NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
There are many other papers from all over the globe that show correlation to some extent. But, just as the climate changes have been occurring recently, not all areas warm at the same time. Some areas experience cooling, and others warming.

As for the salinity of the oceans diminishing... Well, this has happened quite a few times in the past. The Little Ice Age event after the Medieval Warm period was a similar event, but in this case the lack of sunspots from our Sun was the major casual factor which caused temperatures to drop so dramatically in Europe.

If there are so many papers floating around, you wouldn't mind linking a few, would you? Otherwise, I'm skeptical of your claims.

I fail to see how the salinity of the ocean decreased during a time when ocean levels should have been on the decline. Perhaps you can link a source to this, as well?

a reply to: Greven

It is futile with the climate change deniers.

When we catch them in a lie, they will disappear for a few days and another denier will take over, argue over some minute detail that has very little to do with human induced climate change, and when one of us does not counter their detail that 'proves' their point, they claim then will claim they are right and you a wrong and climate change is not an issue us simple human should concern ourselves with.

Meanwhile the CO2 concentrations continue to rise.

a reply to: Greven

You failed to address my points as well, but that's ok. I don't disagree with your Gulf Stream assessment. If I understand your reply, you aren't refuting temperature preceding CO2? If so, what the hell are we arguing over? LOL If you agree, you are accepting that humans can't be the cause of warming, that temperature is, and by virtue of that, that humans can't be causing it.

Let me ask you this... if the average lag between temperature and CO2 is approximately 800 years +- 200... why wouldn't this current increase in CO2 be caused by the temperature increase during the Medieval Warming Period? It's well within the range of time to see the increase we're seeing.

Why is the work of Dr. Salby, a former contributor to the IPCC report, completely dismissed when he shows satellite data that confirms that the largest sources of CO2 are not from industrialized centers like China or the Ohio valley, but are from the Amazon, African and Asian forests? (this part of his work is dismissed because of other inaccuracies, rather than looking at the merits of the data)

Can you show any sources that show how much of the CO2 is absorbed by all of the planet's sinks? Better yet, can you find me one paper that has accurately determined all of the known CO2 sinks?

Can you show me the Fortran code for the HiTran model, or other climate models that are used, where is takes into consideration things like:

- clouds (still not fully accounted for)
- bacterial production and absorption of CO2 (since they are the dominant species on earth)
- soil outgassing
- ???

My point in all of this, is that there are still several drivers of climate that we're not aware of, and whatever they are, they seem to overwhelm the expected feedback (positive or negative) caused by CO2 as indicated in models and predictive papers from pro AGW scientists. Climate models don't currently account for these drivers, obviously, and therefore can't predict climate accurately. They are otherwise known as variables, and there are far too many for us to believe we are even close to an accurate model of our climate.

Since the current AGW crisis is predicated on a PREDICTION, which is 100% based on models (and since climate can't be reproduced experimentally) the entire AGW crisis is based completely on a prediction and not empirical and observed data. The empirical and observed data, such as what we get from ice cores, tells us that there is a much stronger driver for the changes we're seeing than CO2. The empirical data tells us that glaciers still existed in times when CO2 was far greater than today. The data tells us that CO2 is good for the planet, not bad, and has never resulted in a runaway effect.

There is enough evidence to go against the models and start looking for the other drivers of our climate. They can start by seeing how temperature increasing effects CO2 instead of the other way around.

I can simplify it even further. We believe less CO2 will cool the planet. How did a cold planet work out for us before? It killed everything. How did higher temperatures work out for us before? It made the planet greener, more lush and full of life. Which one should we be more afraid of?

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

So you do admit there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Yes or no is an appropriate answer, no essay needed.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Greven

It is futile with the climate change deniers.

When we catch them in a lie, they will disappear for a few days and another denier will take over, argue over some minute detail that has very little to do with human induced climate change, and when one of us does not counter their detail that 'proves' their point, they claim then will claim they are right and you a wrong and climate change is not an issue us simple human should concern ourselves with.

Meanwhile the CO2 concentrations continue to rise.

First of all, Greven pointed out your ridiculous 3-page rant about residence time calculations:

Nor can I find a link for your assertion of the 4% isotopic signature of anthropogenic CO2, and I've skimmed through this entire thread (past that really dumb debate that stretched for many pages) checking out your posts.

So please don't act like he is your best friend. It shows how close-minded you are to perspective that isn't yours, and how quickly you will align yourself to someone who only appears at the surface, to stand behind your "cause".

Second, you have not ONCE in this thread, presented a single paper from anyone. Not one source. You call me a "denier", which is fine, I will gladly wear that badge of honor if it means I don't blindly accept junk science just because I'm told to, or by trying to scare me into it.

When I "disappear" for a few days, did you think maybe it is the weekend, and I have a life with my family? Or that maybe since I'm in the US, that I might be celebrating the holidays?

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm off reading the literature that OTHER POSTERS have provided, and preparing a rebuttal or my own sources of information to provide for discourse rather than petty arguments about residence time?

You sound like a broken parrot, that parrots a spoiled child or Perez Hilton. You haven't contributed anything productive to this thread so far, whereas at least Greven has presented well-articulated findings and presents sources for their findings. You have yet to do so, and your assumptions and strawman attacks are childish.

You have been proven wrong multiple times on this thread, and have derailed it for many pages already, so I suggest you stop before mods step in. And don't try to say it's because you think you're right, or that somehow you've tripped up the "denier" crowd.

As for your evidence supporting all of your parroted claims, put up or shut up.

~Namaste

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

So you do admit there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature?

Yes or no is an appropriate answer, no essay needed.

I'm not stupid JRod, I see the trap you are attempting to lay down to twist my words. I say "no", and you say I'm wrong since there is evidence that supports the correlation, just not the way it favors you because the correlation is temperature BEFORE CO2. If I say yes, you say you've been right this whole time. Instead of trying to sabotage the discussion, why don't you join it and give some productive feedback that will get people thinking or make them look for answers to plausible and relevant questions?

Rule #1 - Correlation does not equal causation!!!

Rule #2 - Temperature increases before CO2 does!!!

Please, JRod, go back and read the previous posts and look at the sources. You are making a fool of yourself. If you don't understand cause and effect, and can't Google to find the answers you are looking for, nobody here can help you nor will they debate with you.

If temperature comes before CO2, what is the cause of the temperature rising? It can't be CO2 if CO2 didn't rise first, which empirical, historical data shows us. The rise in CO2, for the amount that we contribute compared to natural sources (roughly 29Gt human vs 800Gt natural) is incredibly small. (29/800 = .036 * 100 = 3.6%)

There's my answer, an in shorter form than an essay.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne



Again with the overly word post and claims I have been proven wrong....the exact same way the other guy was trying to trip me up.

I asked you a yes or no question and get a paragraph of garbage.

40% rise in CO2 is a few hundred years has NOT been proven wrong.

The evidence is all over this thread. I am repeating myself so anyone who reads this thread will see the important number. I do not want this figure to be lost to forum sliding and topic dilution.

40% and rising fast

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Naughty, naughty... you didn't read the entire thread...I don't need to assert this claim, raymunduko already did

You are taking what I said out of context, because what I was pointing out was the statement that we have been steadily at 280ppm since before the Industrial Revolution.
...
So are YOU trying to say that CO2 never hit 600ppm or higher?
...
The one reference on that page in regards to Beck that you pointed to, is from Keeling...I'm sure you'll say that has nothing to do with the science he brought forth, or use that to dismiss Beck's findings by throwing the baby out with the bath water.
...
You know what's funny and oddly ironic about the link you provided? It's from Ferdinand Englebeen, who is a KNOWN AGW SKEPTIC! He occasionally agrees with AGW findings, but not the general premise that humans are warming the earth.

A few things worth pointing out is that his material, while very well-written, is not published anywhere, nor is it peer-reviewed.
...
Wait... I'm supposed to care about all of the things you say, and the evidence you present, but you immediately dismiss someone who understands more about how molecules and particles behave than you or I, simply because he is a skeptic?
..
The simple fact that temperature rises before CO2 is basic cause-and-effect science.
...
peer-review that you believe is consensus, is NOT EMPIRICAL, which is how science operates
...
The flat earth comment, as I said before, you are using as a strawman here. It's to demonstrate a blind faith, in absence of facts or ignorance of them, to represent the similar nature of AGW and its proponents.

As I said above, the temperature increases before CO2. Plenty of evidence to support it. Cause and effect. Basic science.

Ugh, reply form ate my reply. Dear ATS staff, can you make it save the form instead of eating it on an accidental misclick?

Anyway, you misunderstand. Raymunduko's claim was that a specific percentage of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (measured by isotope) is of human origin. Your new claim is that the rest of the rise in CO2 levels is from natural sources. Back that up.

You brought up the 600ppm data point in a discussion about global CO2 levels during human times. Either back it up, or back off of it. You are not being taken out of context. Your use of that data point was out of the context of the discussion.

Of course CO2 levels were extremely high in the distant past, so far as science can discern. However, Total Solar Irradiance was also much lower. More importantly, modern humans weren't around back then. Thus, I fail to see how it is relevant to bring that up in this discussion.

Mr. Beck was a biologist, so I can excuse his errors. If you want to ignore that criticism, how about this one: the journal he published in is crap. Energy & Environment appears to have poor peer review standards and reacts childishly to criticism. Keeling criticized it, but he's not the only one to do so - even one of its editors discredits it:

Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller and Real Climate member based at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has claimed that Energy & Environment (E&E) has "effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor's political line." The journal denies the claim, and, according to Schmidt, has threatened to take further action unless he retracts it.
...
"This is an insult, and what's more it's not true," says Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor of E&E and an emeritus reader at the University of Hull's department of geography. Every paper that is submitted to the journal is vetted by a number of experts, she said. But she did not deny that she allows her political agenda to influence which papers are published in the journal. "I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change," said Boehmer-Christiansen, who does not believe in man-made climate change.

Of note, this journal is also the one that published "50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF CO2 ON MAUNA LOA." Forgive me, but this response is slightly out of order - if you wish to further highlight the difference between peer review and a mere consensus that a work merits publication, you must first address the concerns I have with this journal.

Recall what I wrote:

Why should I care what you claim he says about a tiny spot of land at a particular time of day in regards to the atmospheric record? What relevance is there?

I was very precise in my wording. You have extrapolated that far beyond the context in which it was written. Please clarify the relevance of a tiny spot of land at a particular time of day to the global atmospheric record.

You should be very concerned then, that temperatures are rising after CO2 is rising. The cause and effect seem to have gotten mixed up. That you would ignore that glaring issue is troubling.

The only blind faith I see is by those who refuse to accept the plethora of data. Nobody relevant believed in the Earth being flat for at least the last 2200 years, and you should really stop trying to defend that nonsense.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
a reply to: Greven


Why is the work of Dr. Salby, a former contributor to the IPCC report, completely dismissed when he shows satellite data that confirms that the largest sources of CO2 are not from industrialized centers like China or the Ohio valley, but are from the Amazon, African and Asian forests? (this part of his work is dismissed because of other inaccuracies, rather than looking at the merits of the data)

Can you show any sources that show how much of the CO2 is absorbed by all of the planet's sinks? Better yet, can you find me one paper that has accurately determined all of the known CO2 sinks?

True. To say burning oil is not a problem is living in the dark. Have you not learned the lessons of Rapa Nui?

At least you recognize there is a problem. That I give you some credit.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Again with the overly word post and claims I have been proven wrong....the exact same way the other guy was trying to trip me up. Cry to the MODs, see what happens!

I asked you a yes or no question and get a paragraph of garbage.

40% rise in CO2 is a few hundred years has NOT been proven wrong.

The evidence is all over this thread. I am repeating myself so anyone who reads this thread will see the important number. I do not want this figure to be lost to forum sliding and topic dilution.

40% and rising fast

NOBODY IS ARGUING THE 40% INCREASE!!!! The argument is whether that increase is based on EMPIRICAL AND CORRECT DATA! Do you not understand what that means? I can have a better conversation with an 8 year old.

Now, you're just trolling and admittedly, spamming the thread. You are purposely trying to prevent "topic dilution", of which, you are the one most guilty of. People can read the thread and see how many times you've mentioned this, they don't need you to repeat it, it's spamming.

I gave you my answer. You can call it garbage if you want, but like I said, I'm not stupid. You don't want to accept it because you are ignorant, and nobody can help you with that. I'm not going to spell it out for you. I'm also not going to spend 3 pages going back and forth with you.

There are answers all over this thread, unfortunately, you've made sure nobody can find them with your childish and pedantic display, and the answers fly in the face of your "facts".

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is not a debate.

Now because there is ample evidence to support the 40% figure you can not deny it. This rise correlates with the industrial revolution. In 10 years it will be over 45%....

Ground control to SonofTheLawofOne, clearly we have a problem

a reply to: Greven

You didn't answer a single question I posed to you about the other problems with AGW, you skipped right over them to play word games. Nice strawman tactics, I love how you totally ignored the other problems that discredit AGW. Again, you can have a lot of evidence that supports your theory, but it only takes one piece of evidence to prove it wrong. That is how science works.

Your new claim is that the rest of the rise in CO2 levels is from natural sources. Back that up.

I never once said that, you are incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote.

You brought up the 600ppm data point in a discussion about global CO2 levels during human times. Either back it up, or back off of it. You are not being taken out of context. Your use of that data point was out of the context of the discussion.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize when we talk about the planet's climate, we can ONLY talk about it during the time humans were present?

You do not exclude data from pre-historic times when talking about climate, simply because I rebutted someone else's claim that CO2 hasn't been this high EVER. That is simply not true, and I referenced data from the past to support it. I also pointed out that CO2 has a place with physicists by referencing a comment about changes in CO2 throughout the day in a corn field that someone made. You are playing semantics with my posts, and not attacking the data, just the merits of what I'm saying. Does the data not show that CO2 was higher in pre-historic times?

You fail to see it's relevance? So only the data you find relevant about climate is relevant? Not what anyone else presents? Wow, that speaks volumes about you. Here I was thinking you were rational.

Which dovetails into your other comment about which journal Beck was published in. Rather than look at his work and critique it with your knowledge of the field, you attack the journal. That's a sound argument.

Please explain to everyone how your journals are better than mine? Have you published any work in a journal? Are you going to sit and here and say that because the E&E journals editor is skeptical of climate change, that it's somehow any different than the countless references you make to biased resources such as Skeptical Science? Yet, you ask ME to address YOUR concerns with the journal? How about MY concerns with your reference to SkS? How about my concerns with your lack of references to published papers that back up your claims?

I didn't extrapolate anything. I quoted you in fact. You said "why should I care?" - Because if you are open to discourse, and discussion about the topic, and not a blind follower, you should care about ALL EVIDENCE, regardless of where it is presented from, and regardless of the journals they are published from.

I DO read things from Skeptical Science and Real Climate. I've read Keeling's papers, and Callendar's, Hansen, Beck, and many many others. I am open to all facts and evidence being presented, and don't just dismiss the work of others just because it doesn't fit with popular opinion, or "consensus".

So far, your first few posts were good, with strong facts and data. These last several, have been nothing but you trying to syntactically pick apart words or phrases that I use to semantically turn them into something they aren't in order to benefit your argument.

You should be very concerned then, that temperatures are rising after CO2 is rising. The cause and effect seem to have gotten mixed up. That you would ignore that glaring issue is troubling.

Wait, what? So now you are saying that temperatures are going up after CO2? Please show your evidence of that. Temperature has not risen in 15 years, even the IPCC has acknowledged that on more than one occasion, and CO2 has continued to rise while temps remain stable and in fact, are getting lower.

If you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

Failed prophecy and prediction, nothing more.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
You failed to address my points as well, but that's ok.
...
Let me ask you this... if the average lag between temperature and CO2 is approximately 800 years +- 200... why wouldn't this current increase in CO2 be caused by the temperature increase during the Medieval Warming Period? It's well within the range of time to see the increase we're seeing.
...
Why is the work of Dr. Salby, a former contributor to the IPCC report, completely dismissed when he shows satellite data that confirms that the largest sources of CO2 are not from industrialized centers like China or the Ohio valley, but are from the Amazon, African and Asian forests? (this part of his work is dismissed because of other inaccuracies, rather than looking at the merits of the data)

Can you show any sources that show how much of the CO2 is absorbed by all of the planet's sinks? Better yet, can you find me one paper that has accurately determined all of the known CO2 sinks?
...
There is enough evidence to go against the models and start looking for the other drivers of our climate. They can start by seeing how temperature increasing effects CO2 instead of the other way around.

I can simplify it even further. We believe less CO2 will cool the planet. How did a cold planet work out for us before? It killed everything. How did higher temperatures work out for us before? It made the planet greener, more lush and full of life. Which one should we be more afraid of?

I don't see why I should address your points when they are not directed to me. I commented on a few things, is all.

It's perhaps possible, but how does it explain away the 29+ gigatonnes of CO2 annually that humans have been pumping into the atmosphere?

Natural CO2 emissions account for about 96% of annual CO2 emissions. There is no surprise from me that the Amazon or other large carbon-dense areas are emitting a much higher amount of CO2 than humans - it's simple math. Before we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it was was essentially 100%. As I recall, global carbon sink capacity is about 101% of natural emissions. Thus the imbalance, since global CO2 emissions are now at 104.17% or so of natural emissions. There's simply not enough being taken out of the atmosphere annually, and so even the small amount that we contribute adds up.

Those are roughly IPCC estimates, so you'll have to take it up with them if you disagree. This is another source of information on the subject; one concern is that the sinks themselves might start contributing to CO2 emissions. Already, I've spent a great deal of time posting today, and competition for my time is immense, so further examination of this will have to wait.

I will not defend the models and have no reason to do so.

Again, humans have not lived in a time where CO2 concentrations were high. It is ill-advised to just assume cool = bad and hot = good.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
a reply to: Greven

You didn't answer a single question I posed to you about the other problems with AGW

I never once said that, you are incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize when we talk about the planet's climate, we can ONLY talk about it during the time humans were present?

You do not exclude data from pre-historic times when talking about climate, simply because I rebutted someone else's claim that CO2 hasn't been this high EVER. That is simply not true, and I referenced data from the past to support it. I also pointed out that CO2 has a place with physicists by referencing a comment about changes in CO2 throughout the day in a corn field that someone made. You are playing semantics with my posts, and not attacking the data, just the merits of what I'm saying. Does the data not show that CO2 was higher in pre-historic times?

You fail to see it's relevance? So only the data you find relevant about climate is relevant? Not what anyone else presents? Wow, that speaks volumes about you. Here I was thinking you were rational.

Which dovetails into your other comment about which journal Beck was published in. Rather than look at his work and critique it with your knowledge of the field, you attack the journal. That's a sound argument.

Please explain to everyone how your journals are better than mine? Have you published any work in a journal? Are you going to sit and here and say that because the E&E journals editor is skeptical of climate change, that it's somehow any different than the countless references you make to biased resources such as Skeptical Science? Yet, you ask ME to address YOUR concerns with the journal? How about MY concerns with your reference to SkS? How about my concerns with your lack of references to published papers that back up your claims?

I didn't extrapolate anything. I quoted you in fact. You said "why should I care?" - Because if you are open to discourse, and discussion about the topic, and not a blind follower, you should care about ALL EVIDENCE, regardless of where it is presented from, and regardless of the journals they are published from.

I DO read things from Skeptical Science and Real Climate. I've read Keeling's papers, and Callendar's, Hansen, Beck, and many many others. I am open to all facts and evidence being presented, and don't just dismiss the work of others just because it doesn't fit with popular opinion, or "consensus".

So far, your first few posts were good, with strong facts and data. These last several, have been nothing but you trying to syntactically pick apart words or phrases that I use to semantically turn them into something they aren't in order to benefit your argument.

Wait, what? So now you are saying that temperatures are going up after CO2? Please show your evidence of that. Temperature has not risen in 15 years, even the IPCC has acknowledged that on more than one occasion, and CO2 has continued to rise while temps remain stable and in fact, are getting lower.

I'm not your monkey. I do not have to answer your questions - especially not those not relevant to my remarks. Still, let's look at your questions:

Might you do the same?

Answered.

So are YOU trying to say that CO2 never hit 600ppm or higher? Not ever?

Answered.

You know what's funny and oddly ironic about the link you provided?

Not a question.

Wait... I'm supposed to care about all of the things you say, and the evidence you present, but you immediately dismiss someone who understands more about how molecules and particles behave than you or I, simply because he is a skeptic? Why should you care? Why should I care what you say?

Answered.

Hmm... It appears that you're lying. When you accuse someone of doing something, at least be truthful.

Yes, you did. I even quoted it. Stop lying. Here it is again:

As Ray already pointed out, the percentage of the carbon isotope that represents human emissions is not 40%, so a large part of the increase is from natural sources too.

The CO2 concentration millions of years ago is not relevant today. There were a great many other factors which are different. Citing the CO2 concentration as being higher way back then is blatantly ignoring that conditions were far different. This is not an obtuse concept.

Actually, I have submitted a paper for publication in a journal. It was a small paper and in a small journal - I'm not sure if it is in print yet; last I heard it was supposed to be printed in late August. This paper involved a mix of biology, chemistry, and physics (which sounds more impressive than it really is), and went through proper peer review from professors in the appropriate field. I fail to see how that is relevant to a critique on poor practices of another journal, but since you asked...

Recall again what I actually wrote:

Why should I care what you claim he says about a tiny spot of land at a particular time of day in regards to the atmospheric record? What relevance is there?

You claimed he said something. You didn't cite it. The supposed claim was about a localized area, during a specific time of day. Again, what is the relevance? You went off on a whole spiel based on misreading what I had written.


Looks like the temperature rose in the last 15 years to me. It also looks like TSI dipped, which slowed the increase.

a reply to: redtic

Again, the claim of "consensus" doesn't fly... Not to mention that because a bunch of scientists want to keep their funding by jumping in the AGW bandwagon doesn't make the claims behind AGW as fact...

If their claims about AGW were true the question is then why would they have a need to LIE, to tamper and fudge data, to delete raw temperature data, and in general to try to stop any other scientist or researcher from finding the truth?...

The answer is quite simple AGW is a hoax, a lie and this is the reason why the need to lie, tamper with data, erase data and in general it is the reason why they have a need to stop the truth from being known by most people.

But then again, as it can be seen time and again AGW is a religion, which is why the most ardent advocates can never accept the fact that they have been lied to from day 1.

a reply to: Greven

There is no such thing as "imbalance" with regards to atmospheric CO2. The Earth has gone through periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were 4,000 ppm and higher yet the Earth recovered.

What proof do you have that an increase of 100ppm-120ppm or even 500ppm of atmospheric CO2 is catastrophic?... Computer models which have been shown time and again not to account for natural factors that affect climate change?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Out of curiosity, are you a religious person?

I do believe global warming is a hoax too, It is a propaganda campaign. It can not be either proved or disproves in our short life times. While there does appear to be a correlation between temperature rise and CO2, this is by no means proves global warming.

It is a perfect debate for the ignorant because neither side can prove themselves right, however they can pick out weakness in their other sides view point to 'win' the 'debate'.

The world's climate is not up for debate. The chemistry of this planet is changing as a result of human activity.

It is up to my generation to do something to better this planet. We are much more aware of this planet than we have ever have been in human history. It will not be long before we start terraforming Mars and possibly the Moon. In order to be able to do this successfully, we need to be able to maintain balance in this planet's atmosphere.

Our air's CO2 count is soaring right now. Up 1% every two years and it appears that rate is increasing. There is a problem is we need to offer solutions.

originally posted by: Greven

If there are so many papers floating around, you wouldn't mind linking a few, would you? Otherwise, I'm skeptical of your claims.

I fail to see how the salinity of the ocean decreased during a time when ocean levels should have been on the decline. Perhaps you can link a source to this, as well?

CWP = Current Warm Period, MWP = Medieval Warm Period, and RWP = Roman Warm Period.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/742a0ef22e8f.gif[/atsimg]

The above graphic is from an analisys of sediment from the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve of south-central Alaska (USA)

BTW CWP stands for "Current Warm Period" and you can see that both the Medieval, and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than the most current warm period.

The following is a graph from the Sargasso Sea Temperature reconstruction.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97cec650ff2c.jpg[/atsimg]

The above data is up to 1999, but do tell me, have global average temperatures increased 1C -3C since 1998?...

Although this article explains that evidence of the RWP in Asi is being disputed, it does say that and I quote:

Moreover, the impact of the RWP to the East Asian ancient history is not clear also because there were no notable political factions in all East Asia except in some parts of China.

This bears great relevance because the RWP weather events weren't reported as much as other Climate Change events.

However if you take a look at this graph, which show the Climate Changes in East Asia for the past 1,800 years you can see that at least part of the Medieval Warm Period was warmer even than the present, and they even mention it.

II.2.3 The Medieval Warm Period
After the DACP was another warm period that continued until c. 1350 A.D., and it was wet and warm again like the RWP. Although some scientists argue that actually there was no significant warm climate during the MWP in East Asia, it seems evident that at least the 12th century was warmer than any other periods - even warmer than today-discussed on this paper. (8)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a357061c7174.jpg[/atsimg]

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss (in press) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science.


The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa


P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.

1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]



Abstract

The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

www-user.uni-bremen.de...

(continued)

Decline Of Roman And Byzantine Empires 1,400 Years Ago May Have Been Driven By Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2008) — The decline of the Roman and Byzantine Empires in the Eastern Mediterranean more than 1,400 years ago may have been driven by unfavorable climate changes.

Based on chemical signatures in a piece of calcite from a cave near Jerusalem, a team of American and Israeli geologists pieced together a detailed record of the area's climate from roughly 200 B.C. to 1100 A.D. Their analysis, to be reported in an upcoming issue of the journal Quaternary Research, reveals increasingly dry weather from 100 A.D. to 700 A.D. that coincided with the fall of both Roman and Byzantine rule in the region.

www.sciencedaily.com...

In fact, as I have pointed out before with other research, the Earth has been warmer than during the 20th, or the beginning of the 21st century, yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much lower than now.

Such dramatic Climate Changes occurred globally, not just in one area, or just in the northern hemisphere.

Title:
Late Holocene Environmental and Hydrologic Conditions in Northwestern Florida Derived from Seasonally Resolved Profiles of δ18O and Sr/Ca of Fossil Bivalves.
Authors:
Elliot, M.; de Menocal, P. B.; Linsley, B. K.; Howe, S. S.; Guilderson, T.; Quitmyer, I. R.
Affiliation:
AA(Edinburgh University, Dept. Geology and Geophysics, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW United Kingdom ; [email protected]), AB(Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 ; [email protected]), AC(University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 ; [email protected]), AD(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; [email protected]), AE(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; ), AF(Florida Museum of Natural History, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; )
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #PP72A-0429
Publication Date:
12/2002
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
3344 Paleoclimatology, 4215 Climate and interannual variability (3309), 4227 Diurnal, seasonal, and annual cycles, 4870 Stable isotopes, 4875 Trace elements
Bibliographic Code:
2002AGUFMPP72A0429E

Abstract
We reconstruct environmental conditions of coastal Northwestern Florida from combined measurements of δ18O and Sr/Ca of fossil marine bivalves deposited in an archeological site during the late Holocene period. We first investigated the environmental controls of seasonally resolved records of δ18O and Sr/Ca of modern Mercenaria mercenaria and Mercenaria campesiensis collected live from five coastal sites along the east coast of North America. Seasonal profiles were obtained by sub-sampling the incremental growth layers of aragonite and were compared with in situ historical records of temperature and salinity. We show that these bivalves precipitate their shell in isotopic equilibrium with the water in which they grew and that the δ18O records are not affected by variations in growth rate. Winter growth appears to be interrupted or strongly reduced below water temperatures ranging from 7 to 18° C, depending on latitude. The annual average δ18O decreases with latitude, reflecting both the parallel trend of freshwater δ18O with latitude over the North American continent and the reduced winter growth rate. The Sr/Ca records of the 5 modern bivalves also exhibit seasonal variations can be correlated to water temperature. However, contrary to corals, the Sr/Ca ratio is considerably lower than the average sea water Sr/Ca composition and is positively correlated to the water temperature. We dated and measured the δ18O and Sr/Ca of 30 fossil M. campesiensis from an archeological site close to Cedar Key, in the Gulf of Mexico. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C dates obtained for each shell show ages which cluster between 1100 to 1400 and 2300 to 2600 14C years BP corresponding approximately to two historical warm periods known as the Medieval Warm Period (~ 1300-900AD) and the Roman Warm Period (~ 250AD-200BC). The average annual and summer Sr/Ca of 4 fossil shells are higher than that of modern bivalves from the same location suggesting that annual coastal water temperatures were 3 to 4° C warmer than today. The bulk δ18O values show a marked trend towards more positive values. 24 fossil shells have bulk δ18O values 0.2permil to 0.7permil more positive than modern bivalves from the same location. These results suggest that the coastal waters off northwest Florida were warmer and less saline compared to today and attest of considerable differences of the regional climate and hydrological balance during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

More abrupt climate changes have occurred in the past.

Originally published in Science Express on 19 June 2008
Science 1 August 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5889, pp. 680 - 684
DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
[bHigh-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years[/b
]
Jørgen Peder Steffensen,1* Katrine K. Andersen,1 Matthias Bigler,1,2 Henrik B. Clausen,1 Dorthe Dahl-Jensen,1 Hubertus Fischer,2,3 Kumiko Goto-Azuma,4 Margareta Hansson,5 Sigfús J. Johnsen,1 Jean Jouzel,6 Valérie Masson-Delmotte,6 Trevor Popp,7 Sune O. Rasmussen,1 Regine Röthlisberger,2,8 Urs Ruth,3 Bernhard Stauffer,2 Marie-Louise Siggaard-Andersen,1 Árn E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir,9 Anders Svensson,1 James W. C. White7

The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. The deuterium excess, a proxy of Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions and initiated a more gradual change (over 50 years) of the Greenland air temperature, as recorded by stable water isotopes. The onsets of both abrupt Greenland warmings were slightly preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, reflecting the wetting of Asian deserts. A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.

www.sciencemag.org...

The claim that the warming of the 20th century is "unprecedented" is nothing but a lie.

Global borehole temperature changes have shown that as areas of the world were still undergoing the LIA (Little Ice Age) the Earth was warming and continued to exponentially warm since the early 1600s. Over 200+ years before the industrial revolution and before the rise of anthropogenic CO2.

That's without mentioning the fact that people like you continue to ignore the real fact that during warming periods, as the atmosphere warms water vapor levels increase naturally. Water vapor is a stronger ghg than CO2 will ever be. Most of the increase in temperature that has been attributed to CO2 was in fact caused by the increased levels of water vapor, not because CO2.