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 325–326 (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, I stand by my headline. 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 global – 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. (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.”
###
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 δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O 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 δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O 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 δ18Ohydra values fall in this period and all of them are significantly
lighter than those values of older crystals by 2–3‰, a difference
too large to be explained by analytical uncertainties and
variability among crystals formed at the same time (0.33‰ at
JPC24), and are associated with lower δ18OCaCO3.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 ~5‰
decrease in δ18Ohydra 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 δ18Ohydra. 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 0.7–0.97 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). δ18OEPICA (Stenni et al.,
2006) shows warming at 0.6–0.8 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 δ18Ohydra 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 δ13C of ikaite crystals and δ13C 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. δ18Ohydra and δ18OCaCO3
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 δ18Ohydra and δ18OCaCO3 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 δ18Ohydra and δ18OCaCO3 may be used to calculate
δ18O 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 δ18O into the carbonate during
crystallization and any post-crystallization exchange of δ18Ohydra
signal.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 al’s Earthshine project are the more likely cause of the modern warming period, (and quite possibly the medieval warm period too).
Henry@Stephen Fisher 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 al’s 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 al’s Earthshine project are the more likely cause of the modern warming period, (and quite possibly the medieval warm period too).
Henry@Stephen Fisher 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 al’s 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 “team” 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 Fisher 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.
“Timing of Major Climate Terminations”, 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.
Luboš 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
„while temperature trends continue upwards” – I don’t 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, ± as exactly the ozone trend.
All arguments for “It’s the ozone…” 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 – it’s 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. 🙂
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
© 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 “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend….”
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 trend….” 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.