No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

And pollution does not cause Climate Change...it can affect the environment, but it does not change the global climate...

Well I don't agree with you, I explained to you that stronger ultra violate rays, microwaves cause damage to the ice caps.
I also beilive that warming up due to green gass will also pay a contribution to the melting of the ice caps.

First of all, cars are not the mayor producers of CO2, it is coal plants and other factories which produce most of the CO2.

But they are a major contribution.

Second of all I would really like to see how fast, and how much a car can be moved by such a water vapor engine...


BTW similar engines have existed for a long time...they used them on trains, but they needed lots and lots of energy, which they got by burning wood, or coal in large quantities.

It's not a vapor engine, it's just a name for the engine, it does not work on pressure due to water vapors.
That is old stuff, I agree with you.
That is how this engine is called now days, this engine uses hidrogen for it's propulsion, hidrogen is colected from the water as a substance by a process, water has oxigen and hidrogen, by spliting the oxigen and oxigen from the water and by combining them has separate ingrediant you get a fuel.
It was nicked named as a vapor engine, but it has nothing in commun with the water vapor engine.

I can tell you that engine in that graph is not going to produce enough energy to move any car.

This fuel has the burning /combustion levels twice as petrolium produces and no polution at all, when it is used and it burns it just returns to it's previos state, water.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Well I don't agree with you, I explained to you that stronger ultra violate rays, microwaves cause damage to the ice caps.
I also beilive that warming up due to green gass will also pay a contribution to the melting of the ice caps.

pepsi78, If i were you I would do some proper research before making any more comments.

UV rays do not "damage ice caps", UV rays produce radiation burns which are different from burns caused by heat. UV rays can damage cells, and plants, in general. Too much overexposure to UV rays damages "living organisms", but they do not melt ice caps.

As an example during winter the sun can be up and shinning like during summer, which is sending UV rays all the time, and you still need to protect yourself against the UV rays, yet the UV rays do not melt the ice. Your skin can recieve radiation burns from too much exposure to UV rays in winter when the sun can't even melt the snow.

As for "microwaves" i don't know what in the world you are talking about. If you are talking about microwave bands in the use of radios or tv news sending their news from their vans to the station, once again you need to actually understand the difference between the frequencies used for transmitting information through "radios and tv news", and the frequencies used on regular microwave ovens to cook your food.

The microwave bands used to send information to a radio or tv station do not emit any heat.

As for GHGs, they are needed to maintain the Earth warm, without them we wouldn't exist. CO2 is not the evil GHG some are trying to portray it is, water vapor is a worse GHG than CO2 can ever be on Earth's atmosphere.

Originally posted by pepsi78
................
This fuel has the burning /combustion levels twice as petrolium produces and no polution at all, when it is used and it burns it just returns to it's previos state, water.

That engine cannot in any way produce hydrogen. You obviously are not aware of the energy levels needed to produce hydrogen from water. Hydrogen cars use already converted hydrogen itself, which does release large amounts of water vapor, which retains more than twice the heat than CO2 does. There are also quite a few problems with the storage of hydrogen.

Go ahead and build that engine if you want and try it, outside of your home and see what happens.

I can tell you you won't be able to move any car with that so called vapor engine.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

As for "microwaves" i don't know what in the world you are talking about. If you are talking about microwave bands in the use of radios or tv news sending their news from their vans to the station, once again you need to actually understand the difference between the frequencies used for transmitting information through "radios and tv news", and the frequencies used on regular microwave ovens to cook your food.

The microwave bands used to send information to a radio or tv station do not emit any heat.

Might suggest you practice what you preach and do some reading yourself.

No microwaves "emit heat". They energise particles causing them to emit heat.

The microwave transmitters atop a van could cook food if given long enough, depending on their wattage, not frequency.

My father used to cook food in front of portable RADAR set's when he was in the Army. Those have a higher wattage, so can cook rather quickly.

Frequencies just affect the application, not the amount of energy in the beam. Higher frequency microwaves (300GHz+) are useful for directed data transmission (such as to a sat) due to the high bandwidth and directional properties of such frequencies. Lower frequencies (such as in a Microwave oven at 2Ghz) are used for different applications.

WAN's use a frequency range not far above a Microwave oven.

RADAR actually uses much the same frequency range as the Ovens.

Originally posted by stumason

Might suggest you practice what you preach and do some reading yourself.

Radio and TV microwaves are not set to "cook" anything. If radio waves were able to heat and cook, you wouldn't be able to listen to your radio without feeling the heat, and the heat that are emitted by cell phones, which some people confuse and think is being produced by the microwaves, are not because of the electromagnetic waves the cell phone emits, it is the battery which heats up.

I never said "no microwave emits heat"... There is such a thing as microwave ovens, and i addressed those in my statements.

Originally posted by stumason
No microwaves "emit heat". They energise particles causing them to emit heat.

The microwave transmitters atop a van could cook food if given long enough, depending on their wattage, not frequency.

Stop trying to twist what I was saying. Yes, it is possible to set up any microwave emitter to cook, but for the applications i was talking about they do not emit heat, though they emit electromagnetic radiation.

BTW, the "frequency" of the wave does classify the type of wave, from radio waves, to microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet, etc, etc.

The higher the wattage will only make a microwave oven cook faster, but the "frequency" is what determines what sort of electromagnetic wave it is. Wattage does not determine the type of electromagnetic wave.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Radio and TV microwaves are not set to "cook" anything. If radio waves were able to heat and cook, you wouldn't be able to listen to your radio, and the heat that are emitted by cell phones, which some people confuse and think is being produced by the microwaves, are not because of the electromagnetic waves the cell phone emits, it is the battery which heats up.

Your all over the shop. Muaddib. Radio is a catch all phrase for the whole spectrum, but I'd assume your referring to the device? It is also not broadcast in microwaves. Television is, however, because of the bandwidth requirements.

They're not "set" because they lack the wattage. That is standard low frequency microwaves used for broadcast. Higher frequency microwaves used by the vans or such like, for directional transmission will have a high wattage (to enable the signal to reach the satellite as the higher frequency has a shorter range) and will be able to cook.

For mobile phones and such like, they could cook your brain if you upped the wattage put out by them. Mobile devices have been proven, that over an extended use, can cause slight heating of the tissue near the phone.

Originally posted by Muaddib

I never said "no microwave emits heat"... There is such a thing as microwave ovens, and i addressed those in my statements.

You said:

As for "microwaves" i don't know what in the world you are talking about. If you are talking about microwave bands in the use of radios or tv news sending their news from their vans to the station, once again you need to actually understand the difference between the frequencies used for transmitting information through "radios and tv news", and the frequencies used on regular microwave ovens to cook your food.

The microwave bands used to send information to a radio or tv station do not emit any heat.

I said that no microwave will emit any heat. That is true. What it does is it excites particles which then generates heat. It doesn't matter what the frequency is, as long as there is significant wattage in the wave.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by stumason
No microwaves "emit heat". They energise particles causing them to emit heat.

Stop trying to twist what I was saying. Yes, it is possible to set up any microwave emitter to cook, but for the applications i was talking about they do not emit heat, they emit electromagnetic radiation.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Indeed. No microwave emitter anywhere emits heat (except as a byproduct of inefficiency in converting electric energy to microwave energy).

Read what I'm saying instead of getting your knickers in a twist.

What I am saying is ANY microwave emitter that has significant wattage WILL heat something up. It doesn't matter about the frequency.

You do know what "heat" is, don't you? It's infra-red. So it stands to reason that one EM wave will not emit another, lower frequency wave. What it does it it causes the subject within the microwave beam to heat up as it absorbs the microwaves. The subject will then emit heat itself, not the microwaves.

Besides, the only reason I brought this up is that you spouted a load of rubbish at another poster and told him/her to go and read up about it.

I suggest you do the same.

Originally posted by Muaddib


BTW, the "frequency" of the wave does classify the type of wave, from radio waves, to microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet, etc, etc.

The higher the wattage will only make a microwave oven cook faster, but the "frequency" is what determines what sort of electromagnetic wave it is. Wattage does not determine the type of electromagnetic wave.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Well done. Done some reading I see.

I never said it did determine what kind of wave, only its ability to heat an object. Really, please read what I said as it is plain for all to see, instead of putting words in my mouth.

I am fully aware that frequency determines the particular type of wave. I work in telecoms and have to deal with this every day of my life.

Originally posted by Muaddib
And you go back to trying to vindicate Mann and associates, as if that adds any more credence to their "new lies"...

Again as i have posted several times in the past research from several other sources disprove the lies and exagerations that Mann, associates and you keep claiming. You, Mann and associates have tried to claim the LIA, the RWP, and the MWP were not global events, when there are dozens of research which disprove your claims.


Not to mention, for the 75th time, that you have even tried to claim that any current warming being associated with the Holocene period "according to you" is a lie...yet...

Oh but you keep trying to twist things around and keep trying to vindicate Mann and associates time and again... Which shows who has an "honesty issue" is you and noone else than you.

The holocene had been cooling since about 7500 years ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The MWP and LIA were likely not global phenomena and the current global temperatures are very likely to be warmer than for 1000 years...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've also shown you research which was questioning the global nature of the MWP years before MBH 1998, it is not just Mann's research who shows this. Even without the MBH 1998 study, we can still come to the same conclusion, your focusing on MBH 1998 is moot, just an attempt to wrongly attack the integrity of Mann, whose research has been deemed broady acceptable and valid by major US scientific organisations.

If there was any truth that "CO2 would greatly increase temperatures", it would have shown so even if the experiment was only supposed to imitate the conditions of a region.... After all, CO2 is the "big bad evil" anthropogenic GHG you, Mann and associates are trying to blame for GLobal Warming/Climate Change.

Not necessarily. It seems in this particular region, central USA grasslands, it is a little bit more complex. Which is why Pielke Sr. would have picked it, he likes to focus on regional effects, and that is all this study shows, a regional effect.

Next time you use this research, try to be less misleading, make it clear this is a single region study and cannot be scaled to global trends. That would show intellectual honesty, especially when this has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Climate sensitivity on a global scale is between 2-4.5'C.

Originally posted by stumason
Your all over the shop. Muaddib. Radio is a catch all phrase for the whole spectrum, but I'd assume your referring to the device? It is also not broadcast in microwaves. Television is, however, because of the bandwidth requirements.

....I was not refering to the "device"... I was refering to the radio waves. BTW, radio waves is not a "catch all phrase for whole spectrum"... Where the hell did you come up with that?

Radio waves are the types of waves with longest wavelength in the whole spectrum, but they are not a "catch phrase for whole spectrum."

Because these type of waves, radio waves, can get interference from clouds, or haze, information for some mediums are sent as microwaves.

Originally posted by stumason
.................
You do know what "heat" is, don't you? It's infra-red. So it stands to reason that one EM wave will not emit another, lower frequency wave. What it does it it causes the subject within the microwave beam to heat up as it absorbs the microwaves. The subject will then emit heat itself, not the microwaves..................

......and what in the world defines whether an electromagnetic wave is infrared, visible light, radio waves, etc, etc?....

You are confusing one type of EM wave with another.

Infrared is close to the microwave, in fact infrared lies between the visible and microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are different types of EM waves....

Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave: these types include, in order of increasing frequency, radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. In some technical contexts the entire range is referred to as just 'light'.

en.wikipedia.org...

The frequency of the electromagnetic wave is what defines which type of EM wave it is...and that includes infrared...

The next time you put your foot in your mouth just admit it...

Originally posted by stumason
Besides, the only reason I brought this up is that you spouted a load of rubbish at another poster and told him/her to go and read up about it.

I suggest you do the same.

The only one that actually said a lot of rubish is yourself...

Nothing that i said to that member was wrong.

Originally posted by stumason

Well done. Done some reading I see.

I wasn't the one login in and off apparently trying to look for information when you were on last night.

I did add a statement, but didn't take me more than 2 minutes to do so. I waited for your reply since I saw you online and you were login in and out, took you more than 30 minutes to respond.

Originally posted by stumason
I never said it did determine what kind of wave, only its ability to heat an object. Really, please read what I said as it is plain for all to see, instead of putting words in my mouth.

I am fully aware that frequency determines the particular type of wave. I work in telecoms and have to deal with this every day of my life.

The ability to heat an object depends of the type of EM wave it is, and the "type" of EM wave is defined by the frequency of the wave.

If what you were saying was true, then UV rays would be able to melt ice, yet it does not... however it does give "radiation burns" and can be lethal to "living organisms" if overexposed....

Next time you should be the one to read up a bit before puting your foot in your mouth...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

The holocene had been cooling since about 7500 years ago.

What the heck...

To observe a Holocene environment, simply look around you! The Holocene is the name given to the last ~10,000 years of the Earth's history -- the time since the end of the last major glacial epoch, or "ice age." Since then, there have been small-scale climate shifts -- notably the "Little Ice Age" between about 1200 and 1700 A.D. -- but in general, the Holocene has been a relatively warm period in between ice ages.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

There has been some cooling, but in general it is a "warm period"...and one that has had shorter Climate Changes events...

Originally posted by melatonin
The MWP and LIA were likely not global phenomena and the current global temperatures are very likely to be warmer than for 1000 years...

They were global...as they left an imprint in the geological record in the entire planet....

Originally posted by melatonin
I've also shown you research which was questioning the global nature of the MWP years before MBH 1998, it is not just Mann's research who shows this.

Which I have demonstrated has been another attempt to hide the facts about these Climate Change events....because, once again.... these Climate Change events left an imprint in the geological record of the entire Earth....

Originally posted by melatonin
Next time you use this research, try to be less misleading, make it clear this is a single region study and cannot be scaled to global trends. That would show intellectual honesty, especially when this has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Climate sensitivity on a global scale is between 2-4.5'C.

But isn't CO2 the evil GHG which is causing "Global Warming"?..... If it was it would show so, even if the experiment was designed as a regional study... In other parts of the world there would have been some differences, but not to the extent that you, Mann and associates are trying to claim...

Muaddib, deliberately twisting what is said to suit, you have expanded the argument to include any and all Em radiation so you can prove your point. However, what I was originally adressing (for the beneift of others) was this statement:

As for "microwaves" i don't know what in the world you are talking about. If you are talking about microwave bands in the use of radios or tv news sending their news from their vans to the station, once again you need to actually understand the difference between the frequencies used for transmitting information through "radios and tv news", and the frequencies used on regular microwave ovens to cook your food

Despite trying to tell you, I suppose only a practical demonstration would suffice. Go and stand in front of a TV/Cellphone (insert a microwave transmitter here) broadcast antenna for 5 mins. If you don't come back mildly grilled, I'll admit your right.

As for the rest of your post.. I know. Find where I disagreed with your little EM lesson. All I was addresing was your arrogance at pepsi and the above statement, which claimed that the microwave transmitters used in TV vans could not heat anything. That is wrong.

As for the swipe at my apparent login in and off, thats just a bare faced lie. I was at work and had the same browser window open all day.

Not once was it shut, or whatever, so I could not have been "logged off", unless ATS has some sort of timeout where a period of inactivity will cause ATS to display me as offline.

I do apologise I could not give more time in my day to debate with you, Muaddib, but I had work to do and I wasn't aware this was a LIVE chat room, but rather a discussion board where it is accepted people won't respond immediately.

Untangle those knickers, hun...

Sorry, last bit then I'm dropping this...

......and what in the world defines whether an electromagnetic wave is infrared, visible light, radio waves, etc, etc?....

You are confusing one type of EM wave with another.

Infrared is close to the microwave, in fact infrared lies between the visible and microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are different types of EM waves....

Why did you feel the need to say this, when it isn't even adressing what you quoted me saying. In fact, your post actually agree's with what I said, ie; IR is a shorter wavelength than Microwave and it stands to reason no EM wave will emit another, as that is impossible. You get heat from microwave interaction with an object. I have no idea why you felt then need to basically copy what I said.

I wasn't confusing anything, but rather, I think your getting confused reading English.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Climate Change/Global Warming is going to persist whether or not every country goes green.

BTW jounglelord, do you have any feasible alternative fuel source hidden under your belt that can be implemented right now?

This is a "forum" and forums are there for "debate and arguments".

Yes I directly quoted the energy conspiracy and my Water Car Thread.
cheers

That engine cannot in any way produce hydrogen. You obviously are not aware of the energy levels needed to produce hydrogen from water.

Hydrogen cars use already converted hydrogen itself, which does release large amounts of water vapor, which retains more than twice the heat than CO2 does. There are also quite a few problems with the storage of hydrogen.

Go ahead and build that engine if you want and try it, outside of your home and see what happens.

I can tell you you won't be able to move any car with that so called vapor engine.

Muadib you have no idea when you are talking about the technical deails of the hidrogen car.
First of all hidrogen is not stored anywhere, it comes on demand, you don't pump water it the engine there is no vapor.
The proccess takes place before it go's in to the engine, the fuel going in to the engine is a brown substance, there is no steam, no vapor.
As for electolisys it can be done at lower voltages, it does not have a fixed range.
There is no problem because hidrogen is not stored but it's consumed as soon as it's being produced.
Hidrogen and oxigen combined has a combustion level twice of fosil fuel.




[edit on 20-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by stumason
...................
All I was addresing was your arrogance at pepsi and the above statement, which claimed that the microwave transmitters used in TV vans could not heat anything. That is wrong.

Pepsi78 statement is that such transmitters are heating up the Earth and apparently he thinks that UV rays, and microwaves from such devices are causing Global Warming and are thawing the ice caps........ That is wrong.... Perhaps you have to learn to read in context to what a person is reponding to...

Go read his posts before you make more of a fool of yourself...

Originally posted by stumason
As for the swipe at my apparent login in and off, thats just a bare faced lie. I was at work and had the same browser window open all day.

Whatever stumason... I said that just because of your claim that I took time to read anything online.... That's an absurb an idiotic claim on your part, more so when what I responded to pepsi78 was not wrong....

BTW, i am not your "hun", and have no "knickers" to bunch up.....

Really, some of your "English" attempts at pulling anyone's chain are quite stupid, and in fact are just hilarious....

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Muadib you have no idea when you are talking about the technical deails of the hidrogen car.
.....................

Go ahead build the engine, put it in a car, then contact your local news network and show them your "working hydrogen car" and then come back to show us your achievement....

If not just build it, then we can set up a place to meet with other ATSers, for you it won't cost a thing since all you have to do is drive your car with water.

If it is so easy and that engine works then just do it!

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by stumason

Why did you feel the need to say this, when it isn't even adressing what you quoted me saying. In fact, your post actually agree's with what I said, ie; IR is a shorter wavelength than Microwave and it stands to reason no EM wave will emit another, as that is impossible.

Because apparently you think that microwaves and infrared are the same... They are not... and because you apparently think that any EM wave can heat up any object just by upping it's wattage...but as i have said already if that was true UV rays would be able to melt ice, yet they don't...

Originally posted by stumason
You get heat from microwave interaction with an object. I have no idea why you felt then need to basically copy what I said.

Now I am copying what you said?....

Originally posted by stumason
I wasn't confusing anything, but rather, I think your getting confused reading English.

Microwave and infrared are two different EM waves, and that difference is in the "frequency"...not in the "wattage"...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Because apparently you think that microwaves and infrared are the same... They are not... and because you apparently think that any EM wave can heat up any object just by upping it's wattage...but as i have said already if that was true UV rays would be able to melt ice, yet they don't...

Comercial air line avoid flying above the northpole for that reason, microwave particles, gamma rays, uv rays are stronger at the north pole because the ozone layer is thiner.
The ozone layer at the north pole has becomed thiner and it's affecting the ice caps.
To prove to you that you are wrong,
ams.allenpress.com...(2003)042%3C0051%3AOAIOMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

An analysis of satellite microwave brightness temperatures at 85 GHz (37 GHz) shows that these temperatures sometimes vary by more than 30 K (15 K) within 1 or 2 days at a single location over Arctic sea ice. This variation can be seen in horizontal brightness temperature distributions with spatial scales of hundreds of kilometers, as well as in brightness temperature time series observed at a single location. Analysis of satellite observations during winter shows that such brightness temperature warming frequently occurs in the Arctic Ocean, particularly in regions over which low pressure systems often pass. By comparing the observed microwave brightness temperature warming with ground-based measurements of geophysical variables collected during the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic (SHEBA) experiment and with numerical prediction model analyses from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), it is found that brightness temperature anomalies are significantly correlated with clouds and precipitation. This finding raises the possibility of using satellite microwave data to estimate cloud liquid water path and precipitation in the Arctic. Factors contributing to the brightness temperature warming were examined, and it was found that the primary contributors to the observed warming were cloud liquid water and surface temperature change.

Anything that will contribute to the shrinking of the ozone layer at the north pole will result in melting of the ice caps.

Originally posted by Muaddib
What the heck...

There has been some cooling, but in general it is a "warm period"...and one that has had shorter Climate Changes events...

I never said it was cooler than ice-ages, so the quote is worthless to the issue.

They were global...as they left an imprint in the geological record in the entire planet....

Which I have demonstrated has been another attempt to hide the facts about these Climate Change events....because, once again.... these Climate Change events left an imprint in the geological record of the entire Earth....

[groundhog day]........

Was the MWP warmer than now, if so, was it on on a large regional/spatial scale?



These 10 reconstructions from numerous researchers that use multiple high resolution temperature proxies from across larger scale regions (the northern hemisphere) suggest it was not warmer during the MWP, but it was warmer than the LIA.

Was it on a large scale at the same time during the MWP?

Nine Localised temperature proxies from Mann et al (2003)...



These are compared to zero mean for 1961-1990. Red above mean, blue below. This shows that temperature is very variable across regions and time during LIA and MWP periods but 20th century warming is common to most regions.


What can you present? A handful of localised data points from within a 500 year period that show those localised areas were warmer than now.

Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years

Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

From the article...



This shows the fraction (number] of records during a particular timeframe that are above a threshold level of temperature, this uses 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere. A wider region of warming is present during the late 20th then any time in the previous 1200 yrs.

ABE: From Bradley et al (2003)...

Science 17 October 2003:
Vol. 302. no. 5644, pp. 404 - 405
DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz

Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, it was not warmer than the late 20th century. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures were not synchronous around the globe. Large changes in precipitation patterns are a particular characteristic of "High Medieval" time. The underlying mechanisms for such changes must be elucidated further to inform the ongoing debate on natural climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.

...

Large-scale reconstructions of mean annual or summer temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere show a decline in temperatures from 1000 A.D. to the late 19th century, followed by an abrupt rise in temperature (6). Such analyses, when scaled to the same base of reference, show that temperatures from 1000 to 1200 A.D. (or 1100 to 1200 A.D.) were almost the same (or 0.03ºC cooler) as from 1901 to 1970 A.D. (7, 8). The latter period was on average ~0.35ºC cooler than the last 30 years of the 20th century

Lets see what we find for the southern hemisphere...

The 'little ice age'...

From this cold interval, the SSTA reconstructions capture the 20th century warming until the 1980s, when the coral cores were collected. It is conspicuous that the period from the 1700s to the 1870s was consistently as warm as the early 1980s. The only other Pacific coral Sr/Ca record, from Rarotonga (Fig. 2D) (21), also reconstructs SSTs for the 18th and 19th centuries that are as warm as, or warmer than, the 20th century.

Hendy et al. (2002). Science, 295, 1511+

So, it was actually as warm around australia in the LIA as it was for the average 20th century.

What about the MWP...


Taken from Cobb et al. (2003) Nature, 472, 271+

Seems we find temperatures were relatively cooler in the tropical pacific during the MWP than the LIA. But, like your examples, these SH examples are a few localised temperature proxies that are not real indicative of the global position.


You can keep parroting a few isolated localised proxies but they mean little on large scales. You have no argument, the reconstructions provide multiple localised temperature proxies from across large areas over long periods of time. There are also a number of localised southern hemisphere proxies that refute the notion of global scale warming during MWP, and cooling during the LIA. Finally, we have Osborne & Briffa's analysis of 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere that show a larger region was warmer in the 20th century than during the MWP.

Multiple temperature proxies across more global areas across multiple studies from multiple researchers.

I'll repeat my main point again, multiple temperature proxies across more global areas from multiple researchers.

You have no case for your argument.


...............[/groundhog day]

But isn't CO2 the evil GHG which is causing "Global Warming"?..... If it was it would show so, even if the experiment was designed as a regional study... In other parts of the world there would have been some differences, but not to the extent that you, Mann and associates are trying to claim...

It is one significant cause of the current warming trend. I don't think Mann does much on climate sensitivity, he's a paleoclimatologist. Other researchers focus on these issues (e.g. Annan & Hargreaves, 2006).

Wow, "melatonin fool's day is up again?.... So "no case in the argument" because "melatonin says so"...

Except for a few facts....

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...




Oops, the evidence keeps showing the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were all global events because they are found in the geological record in the whole world.......

Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
.......................
The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.

www.springerlink.com...

Is there any evidence than anything else other than the "mythical and overated anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of Global Warming/Climate Change?...

Let's see...

13th November 2000
Staff at Armagh Observatory have begun a new project to unlock Armagh's unique 200-year long meteorological record. These observations, which comprise an important part of Northern Ireland's scientific heritage, represent the longest climate archive from a single site in Ireland and have a key role to play in understanding the causes of global warming.
...........
A plot showing the change in temperature at Armagh Observatory since 1796 and the simultaneous changes in the length of the `11-year' sunspot cycle, adapted from the article 'A provisional long mean air temperature series for Armagh Observatory', Journal for Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics, Vol 58, p1657-1672, 1996, by C.J. Butler and D.J. Johnston.".

www.arm.ac.uk...

Past and more recent research all point to the same thing..

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Abstract It is hypothesised that the Medieval Warm Period was preceded and followed by periods of moraine deposition associated with glacier expansion. Improvements in the methodology of radiocarbon calibration make it possible to convert radiocarbon ages to calendar dates with greater precision than was previously possible. Dating of organic material closely associated with moraines in many montane regions has reached the point where it is possible to survey available information concerning the timing of the medieval warm period. The results suggest that it was a global event occurring between about 900 and 1250 A.D., possibly interrupted by a minor readvance of ice between about 1050 and 1150 A.D.

www.springerlink.com...

Evidence can be found that these events were global, but melatonin, Mann and associates want to lie to the people and think they can fool the people and make everyday "melatonins', Mann and associates everyday is a fools day"...

Chilean Continental Slope, Southern Chile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Lamy, F., Hebbeln, D., Röhl, U. and Wefer, G. 2001. Holocene rainfall variability in southern Chile: a marine record of latitudinal shifts of the Southern Westerlies. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 185: 369-382.
Description
The authors used the iron content from an ocean sediment core taken from the Chilean continental slope (41°S, 74.45°W) as a proxy for historic rainfall in this region during the Holocene. Results indicated several centennial and millennial-scale phases of rainfall throughout this period, including an era of decreased rainfall "coinciding with the Medieval Warm Period," which was followed by an era of increased rainfall during the Little Ice Age. Given these results, they concluded that their data "provide further indications that both the LIA and MWP were global climate events."

www.co2science.org...

I mean, evidence keeps appearing which show these events happened all over the globe yet melatoning and "friends" want to claim the contrary...

09/2006 - Was the Little Ice Age caused by a minimum in the solar cycle?

The Little Ice Age (LIA), a significate climatic cooling of the Northern Hemisphere between the end of Middle Ages and the 18th century, also ocurred in the tropics, and the more likely cause was a minimum in the solar cycles. This has been confirmed after a joint study by UAB researchers and several American universities.

[url=http://www.uab.es/servlet/Satellite?cid=1096481466574&pagename=UABDivulga%2FPage%2FTemplatePageDetallArticleInvestigar¶m1=1096481770302]Link[ /url]

The Mucubají glacial activity in the Venezuelan Andes coincides with other records of Little Ice Age (LIA) glacial advances in S. America. Comparison of modern glacier equilibrium line altitudes (ELAs) in Venezuela with the Mucubaji LIA glacier ELA indicates an ELA depression of at least 300 m. Both a decline in temperature and increase in precipitation are required to explain the ELA depression. The precipitation increase is supported by increased catchment erosion recorded in L. Blanca sediments. Pollen records from two sites in the Venezuelan Andes also indicate wetter and colder conditions during the LIA.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Here is a graph which shows that not only did the LIA occurred in the Andes, but also the RWP (Roman Warming Period), the MWP (Medieval Warming Period), and other warming and colling events.



The above image can be found here.
www.worldclimatereport.com...

Here is another research paper which shows evidence that the MWP and the LIA also occurred in South America...

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America

A tree-ring reconstruction of summer temperatures from northern Patagonia shows distinct episodes of higher and lower temperature during the last 1000 yr. The first cold interval was from A.D. 900 to 1070, which was followed by a warm period A.D. 1080 to 1250 (approximately coincident with the Medieval Warm Epoch). Afterwards a long, cold-moist interval followed from A.D. 1270 to 1660, peaking around 1340 and 1640 (contemporaneously with early Little Ice Age events in the Northern Hemisphere). In central Chile, winter rainfall variations were reconstructed using tree rings back to the year A.D. 1220. From A.D. 1220 to 1280, and from A.D. 1450 to 1550, rainfall was above the long-term mean. Droughts apparently occurred between A.D. 1280 and 1450, from 1570 to 1650, and from 1770 to 1820. In northern Patagonia, radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates record two major glacial advances in the A.D. 1270–1380 and 1520–1670 intervals.

www.springerlink.com...

So, not only did the LIA happened in Europe, but also in the tropics and all over South America... But did it happen anywhere else?...

Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan
.......................
The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.

www.springerlink.com...

I mean, all these events appear all over the globe yet melatonin, Mann and associates want to claim they were not global events..

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
.....
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.

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

Not only does the geological record around the world shows that these events were global, but they show that the RWM and the MWP were warmer than it is at present... Yet, what does "melatonin, Mann and associates claim?....

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Muaddib]