it’s a dry year, they grow a narrow ring,” said Routson. “If you average that pattern across trees in a region you can develop a chronology that shows what years were drier or wetter for that particular region.”
Darker wood, referred to as latewood because it develops in the latter part of the year at the end of the growing season, forms a usually distinct boundary between one ring and the next. The latewood is darker because growth at the end of the growing season has slowed and the cells are more compact.
To develop their chronology, the researchers looked for indications of climate in the past in the growth rings of the oldest trees in the southern San Juan region. “We drove around and looked for old trees,” said Routson.
Literally nothing is older than a bristlecone pine tree: The oldest and longest-living species on the planet, these pine trees normally are found clinging to bare rocky landscapes of alpine or near-alpine mountain slopes. The trees, the oldest of which are more than 4,000 years old, are capable of withstanding extreme drought conditions.
“We did a lot of hiking and found a couple of sites of bristlecone pines, and one in particular that we honed in on,” said Routson.
To sample the trees without damaging them, the dendrochronologists used a tool like a metal screw that bores a tiny hole in the trunk of the tree and allows them to extract a sample, called a core. “We take a piece of wood about the size and shape of a pencil from the tree,” explained Routson.
“We also sampled dead wood that was lying about the land. We took our samples back to the lab where we used a visual, graphic technique to match where the annual growth patterns of the living trees overlap with the patterns in the dead wood. Once we have the pattern matched we measure the rings and average these values to generate a site chronology.”
“In our chronology for the south San Juan mountains we created a record that extends back 2,200 years,” said Routson. “It was pretty profound that we were able to get back that far.”
IMAGE: Doctoral candidate Cody Routson of the environmental studies laboratory at the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences scrambles up a mountain slope to sample a bristlecone pine tree. Click here for more information.
The chronology extends many years earlier than the medieval period, during which two major drought events in that region already were known from previous chronologies.
“The medieval period extends roughly from 800 to 1300 A.D.,” said Routson. “During that period there was a lot of evidence from previous studies for increased aridity, in particular two major droughts: one in the middle of the 12th century, and one at the end of the 13th century.”
“Very few records are long enough to assess the global conditions associated with these two periods of Southwestern aridity,” said Routson. “And the available records have uncertainties.”
But the chronology from the San Juan bristlecone pines showed something completely new:
“There was another period of increased aridity even earlier,” said Routson. “This new record shows that in addition to known droughts from the medieval period, there is also evidence for an earlier megadrought during the second century A.D.”
“What we can see from our record is that it was a period of basically 50 consecutive years of below-average growth,” said Routson. “And that’s within a much broader period that extends from around 124 A.D. to 210 A.D. – about a 100-year-long period of dry conditions.”
“We’re showing that there are multiple extreme drought events that happened during our past in this region,” said Routson. “These megadroughts lasted for decades, which is much longer than our current drought. And the climatic events behind these previous dry periods are really similar to what we’re experiencing today.”
The prolonged drought in the 12th century and the newly discovered event in the second century A.D. may both have been influenced by warmer-than-average Northern Hemisphere temperatures, Routson said: “The limited records indicate there may have been similar La Nina-like background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which are known to influence modern drought, during the two periods.”
Although natural climate variation has led to extended dry periods in the southwestern U.S. in the past, there is reason to believe that human-driven climate change will increase the frequency of extreme droughts in the future, said Routson. In other words, we should expect similar multi-decade droughts in a future predicted to be even warmer than the past.
###
Routson’s research is funded by fellowships from the National Science Foundation and the Science Foundation Arizona. His advisors, Woodhouse of the School of Geography and Development and Overpeck of the department of geosciences and co-director of the UA’s Institute of the Environment, are co-authors of the study.
I’m glad you’re not interested in the political angle (me neither), so let’s stick to the science. If you throw out every reconstruction that Mann was lead or co-author on, then still the weight of evidence from multiple millennial reconstructions supports the notion that the MWP was not globally synchronous, and that recent decades were probably warmer.than equivalent periods in the last couple of millennia. And that ‘fact’ is really not that important in the scheme of things. But some carry on as if the whole theory of AGW rests on how hot the MWP was.
If we’re going to stick with the science, then dropping Mann from the picture changes nothing. There’s not much daylight between MBH98 and 99 and the convergence of evidence in the literature. That is a fact, and it is about the science, not about who said what when, what it meant, who was right or wrong, or what graph was in the IPCC 10 years ago.
Mann is a bogeyman, where nitpicking 12 year-old studies that have long been superseded is elevated into a witch hunt of proportions only of interest to those with an axe to grind. I mean, suppose the whole world agrees MBH99 is flawed, Mann is a liar, and none of his work can be trusted. Does that mean we can focus on what the rest of the science says? If so, what do you imagine you will discover? Have you even tried reading the literature broadly (as opposed to, for example, trawling agenda-laden websites for their fave picks) to get a feel for what the general opinion is on millennial climate anomalies?
This brouhahaha over Mann seems to me like the biggest waste of passion ever. The best you can hope for is the dismantling of Mann’s reputation and career. What a shoddy objective. The science will remain the science, and the people trying to bring Mann down are completely disinterested in it. Like you, they won’t follow my links to lists of papers on millennial reconstructions because understanding the subject is not the point. Smashing Mann IS the point. And for you, being skeptical about what Steven McIntyre says isn’t even an option. It’s a matter of faith.
Me, I don’t know if Mann was deliberately deceptive. Seems unlikely. But I do know that it doesn’t matter a damn except in the fevered world of rabid loathing for the notion of AGW. What I do know is that Mann did not get rid of the MWP or LIA, and that Smokey’s chart completely undermines the point he’s trying to make while corroborating Mann’s (and the majority in paleoclimate) view of a MWP that was not synchronous. I can correct the obvious stuff. If you think you’re all over the nuances, more strength to you. I’ve read the reports, too and Steve Mc, and I still don’t think I’m qualified to judge. Your assertions do no more to persuade than the denser material I’ve read.
I’m not defending Mann. Screw him. I’m just trying to set the record straight where it’s obviously wrong.
Brian H says:
“Klewless. The null does not require a “mechanism”. It simply states that other unknown mechanisms are likely responsible for the warming. This has not only not been rejected, it is far and away more likely to be true than the AGW WAG.”
Broadly speaking, any null hypothesis is; “what we know is true.”, by definition it cannot contain unknowns because, if it could, it would be untestable, unfalsifiable, and you would be, in effect, arguing; “we can’t know anything unless we know everything.” As far as climate change is concerned, what we know about natural variability isn’t true, because it does not explain the recent warming, therefore an alternate hypothesis is required. Personally, I subscribe to AGW, but if you have a better theory, please enlighten me.
Kevin MacDonald still has no understanding of the null hypothesis. Here is the definition: The Null Hypothesis is the statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data.
I doubt that Mr MacDonald even understands what the definition is telling him. The climate null hypothesis is limited to historical evidence. If one or more of the parameters of the Holocene were exceeded, then the null hypothesis would be falsified. But that has not happened. As Dr Roy Spencer says, “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
The null hypothesis does not ‘explain’ anything. Its purpose is to show that there has been no change exceeding prior natural climate parameters, despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. If temperatures, or trends, or duration, etc. of the planet during the Holocene prior to the industrial revolution are exceeded, then the null is falsified. If not, then the alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture fails. And that is exactly the situation: CO2=CAGW fails because nothing unprecedented is occurring. The planet’s climate is well within the parameters of natural variability.
[BTW, AGW is not a “theory”; it is a conjecture because it is not testable, at least not currently. If AGW becomes testable and falsifiable per the scientific method, it will still not be a theory. But it will be elevated from conjecture to the status of hypothesis.]
What you said, Smokey.
In addition, what we “know” is that climate varied widely on its own long before AGW’s putative influence. That’s all the null needs to observe.
Trooly Klewless.
Barry:
One of the most irritating things in my universe is the “concern troll”, someone who claims to be on the side of truth, but when it comes down to it simply spends an awful lot of time with ever longer posts of fatuous irrationality designed to bore opponents into submission.
So here goes your arguments:
Start with a statement in which we can all agree, and then pour in rhetorical acid:
This is called the “begging the non sequitur wrapped in the red herring” argument. If I threw out every reconstruction that Mann was lead or co-author on, I’d still be left with a lot of reconstructions that used proxies of dubious relationship with temperature, a lot of which would use Mann’s PC1 as a proxy and even more that would use Mann’s own statistical techniques.
And they can produce whatever the “modeler” wants. Which means they can produce something entirely meaningless and it flies through the peer review process quicker than you can say “Nobel Peace Prize”
Whether or not the MWP was globally synchronous depends crucially on whether the proxies are measuring something that equates with “mean temperature” or “length of summer season” or “precipitation”.
Here’s the “begging the question”: science is not decided by weight of numbers, but by careful controlled experiment that reduces error and produces unimpeachable results. And that means that one well-done repeatable experiment trumps completely a million badly-done ones waved through the laughably fraud-prone peer review process.
So what is your argument? That the question has been decided? It ain’t so, bro. The convergence of evidence in the literature is an artifact of the collapse of the peer review system and the publication bias of sensational claim over cleverly argued rebuttal. The Climategate correspondance revealed it in clear detail – that a small coterie of activists can subvert an entire science and censor and bully all criticism into the bargain.
That’s right. Nitpicking to point out that the “Smoking Gun of Global Warming” was a shocking fake and the massive amounts of money corralled to alter the world’s economy on the basis of this evidence were and are thoroughly wasted. It’s a “witchhunt” to point this out.
What does the rest of the science say? We don’t know because of the gaming of the scientific publication and review system by the self-styled “Hockey Team”
See, Barry, in your purblind world of charge and counter-charge, facts are the first casualty. Its really about politics and prejudices and social contexts. Facts be damned.
I’ve seen really intelligent, clever people whose professional lives have been ruined by the Smashmouth politics of Left and Right that have arisen over issues as delicate as whether the Earth was really warmer or cooler 1000 years ago, but more importantly, whether the present warming period is “unprecedented”.
But what does that matter? Anyone who sides with a “consensus” is correct and anyone who examines that “consensus” is a Denier, a pursuer of a “witchhunt” and a co-conspiritor with unnamed people paid by fossil fuel companies to spread lies. This has become the Grand Narrative of our Times.
It matters that Mann is investigated, because history itself has been poisoned and perverted in the cause of “Yet Another Noble Cause”. It matters because history matters, because facts matter, because any decision built on lies will cause needless hardship for millions.
General opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. What I want is science done with the minimum of publicity-seeking and the maximum of attention to proper methodology and meaningful data.
Everyone has an agenda. You have one. I have one. Anthony has one. But the question of relative warmth 1000 years ago is not a litmus test of political views although there are quite few people who think it is.
Have I read the literature? Yes. Do I think that scientific facts should be decided by popularity? Absolutely not. Are all scientific papers equal? Hardly. Are scientific journals giving equal weight to criticism? Clearly not.
Nonsense. That’s the same rubbishy argument produced by David Appell – that “bring down Mann and the whole AGW edifice will come crashing down”.
The science will NOT remain the science, because science is always provisional and subject to audit, change and review. The idea that “the Science will remain the Science” is a clearly religious statement akin to Dogma.
I don’t have to believe or disbelieve Steve McIntyre. I’ve met him face-to-face three times and he has never asked me to believe in what he says. Steve deals in facts and statistical theory that underpin what science is all about – testable and repeatable models, data and experiments. There is a reason why Steve McIntyre is so feared – because he’s more clear-minded about what science is about than the Hockey Team will ever be.
Would it make a difference if Mann were found out as a charlatan? Maybe. But I doubt it would bring the whole edifice crashing down.
On the basis of what? Your gut feeling? The way the wind blows today? No-one that bald could tell a bald-faced lie? There are facts beyond dispute that show that Mann has repeatedly lied in scientific publications as well as to investigations setup at the behest of Congress. Unless you’re claiming he was mentally incapable of distinguishing right from wrong then you’re simply blowing too hard.
I don’t have to “believe” in global warming one way or another to grasp those facts. For you, its all visceral, all emotional, all intestinal. But guess what? There are no brains located there.
…and its back to political viewpoints trumping facts. “Fevered loathing” is in the eye of the beholder and is common in the fact-free American Smashmouth political dialogue that passes for debate.
“Is Joe Romm producing more fevered loathing than Mark Morano? Al Gore more than Rush Limbaugh? Liberals call 1-800-WE-H8T-REPUBS and Conservatives call 1-800-WE-H8T-LIBRALS and have your say! Calls cost $1 per minute and lines are open right now!!!!”
If you think about it, seasonal warmth and cold are not hemispherically synchronous if you use proxies for precipitation, or heat, or growing season, or sea-ice coverage. I don’t expect the answer to be as simple as reading a thermometer.
But I do know that large numbers of the people who claim that what they have done is meaningful or massively accurate as thermometers are either deluded or liars based on the evidence presented.
How can you be possibly not defending Mann if you haven’t found anything wrong with what he’s done and spend so much time and effort to tell us how mistaken we are about him?
Perish the thought.
Smokey says:
“If one or more of the parameters of the Holocene were exceeded, then the null hypothesis would be falsified.”
Brian H says:
November 7, 2011 at 10:57 p
“What you said, Smokey.”
Global temperatures are likely warmer now that at any other time during the Holocene.
Kevin MacDonald, please don’t post bogus charts like that.
We can see that the MWP was warmer in the larger chart you posted. So to make current temperatures appear warmer, your small inset chart shows massive warming since 2004. But that has not happened. Temperatures have been flat to declining for the past fourteen years. Over the past two years temperatures have been falling.
Also, the evidence clearly shows that there were even warmer periods prior to the MWP; another confirmation of the null hypothesis.
The fact that curent temperatures are extremely mild deconstructs the wild-eyed beliefs of the alarmist crowd. There simply isn’t anything to be alarmed about.
CO2 is a harmless and beneficial tiny trace gas. More CO2 is better. What is really scary is the possibility of glaciation resuming. If that happens, worldwide starvation will be widespread and commonplace. You’re worrying about exactly the wrong thing. Warmer is better. Cold kills!
How can Smokey say anything definitive about global warming, which has everything to do with chemistry. Let me quote an earlier post of his:
”
RB says:
“Just because one time in the whole post i omitted dioxide by accident, doesn’t mean I don’t know what an element or a molecule is.”
Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺
”
And before you all start pulling out your dictionaries (or in the case of Smokey, Wikipedia), let me tell you what a compound REALLY is:
A compound is at least two different elements. A molecule is just two or more atoms. All compounds are molecules but not all molecules are compounds, for example: H2, Cl2, O2, etc. It’s not wrong to call CO2 a compound, but its definitely wrong to say it isn’t a molecule.
He disappeared from another thread after I refused to be deflected from this point 🙂
^this was after he tried to strawman me on a typo LOL (I talked about carbon dioxide about twenty times in the post, and one was missing the “dioxide” on the end). He proceeded to completely ignore everything else and attack that haha
Robert Bertino,
Please list your “twenty times’ in your comments. The fact is that your hair-splitting is simply obfuscation. Read all the other comments here that deconstruct your wild-eyed alarmism. They are right. Where does that leave you?
Let’s get back to the point: the MWP was warmer than today. And prior warmings were even warmer than the MWP – thus deconstructing your CAGW fantasy. Your CO2=CAGW argument thus fails; scientific skeptics have won the debate. Deal with it.
^ even now, you still deflect my point. Answer this VERY simple question. How can you claim to have the expertise and scientific know-how to make judgments about Global Warming, which is a chemical and physical process, if you don’t even know what a molecule is? What’s worse was the fact that you not only spoke with authority when you said that, you insulted me for not knowing my chemistry (when you didn’t have any ground to stand on). It’s a fair question, and I would like to see it answered.
and the post in question:
”
“Warming of ocean waters takes place at the surface in the sunlight, so a little bit of the CO2 is released at first from the water. However, the water isn’t as cool as it once was, so when it reaches high latitudes, it takes up less CO2 than normal and it does not sink as deeply. Because of this disruption in the ocean currents, the deep cold water doesn’t participate as much in vertical circulation and tends to stagnate. Life on the sea floor (and organic matter falling from above) produces more CO2 through cellular respiration, but since oxygen is no longer being delivered as adequately, we have anaerobic respiration where nitrate is used by bacteria as a source of oxygen instead. During this process, nitrous oxide and molecular nitrogen are made. What happens in the end: because the oceans have warmed and currents have slowed down, we have effectively created a vast ocean reservoir rich in CO2 but poor in nutrients. When this water returns to the surface, it will now bring CO2 back into the atmosphere, unable to recapture it through photosynthesis, due to a lack of nutrients.
^This process contributes to the “pulsed” nature of CO2 rise during de-glacialation, as we have seen in the ice cores. Additionally, we can easily see how this cycle would result in a positive feedback loop in regards to rising average temperatures.”
”
You can notice how at the end i talk about the pulsed nature of CO2. Then in another post (the one you attack me for, I say:
“And btw, If you read my post fully, you would notice that I talked about carbon’s “pulsed nature”.”
then you: “Carbon”?? As in CO2, a trace gas? FYI: carbon is an element.”
There you go. An 8 year old could see that was a typo.
Smokey says:
“We can see that the MWP was warmer in the larger chart you posted.”
No you can’t, no reconstruction show a MWP globally warmer than now.
Smokey says:
“So to make current temperatures appear warmer, your small inset chart shows massive warming since 2004. But that has not happened.”
The “small inset chart” shows temperatures for the entire Holocene, your terms of reference, not mine, and, because of the low resolution in reconstructions over this period, it doesn’t show recent warming at all, it merely shows the 2004 temperature for comparison with average temperatures over the entire period. Clearly current global temperatures are higher than the those generally experienced during the holocene, so by your own definition; “If one or more of the parameters of the Holocene were exceeded, then the null hypothesis would be falsified”,/i>, the null hypoethesis has been falsified.
Smokey says:
“Temperatures have been flat to declining for the past fourteen years.”
No they haven’t, although I presume you’re cherry picking 1998 as your start date, despite the fact we don’t have a full fourteen years of data from them, and, even then, only one of the data sets shows a flat or declining trend for that period. And that is before we get on to ocean heat content which has continued to increase during that period.
Smokey says:
“Over the past two years temperatures have been falling.”
Seriously, you castigate me for moving from an 800 thousand year record to a 12 thousand year one (this in spite of the fact the 12 thousand year period, the Holocene, was introduced by you), but think it is okay for you to refer to only two years of data?
Kevin MacDonald,
I know why you’re wrong about everything. It’s because you believe the nonsense you pick up from Skeptical Pseudo-Science and similar propaganda blogs. Those are fantasy charts you’re posting. When evidence based charts are used, it is clear that there have been warmer periods during the Holocene. The spaghetti graph you posted is the output of computer models and not worth spit. Using a chart based on empirical evidence it is obvious that past temperatures have exceeded those of the Modern Warming Period. Here’s another. And another. And an animation to put things in their proper perspective.
The planet has warmed – naturally – from 288K to 288.8K in the past 150 years. Looking at the real world evidence of the wild swings in temperature over the past ten millennia, current temperatures are as close to static as you can find. And attributing that minuscule rise to CO2 is simply an argumentum ad ignorantium: “Since I can’t think of any other possible cause, then it must be due to CO2. How stupid.
Next, go argue with Phil Jones about the non-existent warming. He’s the one who admitted it has stopped. And you still do not understand the null hypothesis. I give up. Apparently you are simply unable to grasp the basic concept that temperatures must exceed the parameters of the Holocene in order to falsify the null hypothesis. They haven’t even come close.
Next, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, using a phony zero or flat baseline instead of a trend line always results in a scary looking hockey stick shape. That’s why they do it. But when the trend since the LIA is used, it becomes clear that the trend is moderating [the green line], and that nothing unusual is occurring. The planet is simply warming from the LIA.
Finally, your complaint about the 2-year chart I linked contains nothing of substance, so there is no need to reply. That chart says it all.
• • •
Robert Bertrino:
Since you completely avoided answering the specifics in my last post, I’ll repost it. Please provide specific answers. I want to see those twenty times you claim:
To get any credibility and respect here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, start answering the specific points raised. So far, you’ve simply dodged.
LOL smokey you are unbelievable. I can’t get a straight answer out of you!
Here’s my previous post:
”
even now, you still deflect my point. Answer this VERY simple question. How can you claim to have the expertise and scientific know-how to make judgments about Global Warming, which is a chemical and physical process, if you don’t even know what a molecule is? What’s worse was the fact that you not only spoke with authority when you said that, you insulted me for not knowing my chemistry (when you didn’t have any ground to stand on). It’s a fair question, and I would like to see it answered.
”
And I didn’t avoid your question about the “twenty times”, I put up the post in question for all to see. And I even put two parts of those posts side by side:
”
1.
This process contributes to the “pulsed” nature of CO2 rise during de-glacialation, as we have seen in the ice cores. Additionally, we can easily see how this cycle would result in a positive feedback loop in regards to rising average temperatures.”
2.
“And btw, If you read my post fully, you would notice that I talked about carbon’s “pulsed nature”.”
”
Then you say in response to post 2: “Carbon”?? As in CO2, a trace gas? FYI: carbon is an element.”
Viewing those side by side, how can you say that the second one was not a typo?
Seriously smokey, I just want you to answer for this single quote of yours:
”
Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺
”
When I was talking about CO2 as a molecule. Just answer this question smokey. How can you claim to have the expertise and scientific know-how to make judgments about Global Warming, which is a chemical and physical process, if you don’t even know what a molecule is? And don’t disappear again like you did on the other thread.
Bobbie Bertino says:
“And I didn’t avoid your question about the ‘twenty times’, I put up the post in question for all to see. And I even put two parts of those posts side by side”
Humor me. Post verifiable citations to your claim of “twenty times”. It’s your credibility that’s at stake here, junior. So link to each of your ‘twenty’. Or else everyone will see that you were fabricating your claim.
Smokey says:
“I know why you’re wrong about everything. It’s because you believe the nonsense you pick up from Skeptical Pseudo-Science and similar propaganda blogs. Those are fantasy charts you’re posting. “
The graph I linked to uses the same empirical evidence your link does:
Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 Ka.;
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica;
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland;
Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa;
Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination;
Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core;
Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch.
Smokey says:
When evidence based charts are used, it is clear that there have been warmer periods during the Holocene. The spaghetti graph you posted is the output of computer models and not worth spit. Using a chart based on empirical evidence it is obvious that past temperatures have exceeded those of the Modern Warming Period.”
Not within the Holocene (that’s the 0-12,000 years before present in the graph you linked to) and that was era you specified for your null hypothesis.
Smokey says:
“Here’s another. And another. And an animation to put things in their proper perspective “
None of these are global data sets, on their own they tell us nothing about global warming.
Smokey says:
“Next, go argue with Phil Jones about the non-existent warming. He’s the one who admitted it has stopped. “
No he didn’t, this is what he actually said; “I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive”.
Smokey says:
“Apparently you are simply unable to grasp the basic concept that temperatures must exceed the parameters of the Holocene in order to falsify the null hypothesis. They haven’t even come close.“
Another graph that doesn’t show global temperatures? Can I remind you that we aren’t actually discussing Anthropogenic Vostock Warming.
Here is a history of my quotes:
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
Robert Bertino says:
October 30, 2011 at 6:29 pm
@Smokey
“That one has been thoroughly debunked: effect cannot precede cause. On all time scales, CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa.”
I’m sorry but that is completely retarded. It’s basic physics. CO2 traps heat. End of story. Anybody with a glass tank, thermometer, and light can prove that.
REPLY: LOL! Have a look at that exact experiment you describe:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/
1. Robert Bertino says:
October 30, 2011 at 10:05 pm
^the experiment is deeply flawed.
lol even read his “update” at the end of the post, which most are unlikely to read:
“I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.”
If you want to know what a good CO2 experiment is like, check out this link:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.117.2153%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=nimuTpnMJ8OciQK9-ZSXCw&usg=AFQjCNHgeMEf_j5Utxoq1gdsTFdc-lki7A&sig2=pbI1QKWr0IhHXGjwmTLi2Q
(It’s a PDF file)
2. Robert Bertino says:
October 30, 2011 at 11:10 pm
“I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.”
really must I quote what Watts himself said in his own articles again?
3. Smokey says:
October 31, 2011 at 10:53 am
Robert Bertrino,
Nice dodge. Falsification fail. OTOH, the quote you posted is accurate and factual.
4. Robert Bertino says:
October 31, 2011 at 9:10 pm
“That one has been thoroughly debunked: effect cannot precede cause. On all time scales, CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa.”
Nice dodge on your side smokey, care to explain how the above quote and what Watts said can both be “accurate and factual”. And btw, the experiment i linked to was not meant to be the be all and end all of CO2 experiments, it was just an easy experiment that anybody (you) could do. If you actually read it for example, you’ll notice that having a lid on the container actually ruins the experiment.
5. Robert Bertino says:
October 31, 2011 at 9:41 pm
“I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere”
” effect cannot precede cause. On all time scales, CO2 is a function of temperature, not vice-versa.”
View these side by side. How can CO2 have a positive heating effect but at the same time be a function of temperature? It’s totally contradictory.
REPLY: You have no idea what you are talking about and frankly I’m too tired to explain it to you. But look it up yourself and report back – A
“
Warming of ocean waters takes place at the surface in the sunlight, so a little bit of the CO2 is released at first from the water. However, the water isn’t as cool as it once was, so when it reaches high latitudes, it takes up less CO2 than normal and it does not sink as deeply. Because of this disruption in the ocean currents, the deep cold water doesn’t participate as much in vertical circulation and tends to stagnate. Life on the sea floor (and organic matter falling from above) produces more CO2 through cellular respiration, but since oxygen is no longer being delivered as adequately, we have anaerobic respiration where nitrate is used by bacteria as a source of oxygen instead. During this process, nitrous oxide and molecular nitrogen are made. What happens in the end: because the oceans have warmed and currents have slowed down, we have effectively created a vast ocean reservoir rich in CO2 but poor in nutrients. When this water returns to the surface, it will now bring CO2 back into the atmosphere, unable to recapture it through photosynthesis, due to a lack of nutrients.
^This process contributes to the “pulsed” nature of CO2 rise during de-glacialation, as we have seen in the ice cores. Additionally, we can easily see how this cycle would result in a positive feedback loop in regards to rising average temperatures.”
“
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
CO2 has been mentioned 16 times. I think its safe to assume that’s what I was talking about.
And then I put these posts side by side:
”
1.
This process contributes to the “pulsed” nature of CO2 rise during de-glacialation, as we have seen in the ice cores. Additionally, we can easily see how this cycle would result in a positive feedback loop in regards to rising average temperatures.”
2.
“And btw, If you read my post fully, you would notice that I talked about carbon’s “pulsed nature”.”
”
Then you say in response to post 2: “Carbon”?? As in CO2, a trace gas? FYI: carbon is an element.”
Viewing those side by side, how can you say that the second one was not a typo?
If anybody wants to see the comments in the thread, here’s the link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/22/a-preliminary-assessment-of-bests-decline/#comment-787436
It’s easy to find, smokey and I were the last ones talking.
Seriously smokey, STOP AVOIDING MY QUESTION. You’re the one with credibility at stake here, junior.
I just want you to answer for this single quote of yours:
”
Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺
”
When I was talking about CO2 as a molecule. Just answer this question smokey. How can you claim to have the expertise and scientific know-how to make judgments about Global Warming, which is a chemical and physical process, if you don’t even know what a molecule is? And don’t disappear again like you did on the other thread. The fact that you’ve been avoiding answering this question directly for the past week or so really say something, doesn’t it?
Kevin MacDonald,
The chart I posted doesn’t clearly show that past Holocene temperatures exceed current temperatures. But I’m here to help educate you, so…
[Note: to avoid fake charges of cherrypicking, I’ve included charts with various time scales. Most, however, cover the Holocene.] :
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12 [click in chart to embiggen]
click13
click14
click15
click16
click17
click18
click19
click20
click21
click22
click23
click24
click25
More charts provided upon request.
Isn’t it frustrating when empirical evidence from both hemispheres debunks your true belief system? The fact is that current temperatures are normal, routine, and lower than past temperatures when CO2 was much lower.
The failure to falsify the following hypothesis makes all the exaggerated hand waving over a tiny rise in temperature simpleminded alarmist nonsense:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
I see what your strategy is. The best offense is a good defense. You hope that by attacking me, the questions I have asked you can remain unanswered. Then if I defend myself, you’ll just bolt back into another discussion. I’ll humor you for a second, let’s say I’m the stupid, ignorant, true believer you say I am. Ok. That still doesn’t change what you yourself said.
Seriously smokey, STOP AVOIDING MY QUESTION. You’re the one with credibility at stake here, junior.
I just want you to answer for this single quote of yours:
”
Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺
”
When I was talking about CO2 as a molecule. Just answer this question smokey. How can you claim to have the expertise and scientific know-how to make judgments about Global Warming, which is a chemical and physical process, if you don’t even know what a molecule is? And don’t disappear again like you did on the other thread.
Bobbyboy,
I’m disregarding your posts for a good reason: unlike MacDonald’s, they are content-free. Mr MacDonald at least tries arguing the alarmist case, while you’re fixated on me. I could push your buttons some more, but why bother? As Anthony rightly pointed out: “You have no idea what you are talking about and frankly I’m too tired to explain it to you.” No one else talks about “pulsed” CO2. If that silly notion ever gained traction I would respond. So far, though, it’s just more alarmist lunacy, and you are the only one promoting it here.
My guess is that you’re a lonesome twenty-something who actually believes he knows what he’s talking about; wrong. Immaturity runs throughout your comments [eg: ‘I know you are, but what am I?’], so I’ll stick to deconstructing MacDonald’s assumptions. Your lunatic “pulsed CO2” fantasies are so far out of the mainstream they’re not worth responding to. And don’t get the idea that I’m responding to either you or MacDonald. I’m simply setting the record straight for readers who are still trying to figure out if they should be worried about rising CO2 or not. I’m showing them with peer reviewed information that there isn’t anything to worry about. If you want to add value to the discussion try to falsify my hypothesis instead of avoiding it at all cost.
Even if I am the stupid, ignorant, true believer you say I am, it doesn’t change what you said.
STOP AVOIDING MY QUESTION.
I just want you to answer for this single quote of yours:
”
Actually, CO2 is a compound.
Good luck passing your chem lab.☺
”
When I was talking about CO2 as a molecule. Just answer this question smokey. How can you claim to have the expertise and scientific know-how to make judgments about Global Warming, which is a chemical and physical process, if you don’t even know what a molecule is? It’s a fair question smokey. You attempt to present as somebody knowledgeable in the field of climate science. I want you to reconcile that fact with what you said earlier, that CO2 wasn’t a molecule. How can you even have a good “hypothesis” when you don’t know this?
Bobby says:
“STOP AVOIDING MY QUESTION.”
It gives me much amusement to push young Bobby’s buttons.☺☺☺
Smokey says:
“More charts provided upon request.”
Can you provide one that show global temperatures during the Holocene have been warmer than they are now? None of the ones you have linked to so far do, most of them show Vostock or GISP2, two locations in the Arctic – hardly global – and the only other graph with a source is Lhehel 2007 which was subsequently ammended when it was discovered that it exaggerated the MWP
Kevin MacDonald,
Glad you asked. Here is a global map of interactive charts showing the global impact of the MWP. Put your cursor on any of the charts for an expanded version.
And here is a good article that debunks the nonsense that the MWP wasn’t a global event.
There is a close correlation between Northern and Southern Hemisphere ice core evidence, therefore the temperature variations were global.
And to repeat: there were global warming events prior to the MWP that were warmer than the MWP, and when CO2 was very low. And there were global glaciations when CO2 was very high. The logical conclusion: current temperatures are a function of natural variability, not changes in CO2.