Yesterday I highlighted the paper The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability, by B Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University which showed that using a multitude of proxy samples in the norther hemisphere, that:
“The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions.”
Now another paper, by Esper et al published in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change, shows that not only was the summers of the MWP equal or greater than our current warmth, but that the summers of the Roman Warm Period of 2000 years ago were significantly warmer than today.
Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia
Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank
Abstract
Palaeoclimatic evidence revealed synchronous temperature variations among Northern Hemisphere regions over the past millennium. The range of these variations (in degrees Celsius) is, however, largely unknown. We here present a 2000-year summer temperature reconstruction from northern Scandinavia and compare this timeseries with existing proxy records to assess the range of reconstructed temperatures at a regional scale. The new reconstruction is based on 578 maximum latewood density profiles from living and sub-fossil Pinus sylvestris samples from northern Sweden and Finland.
The record provides evidence for substantial warmth during Roman and Medieval times, larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century warmth.
The first century AD was the warmest 100-year period (+0.60 °C on average relative to the 1951–1980 mean) of the Common Era, more than 1 °C warmer than the coldest 14th century AD (−0.51 °C). The warmest and coldest reconstructed 30-year periods (AD 21–50=+1.05 °C, and AD 1451–80=−1.19 °C) differ by more than 2 °C, and the range between the five warmest and coldest reconstructed summers in the context of the past 2000 years is estimated to exceed 5 °C. Comparison of the new timeseries with five existing tree-ring based reconstructions from northern Scandinavia revealed synchronized climate fluctuations but substantially different absolute temperatures. Level offset among the various reconstructions in extremely cold and warm years (up to 3 °C) and cold and warm 30-year periods (up to 1.5 °C) are in the order of the total temperature variance of each individual reconstruction over the past 1500 to 2000 years. These findings demonstrate our poor understanding of the absolute temperature variance in a region where high-resolution proxy coverage is denser than in any other area of the world.
[…]
Discussion and Conclusions
The MXD-based summer temperature reconstruction presented here sets a new standard in high-resolution palaeoclimatology. The record explains about 60% of the variance of regional temperature data, and is based on more high-precision density series than any
other previous reconstruction. Importantly, MXD sample replication prior to the Little Ice Age, during Medieval times and throughout the first millennium AD, is much better than in any other record, and we demonstrated – based on calibration trials using reduced
datasets – that these early sections of the N-Scan record likely still contain useful climate information. This persistent climate signal allowed an estimation of temperature variability throughout the Common Era, revealing warmth during Roman and Medieval times were larger in extent and longer in duration than 20th century conditions.
According to this new record, summer temperatures varied by 1.1 °C among the 14th and 1st centuries, the coldest and warmest 100-year periods of the past two millennia. Temperatures ranged by more than 5 °C among the five coldest and warmest summers of the past 2000 years. These estimates are, however, related to the approach used for proxy transfer, i.e. figures would change, if the calibration method, period, and/or target were modified (Frank et al.,2010b). For example, variance among the 30 coldest and warmest N-Scan summers (Table 3) increases from 3.92 °C to 5.79 °C, if scaling (i.e. adjustment of the mean and variance) instead of OLS regression is used for proxy transfer. These differences between scaling- and regression-based approaches are proportional to the unexplained variance of the calibration model (Esper et al., 2005), and we suggest
smoothing the proxy and instrumental timeseries prior to calibration, as this procedure decreases the unexplained variance in all Scandinavian tree-ring records and thus minimizes the differences between various calibration methods (Cook et al., 2004).
Our results, however, also showed that these methodological uncertainties are dwarfed by the variance among the individual reconstructions.
Differences among six northern Scandinavian tree-ring records are>1.5° in 30-year extreme periods and up to 3 °C in single extreme years, a finding we didn’t expect, as the proxy records: (i) all calibrate well against regional instrumental data, (ii) partly share the same measurement series (or use differing parameters – TRW and MXD – from the same trees), and (iii) originate from a confined region in northern Scandinavia that is characterized by a homogeneous temperature pattern. Since we here calibrated all reconstructions using the same method, between-record differences are likely related to varying data treatment and chronology development methods, measurement techniques, and/or sampling strategies, as well as the remaining uncertainty typical to such proxy data. For example, splicing of MXD data on recent TRW trends as done in Briffa92 might have caused this reconstruction to appear at the lower (colder) end of the ensemble, whereas the combination (and adjustment) of novel digital MXD measurements with traditional X-ray based MXD data as done in Grudd08 might have caused this reconstruction to appear at the upper (warmer) end of the ensemble. Other differences are likely related to the combination of sub-fossil material from trees that grew in wet conditions at the lakeshores with material from living trees growing in dryer ‘inland’ sites. Also varying variance stabilization (Frank et al., 2007) and detrending techniques (Esper et al., 2003) in association with temporally changing sample replications and age distributions of the underlying data (Melvin, 2004) likely impacted the variance structure of the long-term records and consequently the absolute levels of reconstructed temperatures.
Between-reconstruction variance as revealed here represents a pending challenge for the integration of proxy records over larger regions and the development of a single timeseries that represents the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Mann et al., 2008), for example. The composition of such records commonly relies on the calibration statistics derived from fitting regional proxy records against instrumental data (D’Arrigo et al., 2006). However, the records analyzed here would all easily pass conventional calibration-based screening procedures. Yet our analysis revealed that choosing one Scandinavian record instead of another one can alter reconstructed temperatures by 1.5-3 °C during Medieval times, for example. On the other hand, consideration of all records presented here would likely promote a less variable climate history, as the combination of diverging records tends to reduce variance in the mean timeseries (Frank et al., 2007). If such a mean is then combined with instrumental data covering the past 100–150 years, this approach might facilitate hockey stick-shaped reconstructions (Frank et al., 2010a). This seems to be a tricky situation in which expert teams including the developers of proxy records might need to be involved to help assessing timeseries beyond the typical ranking based on calibration statistics.
Our results showed that introducing an improved temperature reconstruction does not automatically clarify climate history in a given region. In northern Scandinavia, we now arrive at a situation where a number of high-resolution proxy records – all passing classical calibration and verification tests – are available within a confined region that is characterized by homogeneous temperature patterns. These records, however, differ by several degrees Celsius over the past two millennia, which appears huge if compared with the 20th Century warming signal in Scandinavia or elsewhere. We conclude that the temperature history of the last millennium is much less understood than often suggested, and that the regional and particularly the hemispheric scale pre-1400 temperature variance is largely unknown. Expert teams are needed to assess existing records, and to reduce uncertainties associated with millennium-length temperature reconstructions, before we can usefully constrain future climate scenarios.
Full paper here (PDF -link fixed)
h/t to WUWT reader Gordon Pye and Tory Aardvarrk
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TeddySlayerZA says:
I do however think that this does not in any way rule out the anthropogenic role in our present day Climate Change.
Of course it doesn’t. The only way for that to be possible would be if there existed a falsifyable theory of climate that asserted and testably quantified the alleged anthropogenic role in our present day climate change. There ain’t. This is by design.
Nobody claims that climate change is purely anthropogenic, …
Really?
“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” – Richard Muller, “climate scientist”.
Finally, warming periods in the past may have been better then, when the world did not have 7 billion mouths to feed and ecosystems were not already on the point of collapse from various other influences. How would we cope with this now?
Better than the Romans. Among the benefits we enjoy that the Romans did not: a CO2 enriched atmosphere, which greatly increases primary productivity in both ecosystems and agriculture. Also – fossil fuel powered agriculture and transport of agricutural products. As I type this, I am sitting at high latitude, eating a fresh orange, while looking out the window at fresh snow.
Entire countries can’t simply migrate their agricultural sectors to higher latitudes at will.
In point of fact, many countries currently have trouble preventing their agricultural sectors from migrating. Japan has a hell of a time keeping its rice production from moving to Alabama, for example.
Of course, the salient point is that there wouldn’t be any need to move many countries agricultural sectors. They would modify and extend it as the prodcutive zone expands due to the warmer temps, the greater atmospheric mosture, and the plant food enhanced air. It may cut down the amount of truck time that an orange endures before it gets to me. Allegedly, that would be good for the environment. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?
Natural or not, these are issues that we need to address, not just ignore.
Natural or not may be a distinction that you can discount. Imaginary or not is still a valid consideration. Scary stories aren’t issues unless they actually happen.
Moderators;
My post to David Spurgeon has come out with reversed formatting. This is a repost that hopefully corrects it. Sorry.
Richard
_______________________
David Spurgeon:
At October 19, 2012 at 5:44 am you report
and say
That is the same as the definition I provided except that it uses confusing statistical-speak.
In my post at October 18, 2012 at 12:11 pm I wrote
Then at October 19, 2012 at 5:48 am you claim
No. It is not “confusing” in any way.
For example, if the hypothesis is
“A lion will react if poked in the eye”
then the Null Hypothesis is
‘There is no discernible reaction from the lion when it is poked in the eye’.
So, poke the lion’s eye and you either get a falsification of the Null Hypothesis or not.
However, there may be difficulty in determining a reaction to an effect. For example, a system may provide variable time series data, and it may be difficult to discern a change to the data in response to an input to the system. Statistical analysis may – or may not – discern a change to the data which is a ‘signal’ that the system changed. But whether or not such statistical analysis is useful and/or complicated does not make the Null Hypothesis “confusing”.
Richard
TonyG says:
October 19, 2012 at 5:52 am (Edit)
Matt says:
Just because there were warmer summers in the past doesn’t mean it’s OK to have warmer summers now.
The problem is, if it was warmer in the past, then we are well within the limits of natural variability. If you think warmer summers aren’t OK, and the warming is completely natural, what can we possibly do about it?
##############################
1. The “limits” of natural variability are huge. Its a vacuous null. The true limits of natural variability of the earth lie between absolute zero and that temperature that will be achieved when our sun explodes. Huge limits. The “natural variation Null” is void and meaningless and un testable.
2. We are very close to temperatures that mankind as a species has never seen before. This is important because we have adapted to the climate our species has experienced. It governs where we live and how we live. Transgressing this historical boundary has unknown consequences. Anyone who wants to argue that it will be better or worse had better bring their
“A” game. I see no one on either side of this debate bring their “A” game when it comes to proving that it will be better or worse. What we know, is that we will be facing something our species has not faced before.
3. The issue is not what we have dealt with in the past. Our best science says we are headed into uncharted territory– for our species. That’s not something one should do without thinking first. Simply, continuing to dump carbon into the atmosphere may not be the brightest thing we have done. Open minded people would put all options on the table.
We are very close to temperatures that mankind as a species has never seen before. ~ stevie
I am guessing, stevie, that you missed the entire point of this article, and the research it speaks about?
richardscourtney says:
No. It is not “confusing” in any way.
It is still slightly confusing to me, Richard. I simply posted some observations from other people, which mentioned the statistical element, rather than the necessarily scientific one. Sorry that in my gross ignorance I annoyed you. 🙂
Steven Mosher:
At October 19, 2012 at 11:38 am you say
Oh dear! That displays such a gulf between your understanding and reality that it discredits everything you say about the subject.
In reality global temperature cannot have moved beyond the true limits of natural variability of the Earth in the Holocene unless global temperature goes beyond the previous maximum or minimum global temperature which has existed in the Holocene.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
October 19, 2012 at 4:20 am
johanna:
re your post at October 19, 2012 at 2:17 am.
Learn some history before posting such bollocks.
Richard
————————————————
Why do you have to be so abusive? I like WUWT because it fosters courteous discussion. This comment is just a nasty drive-by.
FYI, I studied ancient history for several years, read Latin and suggest that I have forgotten more about the Roman Empire than you will ever know.
My comment was semi-frivolous, but there was a serious point in there. As a student of modern, as well as ancient, history, there are plenty of instances of climate related political instability on a regional basis, caused by food shortages in agrarian economies. Severe and lengthy drought and cooling trends are examples of climate phenomena which can devastate agrarian economies with concomitant political effects. It’s not difficult to understand.
It’s much less of a problem today because of fossil fuel driven transportation and refrigeration.
The causes of the decline of the Roman Empire have engaged people in vigorous argument for hundreds of years. I never suggested climate as a single, or even primary cause. I just noted that if it got progressively cooler, there would most likely have been impacts on political stability.
Manners, please!
The warms crawl in, the warms crawl out . . .
“Who’s ‘We,’ white man?”
(Says the rest of the world.)
Steven Mosher says:
“1. The ‘limits’ of natural variability are huge. Its a vacuous null. The true limits of natural variability of the earth lie between absolute zero and that temperature that will be achieved when our sun explodes. Huge limits. The ‘natural variation Null’ is void and meaningless and un testable.”
Response to #1: Throughout the discussion ‘natural variability’ is understood to mean the parameters of the Holocene, not absolute zero or the sun exploding.
“2. We are very close to temperatures that mankind as a species has never seen before…”
Response to #2: Not true. How many charts would you like?☺ In fact, the past 150 years has been a true “Goldilocks” climate, with a temperature variability of ≤ 0.8ºC. That is extremely stable compared to most times during the Holocene.
“3. The issue is not what we have dealt with in the past. Our best science says we are headed into uncharted territory– for our species. That’s not something one should do without thinking first. Simply, continuing to dump carbon into the atmosphere may not be the brightest thing we have done. Open minded people would put all options on the table.”
Response to #3: You ended your comment with the classic Precautionary Principle. But what you actually show is that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere has not caused any global harm at all. In fact, it is very beneficial to the biosphere — which includes us. You have shown that the net result of more CO2 is entirely beneficial. And don’t worry about “carbon” threatening “our species”. There are plenty of credible threats. But CO2 is not one of them.
Hey, Mosher,,
DON’T PANIC !!
Stop being a climate hypochondriac !!!
Steven Mosher says:
2. We are very close to temperatures that mankind as a species has never seen before.
Another one of those ‘A Game’ assertions, though for some reason you dont’ identify it as such.
But accept it for the sake of argument. The rest of that argument implicitly asserts that the current climate is optimum and explicitly asserts that it must be maintained status quo at whatever cost. You don’t hear anybody screaming that where we are now is unbearable, and we should do anything we can to knock off a couple of °C to get back to the good old days. In fact, the current scare was preceded by one based on the assertion that such a circumstance was in the offing, and we should do whatever we could to prepare for the icy doom that was about to befall us. We are therefore not teetering at any precipice. We are centered firmly in the buffer zone.
3. The issue is not what we have dealt with in the past. Our best science says we are headed into uncharted territory– for our species.
Have ya read the post? It says we are heading into territory successfully navigated by people whose high speed transit, primary food source and object of worship were all the same animal.
That’s not something one should do without thinking first.
People who were 99.9% illiterate and 100% superstitious thrived during the previous warm periods. We will be fine.
Simply, continuing to dump carbon into the atmosphere may not be the brightest thing we have done.
Simply, turning our backs on the world’s primary energy source would be the dumbest thing we have done.
icarus62 says:
October 18, 2012 at 2:59 pm
agfosterjr: If the climate is as insensitive to forcings as you suggest then why do ‘skeptics’ like to suggest that a few tenths of a Watt reduction in insolation will plunge us into a new mini ice age?
==========================================================================
Are you suggesting no cause and effect between the Maunder Minimum and the LIA? The link had mainstream acceptance 20 years ago, though it is based more on chronological correlation than on any complete understanding of the mechanism. Milankovitch cycles however, overwhelm any contribution from CO2 IR by more than an order of magnitude. The greatly ballyhooed “amplification” of GHG’s in the ice record is accordingly a farce–it hardly comes into play at all–one watt versus 100 TOA. Such is the science your ideology is based on. –AGF
David Spurgeon:
At October 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm you say to me
You did not annoy me so you have nothing to apologise for.
Everybody has “gross ignorance”: the things we don’t know are infinite in number. And that is why we share with each what we each understand and what we think we know.
In this case, I am certain it is important the climate Null Hypothesis is clearly understood by all so the importance of the fact that it has not been falsified is clearly understood by all.
Richard
johanna:
At October 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm you write to me saying
You ask why I needed to be so abusive.
I answer that WUWT is suffering a severe troll infestation that has the clear intent of disrupting threads. Your one-liner is “just a nasty drive-by” typical of troll disruption so I told you to clear-off in as clear a manner as I could.
I don’t doubt you know more about Roman history than me, but even I know your comment is “bollocks”. And if you know more about the subject than me then your post can only have been thew presentation of a falsehood for the purpose of deliberate troll disruption.
If your comment was “semi-frivolous” then you should have indicated that because you presented it as a serious comment. And your post did NOT make a “serious point”: it was plain wrong as tonyb explains at October 19, 2012 at 6:38 am.
The needs for tonyb to provide that explanation (and thus avoid your having misled people) and for me to provide this answer (for the same reason) show the disruptive nature of your posts.
Frankly, I think I may have been too polite to you.
Richard
agfosterjr: What is the maximum globally averaged climate forcing over the course of Milankovitch cycles? How does that compare to, say, the forcing from a change in atmospheric CO2 from 180 to 280ppm?
icarus62:
At October 20, 2012 at 2:51 am you ask
Please explain the reason for your question.
The issue is warmer temperatures in the Holocene and what they indicate – or do not indicate – about likely causes of global temperature rise since the industrial revolution.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing from 280 ppmv since the industrial revolution. And the logarithmic relationship of increased radiative effect with increased CO2 concentration indicates that any increase to forcing from CO2 is negligible above 280 ppmv.
Hence, your question seems to be a distraction from the subject of the thread so I would welcome an explanation of its purpose.
Richard
Richard: Refer back to the comment by agfosterjr and all will become clear. I’m trying to establish what his/her claim is based on.
icarus62:
Thankyou for your reply at October 20, 2012 at 4:57 am which answers my question as to the relevance of your questions to agfosterjr which were
Your reply to my question says
As I thought, you have led agfosterjr down a side-track and it is YOUR “claim” which is being addressed. Your questions are an avoidance of his request for YOU to clarify YOUR “claim”. As trolling goes, that is a pathetic diversion of the thread.
I will answer your “claim” to avoid any excuse for the diversion to continue. But first I copy the post to which you referred me so others can clearly see what you are doing.
Firstly, you raised the ‘red herring’ that “a few tenths of a Watt reduction in insolation will plunge us into a new mini ice age”. As agfosterjr says, it is up to you – and nobody else – to justify your assertions.
Secondly, as agfosterjr says the ice core indications are that “The greatly ballyhooed “amplification” of GHG’s in the ice record is accordingly a farce–it hardly comes into play at all–one watt versus 100 TOA”.
Simply, you made a claim and agfosterjr replied saying your claim differs from his understanding and he stated his understanding and why he has that understanding. You have replied by asking him to justify his understanding.
That will not do! You made a claim so you need to justify that claim.
All agfosterjr or anybody else needs to do is to demand the evidence for your claim. He was kind enough to state his understanding which induces him to question your claim, but there is no obligation on him to justify his understanding unless and until you have attempted to justify your claim.
Simply, you must show him yours before he is required to show you his because you started it.
And if you can’t justify your claim then you have lost the argument because you have admitted your claim has no foundation.
Richard
Richard: The WUWT post I referred to above does indeed raise the prospect of a “mini ice age” from just a few tenths of a Watt reduction in insolation. Many similar articles have been written, as I’m sure you’re aware. If the climate is so sensitive to small forcings then agfosterjr’s lack of concern about the climate’s response to the rather larger anthropogenic forcings seems unjustified. Agreed?
Perhaps this will be considered simply another “troll infestation” by RichardsCourtnesy, but I have been waiting to be able to respond to RC concerning the post he placed below. I provide here first his entire post
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
richardscourtney says:
October 18, 2012 at 2:31 am
ericgrimsrud:
At October 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm you write to me
So here I have a scientific question for you. As you know, you take exception to my previous statement that the energy balance of the Earth is determined by just three things. They are the intensity of the sun, the Earth’s albedo and the GH Effect. You claim that this is not true and for proof pointed to a scientific reference without explaining what that reference had to say about the point under consideration.
THAT IS A LIE.
In the “claim” at October 17, 2012 at 11:18 am I wrote
There is nothing “honest” about your question because I have already answered it in this thread in a post addressed to you at October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am and in another post addressed to you in another thread.
Perhaps the problem is that the explanation I provided is a quotation – with a link – from Richard Lindzen and his words are beyond your comprehension because he is a scientist.
If you had scrolled up to October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am you could have read
Richard Lindzen states the matter more clearly than I could so I quote his words from
http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=1450
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.
The quotation from Lindzen provides a complete explanation for everybody who knows anything about the thermolhaline circulation and knows radiative flux from a surface is proportional to T^4 so small changes in distribution of the Earth’s surface temperatures have large effect on the average global temperature.
Your knowledge of what is a “scientific question” is as lacking as your ability to understand a scientific answer.
Richard
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RC does not seem to recognize that the three basic forces I referred to concern the most basic of energy transfer mechanisms between Earth and the universe which control the total energy content on the crust of our planet. Of course, there also various flows of that energy WITHIN our planet that cause smalll variations of the measurred average global temperatures at any given point in time. These “natural variations” constitute a different subject, however, that is indeed the one that Lindzen was addressing the reference RC provided. As Lindzen says, however, their affects on T are relatively small, on the order of 0.1 C or so. And these effects will be superimposed on the larger effects that can be expected from changes in the three basic means of energy transfer I described. for energy input and loss from the planet to the universe.
Note that I find no need to unclude personal insults here. Just trying to clarify the science being discussed.
Johanna
I suspect we would have been better able to withsranbd substantial periods of cllimate change in the recent past as we tended to grow a wide variety of crops so if one failed another might work.
My concern is that these days we seem to have a monotone of crops so if one fails all fails. There are huge concerns this autumn with the planting of winter wheat in the Uk. We have a plan A to cope with warming, its high time we had a plan B to cope with cooling
Roman history is fascinating isnt it? I semi frivolously once suggested that WUWT organise a trip in the footsteps of Hanibal over the Alps. He seemed to have a relatively easy time of it compared to today. best regards
tonyb.
eric grimsrud.
Several of us tried to make some helpful suggestions about your short course and the time it took to download. I was also hoping you might put climate into a better historic perspective than you currently do. It has been warming for 350 years as a number of reconstructions show. Dr Mann had his Hockey stick blade upside down so it sloped downwards instead of upwards
tonyb
icarus62 says:
October 20, 2012 at 2:51 am
agfosterjr: What is the maximum globally averaged climate forcing over the course of Milankovitch cycles? How does that compare to, say, the forcing from a change in atmospheric CO2 from 180 to 280ppm?
===========================================================================
Total insolation varies insignificantly, but with hemispherically assymetrical albedo energy to the surface varies enormously. What matters is what the northern hemisphere receives, and as stated, it varies by 100W/m^2 at 65 North, TOA. That’s what it takes to melt the ice. During an ice age the earth reflects much more radiation, and global T falls accordingly. Global T is after all a rough measure of global albedo. M cycles govern the big ice ages and (lack of) sunspots seem to force the little ones. GHG’s are insignificant. –AGF
ericgrimsrud:
Your post at October 20, 2012 at 8:41 am is indeed a ‘troll’ because it refers to a post on another thread than this one and pretends I had not answered your question concerning it. Perhaps you hoped I would not notice your post here?
It seems you are trying to be as egregious as usual. You copied my post to which you refer from the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/
In that thread your silly assertion about ‘only three’ climate variables was refuted with explanations by others: e.g.
Lars P. at October 17, 2012 at 11:59 am and further at October 18, 2012 at 11:02 am
phlogiston at October 17, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Indeed, you have NOT been waiting for an explanation from me because two days ago on the first (of three threads) where I refuted your silly assertion i.e.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/04/so-much-for-the-theory-that-agw-increases-water-vapor-and-positive-feedback/
I posted the following.
Do not bother me again.
Richard
——————
richardscourtney says:
October 18, 2012 at 2:31 am
ericgrimsrud:
At October 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm you write to me
THAT IS A LIE.
In the “claim” at October 17, 2012 at 11:18 am I wrote
Perhaps the problem is that the explanation I provided is a quotation – with a link – from Richard Lindzen and his words are beyond your comprehension because he is a scientist.
If you had scrolled up to October 14, 2012 at 9:21 am you could have read
The quotation from Lindzen provides a complete explanation for everybody who knows anything about the thermolhaline circulation and knows radiative flux from a surface is proportional to T^4 so small changes in distribution of the Earth’s surface temperatures have large effect on the average global temperature.
Your knowledge of what is a “scientific question” is as lacking as your ability to understand a scientific answer.
Richard