It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Don't be dense?.... i am not the one claiming that an event which happened more than 55 million years ago, and which we can't even corroborate as to exactly what happened, and what caused it can tell us about the current Climate Change we are undergoing....

I am not the one who keeps proposing that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming when there has been no corroboration of this except for the claims made by some....

And i am not the one claiming that "this time around Climate Change is happening much more rapidly than in the past", or because of mankind's activities these changes are happening faster than ever before, when that is not true.... We know that in the past abrupt Climate Changes have happened in less than a decade....and the current Climate Change we are undergoing started for most of the Earth around the early 1600s....over 260 years before CO2 levels even began to increase....

Yes, "cases of foot and mouth" are apparently on the lose....but it seems to be a disease that only affects the liberals/environlunatics....

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Muaddib]




posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I see you've got the straw-dudes out...


Originally posted by Muaddib
I am not the one who keeps proposing that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming


Strawman

A cause of current warming. A significant one.


And i am not the one claiming that "this time around Climate Change is happening much more rapidly than in the past", or because of mankind's activities these changes are happening faster than ever before, when that is not true....


A pair of strawmen.

Current emissions of carbon-based GHGs are faster than during the PETM. Said nothing about than ever before.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Strawman

A cause of current warming. A significant one.


Strawman, that is your claim and that of some others but experiments don't show what you and some others claim, and the GCMs are not only flawed but have been wrong in their predictions, including predicting what cirrus clouds will do during the current warming event.



Originally posted by melatonin
A pair of strawmen.

Current emissions of carbon-based GHGs are faster than during the PETM. Said nothing about than ever before.


I didn't make that claim, you did, and in the past CO2 levels have gone up and down 100 ppm just like it has done now without the help of mankind, and abrupt climate changes have happened without CO2 levels changing much.

Again, the climate controls CO2 levels, CO2 levels do not control the climate despite the claims of some.

Climate Changes in the past have been so abrupt that they happened within a decade, the current Climate Change has been ongoing since at least the early 1600s for most of the world and it is still ongoing, so it is neither the fastest climate change nor the most dramatic.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irentat
UFO...

So...do you like the article or not? Are you for or against human-caused global warming?


Who would possibly want human global warming? I guess what you are trying to ask is does he 'believe' that global warming is man made? I think it's pretty well beyond dispute if you just follow the science..

J.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Strawman, that is your claim and that of some others but experiments don't show what you and some others claim, and the GCMs are not only flawed but have been wrong in their predictions, including predicting what cirrus clouds will do during the current warming event.


Your moving goalposts now.


Climate Changes in the past have been so abrupt that they happened within a decade, the current Climate Change has been ongoing since at least the early 1600s for most of the world and it is still ongoing, so it is neither the fastest climate change nor the most dramatic.


Never said it was the most dramatic or fastest EVA.

That is just your strawman.

Have fun beating your strawmen



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
We know that in the past abrupt Climate Changes have happened in less than a decade....


How do you know that's the case though?

The people who claim such abrupt climate changes have occurred in the past - such as Richard Alley - are the same people claiming that AGW is real (and contributing to the IPCC 4AR) ..... so why believe them? Or is it a case you believe them except when they tell you something you don't want to believe?

Anyway, such abrupt climate changes are believed to have had specific sudden and catastrophic causes. Totally different to what is (or isn't) happening today - so it's disingenuous to try and draw comparison. They were also of a cooling, not warming, nature



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

How do you know that's the case though?

The people who claim such abrupt climate changes have occurred in the past - such as Richard Alley - are the same people claiming that AGW is real (and contributing to the IPCC 4AR) ..... so why believe them? Or is it a case you believe them except when they tell you something you don't want to believe?


....No Essan, most if not all of the AGW skeptics have investigated and know that there have been abrupt Climate Changes in the past... It is not a claim from the AGW crowd.


Originally posted by Essan
Anyway, such abrupt climate changes are believed to have had specific sudden and catastrophic causes. Totally different to what is (or isn't) happening today - so it's disingenuous to try and draw comparison. They were also of a cooling, not warming, nature


Heh?....that's not true, not all of them had sudden catasthrophic causes, there have been abrupt Climate Changes which have happened within a decade and were not caused by catasthrophic causes.

Catasthrophic causes, such as a large meteor striking Earth would cause abrupt climate changes much faster, even within a few days in some instances.

Stop trying to claim someone is "disengenious" when you haven't even taken the time to research how fast some of the past warming periods have taken, thats "disengenious"....

Without going back in time too much, just by looking at two of the most recent warming periods in the history of Earth we can see that warming periods have been much faster than the current one we are undergoing, as what happened during the Roman Warm Period, and in the case of the Medieval Warm period we find that it was very similar to the present warming.

The Roman Warm Period (circa 250 B.C. to 400A.D.) was a much faster warm period than the present, lasting since it's start about 150 years or so, and it occurred faster than the Medieval Warm Period also.

Despite the claims of some people, evidence from all over the globe tells us that the Roman Warm Period was a "global event" when temperatures were much higher in most places on Earth than it is now.

The Medieval Warm Period (circa 850 A.D. to 1250 A.D.). is similar to the present warm period. The MWP lasted around 450 years, meanwhile the current time period started for most of the world in the early 1600s and it is still ongoing, that's over 400 years, and for some parts of the world the warming started 100 years before that, which would put the current warming at 500 years and still going.

Despite the disinformation some people and even some scientists have been trying to spread, the evidence from the geological record around the world show these events, alongside with the LIA, to have been global events, and events which were warmer than the present time period, except for the LIA of course, yet CO2 levels did not change much, which is why some people, and some scientists have been trying to bury, hide and have been lying about those climate change events.


[edit on 14-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Your moving goalposts now.


So now it is "moving goalposts" to show that GCMs and the whole AGW claim are flawed and wrong?.....



Originally posted by melatonin
Never said it was the most dramatic or fastest EVA.

That is just your strawman.

Have fun beating your strawmen


What the heck is EVA?.... Economic Value Added?....European Vendors Association?.... European Vandalists Association?...


Anyways... so now you are saying you have never claimed because of human activities the current climate change due to anthropogenic forcing is faster than past climatic changes?.....


Only melatonin would try to deny something he himself has stated but a few pages back, and has been trying to claim for months now....



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
So now it is "moving goalposts" to show that GCMs and the whole AGW claim are flawed and wrong?.....


It is when that was not what we were talking about.

Ever heard of the Gish-gallop? Duane Gish would be proud to see you using his approach so well.



Anyways... so now you are saying you have never claimed because of human activities the current climate change due to anthropogenic forcing is faster than past climatic changes?.....


Only melatonin would try to deny something he himself has stated but a few pages back, and has been trying to claim for months now....


I made one claim related to such a thing. That current emisions of GHGs are at a greater rate than during the PETM. Just one. The rest are your strawmen.

Other than that, my main claim was that CO2 does not always lag temperature increases, which I showed about 2 pages back, before we digressed into Chem 101 just for you.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
...
Other than that, my main claim was that CO2 does not always lag temperature increases, which I showed about 2 pages back, before we digressed into Chem 101 just for you.


I see our believer is still at it...

That has to be one of the weakest proofs to any claim. Thats like saying "You dont always get drunk when you drink, sometimes youre already drunk when you start drinking, therefor drinking doesnt make you to get drunk but vice versa."

Keep up the amazing work...




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

It is when that was not what we were talking about.


Ohh riiight...i wonder how is it that we have so many theories about the PETM..... i guess GCMs have nothing to do with it.



Originally posted by melatonin
Ever heard of the Gish-gallop? Duane Gish would be proud to see you using his approach so well.


Never heard of him, is he your twin brother?


Originally posted by melatonin
I made one claim related to such a thing. That current emisions of GHGs are at a greater rate than during the PETM. Just one. The rest are your strawmen.

Other than that, my main claim was that CO2 does not always lag temperature increases, which I showed about 2 pages back, before we digressed into Chem 101 just for you.

Cheers.


First of all, when have you or anyone else actually been able to corroborate that CO2 increases temperatures as much as you and some others claim it does?

Temperatures and the climate in general have changed dramatically in the past without much change on CO2 levels.

Second of all, like always, you try to hide the fact that water vapor is the main GHG contributer to warming, and during warming periods water vapor levels increase "always", while CO2 levels don't always change dramatically in warming periods.

CO2 has not been proven to cause the dramatic warming which the AGW crowd wants to claim it does. Does it cause some warming? yes, such as the experiment imitating the U.S. Midwest which showed that a doubling of CO2, that is if CO2 levels were to ever be at 760 ppm, right now it is at about 380 ppm, temperatures would increase in the U.S. by a whooping 0.014C.

CO2 levels have increased 100 ppm and much more in the past without the help of mankind, and CO2 levels have been much higher but temperatures have not changed much, or even Ice Ages occurred during times when the Earth had much higher levels of carbon in the atmosphere.

You, melatonin, alongside some of the proponents of the AGW are quick to show that during the last 800,000 years CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now, yet you want to immediately dismiss the fact that we know for certain during those 800,000 years there have been abrupt Climate Changes when temperatures have been much higher than they are now, and have also been much lower without any help from CO2.

You can't have it both ways, if CO2 is the main cause of any warming cycle, why is it that the geological record does not show this?...

The AGW theory is just a claim that is easily debunked with facts.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gonjo

I see our believer is still at it...

That has to be one of the weakest proofs to any claim. Thats like saying "You dont always get drunk when you drink, sometimes youre already drunk when you start drinking, therefor drinking doesnt make you to get drunk but vice versa."

Keep up the amazing work...



Wow, what an analogy... Some people come up with the most non-sensical analogies, and they think that proves anything....


What the heck does "drinking" have to do with CO2?... They are entirely different things...

BTW, you can always "drink" water, or ice tea, or pepsi, or coca cola and you won't get drunk....


[edit on 14-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow, what an analogy... Some people come up with the most non-sensical analogies, and they think that proves anything....


What the heck does "drinking" have to do with CO2?... They are entirely different things...


This is the second time you've done this, Muaddib. You also did it earlier with ignoranceisn'tbliss.

They were actually attempting to criticise my position. I think paranoia has set in...

Essentially, gonjo is attempting to say that I'm using the fact CO2 can precede temperature as some grand proof of CO2 as a driver of climate. When, in fact, I was mainly contradicting your erroneous claim that CO2 always lags temperature.

I think gonjo couldn't be bothered reading through the thread. Lots of complicated stuff an' all that..

We know that CO2 causes warming due to its physical properties, this has been known for over 100 years. So, it's not purely a reliance on a correlational relationship. So, his drink, drunk, and getting mashed argument sorta fails miserably.

[edit on 15-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

....No Essan, most if not all of the AGW skeptics have investigated and know that there have been abrupt Climate Changes in the past... It is not a claim from the AGW crowd.


Citations please
As far as I know the theory abrupt climate change is primarily based on ice core analysis .... And I happen to know a number of leading climate sceptics, none of whom are ice core or deep seabed core specialists - so I doubt they've done independent investigations.


... there have been abrupt Climate Changes which have happened within a decade and were not caused by catasthrophic causes.


Such as?

The last 2 I know of are the 8,200kya event and the YD - both believed caused by a sudden switch off of the THC by a sudden release of meltwaters (although other theories ofr the YD also exist).



Stop trying to claim someone is "disengenious" when you haven't even taken the time to research how fast some of the past warming periods have taken, thats "disengenious"....


I have though ..... but maybe I've missed some sources?



Without going back in time too much, just by looking at two of the most recent warming periods in the history of Earth we can see that warming periods have been much faster than the current one we are undergoing, as what happened during the Roman Warm Period, and in the case of the Medieval Warm period we find that it was very similar to the present warming.


How can we see that? Where? These periods are not what I know of as 'abrupt climate change' events - I'd describe them as just cyclical warming phases.



The Roman Warm Period (circa 250 B.C. to 400A.D.) was a much faster warm period than the present, lasting since it's start about 150 years or so, and it occurred faster than the Medieval Warm Period also.


What data do you base this conclusion on?


Despite the claims of some people, evidence from all over the globe tells us that the Roman Warm Period was a "global event" when temperatures were much higher in most places on Earth than it is now.


Much higher? Data please? I know many places experienced higher temps during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c10-6kya) - although it seems not all places at the same time. I'm not aware for evidence of significantly higher temps since.


Note: On investigation, I notice that Woods Hole do refer to the MWP as an 'abrupt event' although qualify it by saying "as not nearly so dramatic as past events".


For those interested, more good info on Abrupt Climate Change here: www.whoi.edu...

Greenland temp record here: www.whoi.edu...

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Essan]

[edit on 15-8-2007 by Essan]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
This is the second time you've done this, Muaddib. You also did it earlier with ignoranceisn'tbliss.


Ignoranceisn'tbliss did not quote anyone, which is why I thought he was refering to me, and usually we don't see eye to eye when it comes to this topic.

As for the other member, yes i was mistaken, and though he was refering to me. My apologies go to him, but that's not exactly "the proof you need to back your claims"...



Originally posted by melatonin
We know that CO2 causes warming due to its physical properties, this has been known for over 100 years. So, it's not purely a reliance on a correlational relationship. So, his drink, drunk, and getting mashed argument sorta fails miserably.


We know that water vapor causes more warming than CO2, yet you and some others want to claim it is CO2 and don't say a peep about water vapor.

If CO2 existed in the atmosphere alone, or in larger levels as it exists on Mars for example, it would induce all the warming that you and the IPCC alongside some others claim it does, but as it exists in the atmosphere the wamring caused by CO2 is "insignificant".

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Citations please
As far as I know the theory abrupt climate change is primarily based on ice core analysis .... And I happen to know a number of leading climate sceptics, none of whom are ice core or deep seabed core specialists - so I doubt they've done independent investigations.


I really have no idea what you are trying to argue about...

First of all proof of climate changes of the past, and even abrupt climate changes is not primarily based on ice core analysis.

There are several methods which have corroborated such climatic changes in the past.

And as for you asking for citations?... I have done so several times already and quite a few times you have been

Actually show me proof that those who doubt the AGW claim, and AGW is a claim, do not believe there have been abrupt climate changes in the past...



Originally posted by Essan
Such as?

The last 2 I know of are the 8,200kya event and the YD - both believed caused by a sudden switch off of the THC by a sudden release of meltwaters (although other theories ofr the YD also exist).



Description
The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic and often extreme shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.

Abrupt climate changes of the magnitude seen in the past would have far-reaching implications for human society and ecosystems, including major impacts on energy consumption and water supply demands. Could such a change happen again? Are human activities exacerbating the likelihood of abrupt climate change? What are the potential societal consequences of such a change?

www.nap.edu...



Originally posted by Essan
I have though ..... but maybe I've missed some sources?


If you had then you wouldn't have made that comment.



Originally posted by Essan
How can we see that? Where? These periods are not what I know of as 'abrupt climate change' events - I'd describe them as just cyclical warming phases.


Even though as you noted below the MWP is categorized as an abrupt event, and even though the Roman Warming period was much faster, and much warmer than the MWP, i did not refer to those two events abrupt climate changes.



Originally posted by Essan
What data do you base this conclusion on?


Just do a search on the RWP Essan, it is common knowledge that event did not last as long as the MWP or the current warming cycle...



Originally posted by Essan
Much higher? Data please? I know many places experienced higher temps during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c10-6kya) - although it seems not all places at the same time. I'm not aware for evidence of significantly higher temps since.


....i have given data from Africa, North America/Canada, Japan, China, and several European countries in which these events were recorded in the geological record as having occurred at about the same time globally....

They might not coincide exactly to the date, and the warming was more severe on several places but that is normal, even the current warming event hasn't coincided globally to the date and there are places where the warming has been felt more than other places....

The AGW crowd who claim that because the RWP and the MWP did not coincide globally to the minute, or that the warming wasn't the same globally and that it means according to them these events weren't global, are forgetting that even the current warming event we have been undergoing didn't start all over the globe at the same time, and there are places where the warming has been stronger than in other places.

As an example.


ABSTRACT: Fifty-seven borehole temperature profiles from across Australia are analysed to reconstruct a ground surface temperature history for the past five centuries. The five-hundred-year reconstruction is characterised by a temperature increase of approximately 0.5 K, with most of the warming occurring in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 17th century was the coolest interval of the five-century reconstruction.

Comparison of the geothermal reconstruction to the Australian annual
surface air temperature time series in their period of overlap shows excellent agreement. The full geothermal reconstruction also agrees well with the low-frequency component of dendroclimatic reconstructions from Tasmania and New Zealand. The warming of Australia over the past five
centuries is only about half that experienced by the continents of the Northern Hemisphere in the same time interval.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Following the train of thought of the AGW crowd i guess the above proves that the current warming event is not global huh?....

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
Anyways, lets actually find some facts about what happens during warming cycles.


Science, Vol 283, Issue 5408, 1712-1714 , 12 March 1999

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations
Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck

Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

www.sciencemag.org...

Here is another link to corroborate the above.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

So CO2 has increased in the past 80 to 100ppm 600 ± 400 years after the "warming" of the last three deglaciations.

The current warming episode we have been going through started after the Little Ice Age coincidentally, and temperatures have been increasing since the early 1600s, although there were some fluctuations and some years it was colder than during other years, that puts the current warming still going after over 400 years, and that's without counting the fact that the warming began in some parts of the world in the 1500s, and CO2 levels have increase 100ppm, some of it is anthropogenic, but the facts point that much of it's increase is natural, despite the figures and numbers some people extract from their behinds constantly.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Anyways, Hessan you should know by now that I have corroborated my statements with "peer reviewed" research from all over the world, because you have seen such research data which i have excerpted, so either you have a short and long term memory problem, or you simply are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Anyways, here are some of the research i have posted in the past not only about the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA, but other Climate Change events which were global events.


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...


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...


Globally synchronous climate change 2800 years ago: Proxy data from peat in South America

Frank M. Chambersa, , , Dmitri Mauquoyb, Sally A. Braina, Maarten Blaauwc and John R.G. Daniella
aCentre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, Department of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, UK
bDepartment of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK
cCentro de Investigación en Matemáticas, A.P. 402, Guanajuato, Gto., C.P. 36000, Mexico
Received 15 August 2006; revised 27 October 2006; accepted 2 November 2006. Editor: H. Elderfield. Available online 19 December 2006.

Abstract
..................
The data are directly comparable with those in Europe, as they were produced using identical laboratory methods. They show that there was a major climate perturbation at the same time as in northwest European bogs. Its timing, nature and apparent global synchronicity lend support to the notion of solar forcing of past climate change, amplified by oceanic circulation. This finding of a similar response simultaneously in both hemispheres may help validate and improve global climate models. That reduced solar activity might cause a global climatic change suggests that attention be paid also to consideration of any global climate response to increases in solar activity. This has implications for interpreting the relative contribution of climate drivers of recent ‘global warming’.

www.sciencedirect.com... _acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3cfb6ef57db1b6ebdd22f15a58456092


The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

ff.org...


Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China

Abstract The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees andBoehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus andBoehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present.

www.springerlink.com...


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...

The following two excerpts are about the LIA, which melatonin, among others, has also claimed was not a global event.


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...


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.


www.uab.es...¶m1=1096481770302

Here is some research which might interest those who are actually searching for the truth of the current Climate Change in the form of warming the Earth is undergoing.


Climate forced atmospheric CO2 variability in the early Holocene: A stomatal frequency reconstruction

C.A. Jessena, , , M. Rundgrena, S. Björcka and R. Muschelerb
aGeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, SE223 62 Lund, Sweden
bNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Paleoclimatology, 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305–3000 USA
Received 22 August 2005; accepted 16 November 2006. Available online 30 January 2007.

Abstract

The dynamic climate in the Northern Hemisphere during the early Holocene could be expected to have impacted on the global carbon cycle. Ice core studies however, show little variability in atmospheric CO2. Resolving any possible centennial to decadal CO2 changes is limited by gas diffusion through the firn layer during bubble enclosure. Here we apply the inverse relationship between stomatal index (measured on sub-fossil leaves) and atmospheric CO2 to complement ice core records between 11,230 and 10,330 cal. yr BP. High-resolution sampling and radiocarbon dating of lake sediments from the Faroe Islands reconstruct a distinct CO2 decrease centred on ca. 11,050 cal. yr BP, a consistent and steady decline between ca. 10,900 and 10,600 cal. yr BP and an increased instability after ca. 10,550 cal. yr BP. The earliest decline lasting ca. 150 yr is probably associated with the Preboreal Oscillation, an abrupt climatic cooling affecting much of the Northern Hemisphere a few hundred years after the end of the Younger Dryas. In the absence of known global climatic instability, the decline to ca. 10,600 cal. yr BP is possibly due to expanding vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere. The increasing instability in CO2 after 10,600 cal. yr BP occurs during a period of increasing cooling of surface waters in the North Atlantic and some increased variability in proxy climate indicators in the region.

The reconstructed CO2 changes also show a distinct similarity to indicators of changing solar activity. This may suggest that at least the Northern Hemisphere was particularly sensitive to changes in solar activity during this time and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations fluctuated via rapid responses in climate.

www.sciencedirect.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Second part. (ran out of space)


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...


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).

www.springerlink.com...


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...


A team of scientist from Austria and Germany located three stalagmites in the Spannagel Cave located around 2,500 m above sea level at the end of the Tux Valley in Tyrol (Austria) close to the Hintertux glacier. The temperature of the cave stays near freezing and the relative humidity in the cave is always at or near 100%. The stalagmites grew at a rate between 17 and 75 millionths of a meter per year and are nearly 10,000 years old.
...............
The stalagmite is screaming to us that many periods in the past 9,000 years were warmer than present-day conditions!

www.worldclimatereport.com...

All of these events were global, since as you can see the geological record of countries in different parts of the globe show these events to have occurred at about the same time period as the events which happened in Europe, but some people want to keep claiming these events were not global...

Anyways, again, this is what Dr. Akasofu, who was the director of the International Arctic Center in Alaska studying Climate Change for the last 9 years.


“If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,” Akasofu said. He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that shows warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660, and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.

Akasofu said scientists who support the manmade greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have only been available in the satellite era since the 1960s and 1970s.

www.gi.alaska.edu...

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   
And the Gish-gallop is away....

heh.

Anyway, I notice your pushing a glacial lag style response as an explanation for the current CO2 increase, that's a pretty crap argument.

At points you're trying to say that warming in the past 2000 years (e.g., MWP) is much greater than now. OK, if you say so, we'll accept it for arguments sake.

Then you also want to say that much of the current CO2 increase is a result of warming from a few hundred years back (1600s). So, lets say, I dunno, 51ppm of the 100ppm.

Why didn't the MWP or RWP show a similar CO2 response (e.g. ~51ppm), according to you the climate change was even greater than now?

In fact, according to ice-core data, never in the past 650,000 years has a warming period during an inter-glacial period pushed CO2 much past 300ppm.

We know that CO2 levels have been pretty constant for ther last 2000 years, until we started pumping out GHGs - amazing and completely by coincidence, haha, NO2, methane, and sulphur also began rising, apparently due to a little bit of warming in 1600s, heh.

Oh, my...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join