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.

 

Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More.

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
keep patting on one another's back, but don't forget that not all people who read this thread will post and to most it will be obvious that using the creationist slur is quite revealing. as for previous fisking, whenever i stooped to use a similar smear i backed it with a couple of directly linked posts. funny advice, huh?


Who was patting Rizla on the back?

I disagreed with him, lol.

A slur? Not really, it's actually a fair comparison. Lets see, an obvious one....oh yeah, the disco institute have a list of random people with degrees and PhDs that question evolution, and the climate deniers have a couple. They each try to use it to suggest there is some sort of debate, when there isn't. And another, Dembski's website shows the crank magnetism - they love a bit of climate science denial as a sidedish to their creo-waffles. You'll be surprised of the overlap. One of Inhofe's list is represented as a meterologist, but has no degree and is just a TV dude, but he does think we'll be fine as god wouldn't let us mess the earth up - lol, science in action. Spencer is another creobot.

Both tend to be right-wing conservative types. Both tend to be big in the US. Both focus on minor issues that are blown out of all proportion. Both tend to drag up zombie issues which are spouted repeatedly. Both tend to claim their bugbear is some sort of religion. Both have a handful or so of people who actually do science in the relevant area, publishing things that don't really support their claims, but suddenly metamorphise into 'global warming is dead!' or 'evolutionz is dead' in the media and blogs.

Both talk crap. Their methods are very comparable, the overlap is significant.


'Must. Stop. Now. At. Any. Cost.'


But no-one really thinks that we can stop now. It will take time. No-one thinks that today we burn all the carbon we like and tomorrow we stop. It requires a gradual and determined change towards lower impact behaviour. Jeez, the talk is about how low we can keep it at - 450ppm is that gonna be OK? Who knows? But there are real risks, and like I've pointed out already, the uncertainties go both ways - 560ppm could be 2'C warmer or even 4.5'C warmer, probably 3'C though.

For example, the consequences of losing glaciers that large populations depend on for fresh water is a good thing? There will be real consequences to significant warming.

You know, I've said it often, I don't know the best approach. Sometimes for all I care, we can as a species decide to take the risk because we're lazy, myopic, and slightly retarded. Will be one big earth-sized experiment. Should be fun to test science against the reality. I'll miss much of it, though. OMGWTFBBQ!

Anyway, try 'Six degrees' by Mark Lynas. Because we are risking 6'C worth if we follow the inactivists lead. Perhaps read Nature this week, prepare for 4'C, because we are too busy navel gazing. The longer we wait, the harder the brakes will need to be hit and the bigger the potential wreck.

Are you happy to take that risk for your sproglings? You bettin' against science?

If you're a prude, do not watch. If you're anti-science, do not watch. Or you generally hate nerds, do not watch. You haz been warned:



"marie curie's ass is fine"



[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Double zing.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   


You know, I've said it often, I don't know the best approach. Sometimes for all I care, we can as a species decide to take the risk because we're lazy, myopic, and slightly retarded. Will be one big earth-sized experiment. Should be fun to test science against the reality. I'll miss much of it, though. OMGWTFBBQ!


I will take the risk. And if cretinous, leftist, reactionaries want to make something of it, they'll be sorry.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
I will take the risk. And if cretinous, leftist, reactionaries want to make something of it, they'll be sorry.


lol, I'm sure. Revolution by teabagging?

I don't think you really get to choose at the moment. Assuming you're a yank, you lost the election to the scary blackman communist fascist party and people with nous, rather than under the thumb of oil barons, are in power now.

There will be action taken, but it'll probably be weak and rather useless. Time will tell, perhaps there is enough nous and awareness in the places that matter.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Let's actually stay away from insults, I am going to try and see what certain members do.

I actually find it also extremely strange, and funny at the same time that when someone decides to post evidence against the whole Global Warming hoax, a member implies that person, in this case me, must be getting paid for this, yet we have someone like Melatonin, who posts longer nonsensical rhetoric, and even insults those who disagree with him, yet of course he is just doing a service according to the Global Warming die hards.

Anyway, there are some people who claim that TSI stopped increasing for several decades, and the fact is quite the oposite.

Let's go slowly, this abstract is from resarch published in 1997, and for the AGW proponents, hold your horses i will post more resent data to corroborate my statements and refutes your claims..


Science 26 September 1997:
Vol. 277. no. 5334, pp. 1963 - 1965
DOI: 10.1126/science.277.5334.1963
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Total Solar Irradiance Trend During Solar Cycles 21 and 22
Richard C. Willson

Results from Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) experiments show an upward trend in total solar irradiance of 0.036 percent per decade between the minima of solar cycles 21 and 22. The trend follows the increasing solar activity of recent decades and, if sustained, could raise global temperatures. Trends of total solar irradiance near this rate have been implicated as causal factors in climate change on century to millennial time scales.

www.sciencemag.org...


Here is an update of more research which was published in 2003, and in which wilson studied and compiled the data of over 24 years, from 1978 until 2002, and the data showed that the TSI of the Sun had been increasing 0.05% per decade, and we know because of other reaseach done in the past that this same trend had been occurring for at least 100-150 years.


Earth Institute News Archive

posted 03/20/03

Researcher Finds Solar Trend That Can Warm Climate
Ends debate over whether sun can play a role in climate change

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
......................

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...


And yes, there is even more recent research to support this.

[edited for errors]

[edit on 30-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
So you start a thread with a blatent lie about me, and now you want a fair and decent discussion, lol.

We've been here before. Nearly two years ago.

Try here here here here and here.

Not much has changed since then. Indeed, more data shows that solar activity is unlikely to have been of any great consequence for decades.

But I'll point out one part of one of the above posts...


What I do deny is that this 0.05%, if correct (which seems unlikely), is important for current warming. I'm apparently in the same company as the authors on that position.


the inferred increase over the last 24 years, about 0.1%, is not enough to cause notable climate change.


ABE: so I'd like you to remove your incorrect claim that I was lying. Do you have the integrity to do so?

[edit on 13-7-2007 by melatonin]


Wow. Not much has changed. Although Willson has taken on trolling wikipedia, lol.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
......................

the inferred increase over the last 24 years, about 0.1%, is not enough to cause notable climate change.


ABE: so I'd like you to remove your incorrect claim that I was lying. Do you have the integrity to do so?

Wow. Not much has changed. Although Willson has taken on trolling wikipedia, lol.


Wow, nice try to twist the truth yet again...

First, of all notice that Wilson's research WAS ONLY FOR THOSE 24 YEARS..
yet we have had other research that confirms the Sun's activity had been increasing for at least 100-150 years at least, not just 24 yeas...

So yes, you are still lying, and I am not going to retract my statement, more so when you blatantly claimed anyone who believed the evidence I posted is a moron, which in fact is you insulting me indirectly.

But hey, that's how melatonin discuss topics, by insulting people, and denying all the evidence he is shown.

Not only that, but you present even more red herrings by making comments about other topics, which have nothing to do with this topic, and you make wild acusations trying to derail this thread....

Nice try..


[edit on 30-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You've done a lot of work for this thread. Even so, you will NEVER convince AGW advocates that they are mistaken.

To the extent some AGW proponents are vested in the movement (such as Al Gore, David Chu, and the IPCC) they will do their best to preserve their position and engage in name-calling or laughing dismissals of such nonsense as peer-reviewed studies pointing out the flaws in their AGW models and conclusions.

"lol" is not argument, it betrays an inablility to substantively respond. Neither is referring to sources as idioits, dupes, lackeys or worse.

All you can do is point out avenues to research and sources for those who are not sure about climate and man's ability to affect it on a global scale.

Of all the studies and theories for CO2 remediation or sequestration, and despite the expenditure of millions of dollars and research time, and tons of CO2 added to the biosphere, NOT ONE has proven to be effective at altering global climate to any degree.

Our limited resources should be directed to perfecting alternative energy sources (without altering current economic determinations of viability), eliminating local pollution and destruction of the environment, or preservation of beneficial ecologies, rather than creating additional funds for waste on unfounded and ill-conceived global "remediation" of CO2 and other GHGs.

AGW advocates favor increasing the costs of fossil fuels to make alternative sources "more competitive," burdening global economies with restrictions that will be ignored or exploited, and ignorance of the "Kuznets curve" that shows that richer economies ALWAYS move toward a more safe and stable environment than less-affluent or 'developing' economies.

Their "theories" and "models" serve only to enrich a few at the expense of many.

Good work on your part.

S&F.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Wow, nice try to twist the truth yet again...

First, of all notice that Wilson's research WAS ONLY FOR THOSE 24 YEARS..
yet we have had other research that confirms the Sun's activity had been increasing for at least 100-150 years at least, not just 24 yeas...


Yeah, and it hit a peak in about 1940/50 and has never reached that level since. The data is pretty clear, muaddib, but you've seen it all before. From Krivova and Solanki (2003, I think)...



and in technicolour...



Solanki accepts no real influence since the 70s, Lockwood does, Frohlich does, and even Willson accepts his questionable findings for recent activity, even if correct, would be of no great consequence.


So yes, you are still lying, and I am not going to retract my statement, more so when you blatantly claimed anyone who believed the evidence I posted is a moron, which in fact is you insulting me indirectly.


I didn't expect you would.

To believe your claim that because volcanoes exist they can account for climate change, they would have to be a moron to accept it.


But hey, that's how melatonin discuss topics, by insulting people, and denying all the evidence he is shown.

Not only that, but you present even more red herrings by making comments about other topics, which have nothing to do with this topic, and you make wild acusations trying to derail this thread....

Nice try..


Errm, yeah, whatever.


Originally posted by jdub297
"lol" is not argument, it betrays an inablility to substantively respond. Neither is referring to sources as idioits, dupes, lackeys or worse.


Aye, 'lol' is me having laugh at either funny or ridiculous comments. And you know the rest is BS, I'm one of the few here who does have a high signal to noise ratio.

I know you've been fisked as well, jdub. If you post inane rubbish, it can happen. It tends to pay to have some understanding of the science, sorry.

[edit on 30-4-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Wow. Not much has changed. Although Willson has taken on trolling wikipedia, lol.


Yet again another example of melatonin trying to dismiss, degrade, and belittle "scientists" who know better than "melatonin" about this topic....

Give it up, your farce has been shown for what it is.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Yet again another example of melatonin trying to dismiss, degrade, and belittle "scientists" who know better than "melatonin" about this topic....

Give it up, your farce has been shown for what it is.


lol, the farce is strong with this one.

Who's dismissing him? He degrades himself, I suppose, by hiding behind an anon status and trolling the solar variation page. Check it out.

No need for the "" for scientists, he is one. I'm nominally melatonin here as well, so no need for them there as well.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
This is not the first time that civilizations have declined, and people have been influenced negatively by Climate Changes.



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 ahs been warmer than during the 20th, or the beginning of the 21st century, yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much lower than now.



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 ; mary@ldeo.columbia.edu), AB(Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 ; peter@ldeo.columbia.edu), AC(University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 ; blinsley@ldeo.columbia.edu), AD(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; showe@csc.albany.edu), 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 0.2\permil to 0.7\permil 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...



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Another natural factor the proponents of AGW like to dismiss are the ocean's role in Climate Change.

Earth's oceans are the largest storage of heat on the entire planet, and they account for 70%+ of the surface of Earth.

When Solar activity increases, the extra heat is stored in the oceans only to be released slowly during times of minimum solar activity, and the oceans are losing this heat quite fast.

The oceans are also in part responsible for the extreme weather events in which some areas are experiencing extreme cold events, and other areas of the world are experiencing extreme heat events.

The following research paper was recently published by William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.



Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity
by
William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University
Prepared for the 2nd Annual Heartland Institute sponsored conference on Climate Change. New York City, March 8-10, 2009
Paper also available at tropical.atmos.colostate.edu... (under News)


Abstract
This paper discusses how the variation in the global ocean’s Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) resulting from changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and deep water Surrounding Antarctica Subsidence (SAS) can be the primary cause of climate change. (MOC = THC + SAS) is the likely cause of most of the global warming that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution (~1850) and for the more recent global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Changes of the MOC since 1995 are hypothesized to have lead to the cessation of global warming since 1998 and to the beginning of a weak global cooling that has occurred since 2001. This weak cooling is projected to go on for the next couple of decades.

Recent GCM global warming scenarios assume that a slightly stronger hydrologic cycle (due to the increase in CO2) will cause additional upper-level tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. Such vapor-cloudiness increases are assumed to allow the small initial warming due to increased CO2 to be unrealistically multiplied 2-4 or more times. This is where most of the global warming from the GCMs comes from – not the warming resulting from the CO2 increase by itself but the large extra warming due to the assumed increase of upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. As CO2 increases, it does not follow that the net global upper-level water vapor and cloudiness will increase significantly.

Observations of upper tropospheric water vapor over the last 3-4 decades from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) reanalysis data and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data show that upper tropospheric water vapor appears to undergo a small decrease while Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) undergoes a small increase. This is opposite to what has been programmed into the GCMs. The predicted global warming due to a doubling of CO2 has been erroneously exaggerated by the GCMs due to this water vapor feedback.

CO2 increases without positive water vapor feedback could only have been responsible for about 0.1-0.2oC of the 0.6-0.7oC global mean surface temperature warming that has been observed since the early 20th century. Assuming a doubling of CO2 by the late 21st century (assuming no positive water vapor feedback), we should likely expect to see no more than about 0.3-0.5oC global surface warming and certainly not the 2-5oC warming that has been projected by the GCMs.

tropical.atmos.colostate.edu...

Yet the above statements on how much warming could be caused by CO2 is based on "ASSUMPTIONS" just like Professor Gray states in his research.

We also have other scientists understanding and discovering that the climate on Earth is not only affected by what happens on Earth, or just what happens to the Sun.



Science News

Antarctic Science (2003), 15:2:173-173 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © Antarctic Science Ltd 2003
doi:10.1017/S0954102003001305
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial

Galactic energy and its role in a changing Earth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN P.M. VAUGHAN


Proposed climate change mechanisms are many and various but generally attributable to our part of the solar system. They usually focus on temperature changes driven either by local processes such as variations in oceanic circulation, or, levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, or by global processes such as variations in received solar energy linked to changes in the parameters of the Earth's rotation and orbit or solar activity. However, two recent papers have suggested that we may need to look outside the Earth System and even outside our local planetary system for the possible origins of climate change, both on a decadal scale and over longer timescales of hundreds of millions of years. In each case, the galactic cosmic ray flux and its potential effects on cloud formation is considered to be the culprit.



journals.camb ridge.org





[edit on 30-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   


Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.


To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

www.hno.harvard.edu...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This is not the first time that civilizations have declined, and people have been influenced negatively by Climate Changes.


Yeah, no surprises.


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


Again, you state this as fact and it's not - all you are quoting is disparate peices of data using a range of proxy data. Not all proxy data is reliable. You also make the common logical error suggesting that because CO2 is indicated to be a cause now it must be associated with all past climate changes. Not so.

Do I have to tell you that CO2 is not the only variable that influences climate. No? So why make such a silly comment...



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

CO2 increases without positive water vapor feedback could only have been responsible for about 0.1-0.2oC of the 0.6-0.7oC global mean surface temperature warming that has been observed since the early 20th century. Assuming a doubling of CO2 by the late 21st century (assuming no positive water vapor feedback), we should likely expect to see no more than about 0.3-0.5oC global surface warming and certainly not the 2-5oC warming that has been projected by the GCMs.

tropical.atmos.colostate.edu...

Yet the above statements on how much warming could be caused by CO2 is based on "ASSUMPTIONS" just like Professor Gray states in his research.


And yet he basis his claims on what? From reading the paper it appears he just pulls the numbers from his ass. So we have people who actually use data based on physical processes and someone who pulls stuff from his colon.

Cool. If it floats ya boat.

The problem is that climate sensitivity is not just a result of GCMs but is also based on observations. Try Annan & Hargreaves 2006.


We also have other scientists understanding and discovering that the climate on Earth is not only affected by what happens on Earth, or just what happens to the Sun.


So far: It's the sun! It's cosmic rays! It's volcanoes! - a true triumverate of wacky denialism.

Of course, the cosmic ray data shows nothing of note. Oh well. Moreover, the link between clouds and cosmic rays is tenuous, Svensmark has work to do. And finally, his research even showing a link is pretty questionable - what did an Imperial College Atmospheric Scientist say?


It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK."

www.newscientist.com...

Ooh, that's nasty, lol.

More Svensmark being playful with data here.

But there might be a link. However, at the minimum, no trend no effect. And the data is pretty clear without Svensmark's mucky fingerprints.



So, essentially, in the two years you've been plotting the downfall of the evils of climate science, really, the only new stuff you have is the specious volcano hypothesis. Well done, sounds like you've been productive.


[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


Global warming is not so hot


Seeing as we're trying to relive the those halcyon days, one of the biggest hits of 2007, went platinum I think...


Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Muaddib
And if you would have noted several of the excerpts to research I gave from half around the world were giving temperature estimates...it is you who is trying to dismiss all this data.


I accept they are localised estimates of temperature during those periods. I have said that numerous times and you are being disingenuous again by suggesting otherwise.

I'm not going to answer every single issue in your post because it will hide the refutation of the main issue you are perseverating on now.

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


/edit

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.

The emperor has no clothes - I'm quite sure most lurkers and readers can see the nakedness of your argument, no matter how you dress it up.



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.



I am not here to do "your bidding"...and yes I read the paper including the part where they say the data cannot be extrapolated to have a global measurement of temperatures, but they also say it does appear to have been global because the data from all 200+ proxies of past temperature trends show more or less the same trends in the same time periods....which is exactly what I am saying...


No, the point is that they also used proxies that are not highly correlated with temperature.


Anomaly is simply defined as a period of more than 50 yr of sustained warmth, wetness or dryness, within the stipulated interval of the Medieval Warm Period, or a 50 yr or longer period of cold, dryness or wetness within the stipulated Little Ice Age.
Soon & Baliunas, 2003

Soon & Baliunas assessed anything that was anomalous, that included proxy data that showed 'dry' and 'wet' periods as indicative of high or low temperatures, this is not highly correlated with temperature and not an appropriate method of measuring temperature trends. Anything that showed this for 50 years during a 500 year period was deemed a positive under their hypothesis. So, there was also little temporal resolution.

Osborne & Briffa (2006) did the same study properly, only temperature proxies with high temporal resolution.

If you want to know temperature trends, you use proxies that are highly correlated with temperature


BTW...the editors that resigned were three.... I wonder why you don't mention the exact number....


Major criticisms of the methodology and failures of peer-review was why five of the 10 editors on the journal board resigned.

Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando, Shardul Argawala, Andrew Comrie, and the editor-in-chief, Hans von Storch.

5 out of 10 is half

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And, finally, as noted already, it really doesn't matter either way. It comes nowhere close to refuting 'anbthropogenic' global warming.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   


Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 5, 02752, 2003
c

European Geophysical Society 2003
COSMIC RAYS, SOLAR ACTIVITY,
GEOMAGNETIC FIELD AND CLIMATE
FLUCTUATIONS DURING THE STADIAL AND
INTERSTADIAL STATES
V.A. Dergachev (1), P.B. Dmitriev (1), O.M. Raspopov (2), N.-A. Morner (3) and B.
van Geel (4), (1) Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute RAS, Russia
(v.dergachev@pop.ioffe.rssi.ru), (2) SPbF IZMIRAN, Russia, (3) Stockholm
University, Sweden, (4) University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute RAS, Russia (v.dergachev@pop.ioffe.rssi.ru)

Cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be, generated by cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere are present in natural archives. These isotopes carry the information about long-term variability of solar activity and the changes of the Earth magnetic field. The isotope records can be compared with the evidence for climate change over long time intervals and thus the understanding of the mechanisms forcing climate change can be improved. A high degree of climate variability is reflected in high-resolution ice core records from Greenland.

Main attention was paid to the sequence of climatic events during the past 38 thousand years, because there is the high-precision record of cosmic rays (14C and 10Be content), geomagnetic field (record of the Earth’s dipole moment), climate fluctuations (oxygen-18 record during both the Holocene and stadial and interstadial climate states of the last ice age). Spectral analysis of all data was carried out and the mutual correlation function of data under study was examined.

In cosmogenic isotope data the main harmonic is˜2400 years, whereas, as shown by spectral analysis of oxygen-18 data in Greenland ice cores, the power density of the ˜1500-year harmonic dominates over the ˜2400-year harmonics. The periodicities of, and variations in amplitudes of maxima and minima of data often show 1400 to 1600-year cycles in ice core proxy data.

Comparison of the beryllium-10 and oxygen-18 records in Greenland ice cores and records of the Earth’s dipole moment for the stadial and interstadial climate states (the past 11-40 thousand years) was made. Oxygen-18 changes are coherent with the fluctuations of the 10Be record. Remarkably, these series are coherent not only in phase but also in amplitude, providing what is probably the best evidence to date for the definite cosmic-ray-sun-climate relationship. Thus, we show that galactic cosmic ray flux coming into the Earth’s atmosphere and modulated by both the heliomagnetic and geomagnetic activity, is the important factor forcing changes in weather and climate.

Probably the cosmic rays are part of a unique mechanism due to which it is possible to explain changes of climate observed on different time scales, and this mechanism integrates a series of different physical processes on the Sun, in near-earth space and on Earth. This work was supported by INTAS, Grant 97-31008 and Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) - project 047.009.005.

www.cosis.net...




Astron. Nachr. / AN 327, No. 9, 866–870 (2006) / DOI 10.1002/asna.200610650
Imprint of Galactic dynamics on Earth’s climate
H. Svensmark
Center for Sun Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Juliane Marie Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
Received 2006 May 28, accepted 2006 Jun 26
Published online 2006 Oct 16
Key words Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics – Earth
A connection between climate and the Solar system’s motion perpendicular to the Galactic plane during the last 200 Myr
years is studied. An imprint of galactic dynamics is found in a long-term record of the Earth’s climate that is consistent
with variations in the Solar system oscillation around the Galactic midplane. From small modulations in the oscillation
frequency of Earth’s climate the following features of the Galaxy along the Solar circle can be determined: 1) the
mass distribution, 2) the timing of two spiral arm crossings (31 Myr and 142 Myr) 3) Spiral arm/interarm density ratio
(ρarm/ρinterarm ≈ 1.5–1.8), and finally, using current knowledge of spiral arm positions, a pattern speed of ΩP = 13.6 ±
1.4 km s−1 kpc−1 is determined.
.............................
4 Conclusion
A possible connection between climate and the Solar system’s
motion perpendicular to the Galactic plane during the
last 200 Myr has been found. In δ18O proxy data of Earth’s
climate from the Phanerozoic database an approximately 30
Myr period is identified.
From small frequency modulations
of this period the following features of the Galaxy along
the Solar circle can be determined: 1) the mass distribution,
2) the timing of two spiral arm crossings (31 Myr and 142
Myr) 3) Spiral arm/interarm ratio (ρarm/ρinterarm ≈ 1.5 –
1.8), and finally, using current knowledge of spiral arm positions,
a pattern speed of ΩP = 13.6 ± 1.4 km s−1 kpc−1 is
found.
It is important to note that the present study is fundamentally
different from the previous ones in one respect. It
determines several features of two most recent spiral arm
passages from climate data restricted to modulation of time
scales between 20–60 Myr, much shorter than the characteristic
time for spiral passage ≈ 140 Myr. The results obtained
are consistent with previously reported properties of
the Milky Way and give further confidence in the significance
of cosmic ray variations and importance in climate changes.


www.space.dtu.dk



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Copyright © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Asian monsoon oscillations in the northeastern Qinghai–Tibet Plateau since the late glacial as interpreted from visible reflectance of Qinghai Lake sediments

Junfeng Jia, , , Ji Shenb, 1, , William Balsamc, 2, , Jun Chena, 3, , Lianwen Liua, 4, and Xingqi Liub, 5,

aState Key Laboratory of Mineral Deposit Research, Institute of Surficial Geochemistry, Department of Earth Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China

bKey Laboratory of Lake Sedimentation and Environment, Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China

cDepartment of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA


Received 28 July 2004; revised 28 January 2005; accepted 15 February 2005. Editor: E. Boyle. Available online 1 April 2005.

Abstract
Qinghai Lake is a large saline lake on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau of central Asia that is effected by both the Indian and Asian monsoons. We used reflectance spectroscopy to characterize the sediments in a 795-cm long core taken from the southeastern part of the lake. Sediment redness, which is related to iron oxide content, seems to monitor paleoclimatic changes in the core. Iron oxides appear to be eroded from nearby red beds or loess deposits and are transported by fluvial means into the lake. Thus, redness increases at times of increased precipitation, that is, as monsoon strength increases. Our redness monsoon proxy shows climate changes on several times scales. On a millennial scale, it records humid conditions during the Early and Mid-Holocene. From about 4200 to 2300 yr BP, low redness values suggest a two-millennial long dry period, which in the Late Holocene is followed by a more humid period. On a centennial scale, the redness proxy records not only the Little Ice Age, but also the Medieval Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cool Period and the Roman Warm Period. Time series analysis of the redness record indicates a 200 yr frequency, which corresponds to the de Vries solar cycle suggesting that, in addition to insolation changes resulting from orbital variations, solar forcing also results from cyclic changes in the suns luminosity.

Keywords: Asian monsoon; diffuse reflectance spectrophotometry; Qinghai Lake; sediment redness; iron oxides; solar forcing


www.sciencedirect.com



[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Are we there yet?

I'm still waiting for this killer evidence that refutes 'anbthropogenic' global warming.

Come on spit it out. Showing potential links between cosmic rays and climate and bits of regional data showing downtown montreal was pretty hot in the 12th century ain't gonna cut it.

The thread's a shipment of fail so far. Indeed, the best you've done is support anthropogenic global warming, but just moderated due to the contents of William Gray's colon. With a flick of his wand and a call of 'hocus pocus' he just makes water vapour feedbacks disappear, lol.


[edit on 1-5-2009 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join