More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global

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

==============================================================

Ikaite is the mineral name for the hexahydrate of calcium carbonate, CaCO3·6H2O. It is only found in a metastable state, and decomposes rapidly once removed from near-freezing water. Image from Wikipedia - click for details

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:

Click to enlarge. Fig. 6. δ18Ohydra profile (in green) plotted with other climate records, assuming sedimentation rate of 0.96 cm/yr and ikaite formation depth of 3.04±0.57 m. δ18Ohydra variability among different crystals found at the same depth is about±0.33‰. A–B: Magnetic susceptibility and TOC of JPC2 are plotted against age. C: SST at Palmer Deep, the line represents a five-point moving average (Shevenell et al., 2011). D: δ18OEPICA data are smoothed by a ten-point moving average. E: Timing of climatic events summarized for the AP region and citations (1 — Pudsey and Evans (2001); 2 — Jones et al. (2000); 3 — Brachfeld et al. (2003); 4 — Khim et al. (2002); 5 — Hall et al. (2010); 6 — Domack et al. (1995); 7 — Liu et al. (2005)).

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

100 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr. John v. Kampen
March 29, 2012 3:32 am
March 29, 2012 4:45 am

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

mandas
March 29, 2012 3:34 pm

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?

March 29, 2012 3:50 pm

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?

DirkH
March 29, 2012 4:27 pm

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.

billzog
March 29, 2012 4:37 pm

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 –

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…
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.

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…

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)

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 “green” in the email seriously, yours even less so.
The correction they make says:

A number of media outlets, including the Daily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News.

I made no claims of “global warming is a myth”. I did say “More evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global” 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

billzog
March 29, 2012 6:59 pm

‘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

Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers.

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:

“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
Several of these 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.”

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

March 29, 2012 8:00 pm

billzog,
Give it up, you’re not making a good case. Lu says: “Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.” 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.

March 30, 2012 7:21 am

Actually ‘Smokey’ you’re exactly what Anthony defines as an ‘anonymous coward’.

March 30, 2012 7:58 am

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.

March 30, 2012 8:33 am

Phil. says:
March 30, 2012 at 7:21 am
Actually ‘Smokey’ you’re exactly what Anthony defines as an ‘anonymous coward’.

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?

March 30, 2012 8:33 am

Phil. says:
Actually ‘Smokey’ you’re exactly what Anthony defines as an ‘anonymous coward’
Henry.
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

Louise
March 30, 2012 12:10 pm

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, here’s 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

March 30, 2012 12:42 pm

Bill Tuttle says:
March 30, 2012 at 8:33 am
Phil. says:
March 30, 2012 at 7:21 am
“Actually ‘Smokey’ you’re exactly what Anthony defines as an ‘anonymous coward’.”
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?

Anthony has called me an ‘anonymous coward’, for ‘not having the courage’ to post here under my name. The same description fits ‘Smokey’.

March 30, 2012 12:46 pm

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.

March 30, 2012 12:58 pm

Smokey says:
March 30, 2012 at 7:58 am
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.”?

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 ‘anonymous coward.’ 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.
“Phil.” personally fits the description of “anonymous coward”. So run along now to your thinly trafficked echo chamber blog, “Phil.”
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]

mysteryseeker
March 30, 2012 5:25 pm

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.

March 31, 2012 5:26 am

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…..

Camburn
April 1, 2012 12:33 pm

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.

mysteryseeker
April 1, 2012 5:33 pm

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.

markx
April 1, 2012 8:05 pm

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.

April 24, 2012 3:55 am

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…..)

Charles Russell
April 28, 2012 2:47 am

It is also interesting that MWP, LIA and modern warming correlate much better with sunspot activity than with CO2 levels.
Charles Russell