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.

 

Climate Science You Won't Hear About: Convincing evidence global warming caused by cosmic rays,sun

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
A powerfull coalition of interested parties who benefit in various ways from the AGW scenario has been put together - they either helped manufactured the 'consensus' , know it's a fraud, have been duped or couldn't care less - but they all have big benefits to be gained by pretending it's real.

Why would they ever reverse their position!?




posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Older Article here,but there is enough Evidence now,that suggests that "Climate Change" is the direct Result of a weakening Magnetic Field shortly before a "possible" Reversal,which is currently the Case.

It suddenly makes Sense,doesn´t it?

I know you don´t like Wikipedia,but there is something which catched my Curiosity.

First,the Geomagnetic Reversal,or Pole Reversal


Most reversals are estimated to take between 1,000 and 10,000 years. The latest one, the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal, occurred 780,000 years ago. Brief disruptions that do not result in reversal are called geomagnetic excursions.


Geomagnetic excursion


[...]an excursion does not permanently change the large scale orientation of the field, but rather represents a dramatic, typically short-lived decrease in field intensity[...]

[...]There is evidence[3] that glaciations (ice-ages) are an effect of geomagnetic excursions.



Theoretically,we could link every Ice Age to a weakening Magnetic Field (either due to the above mentioned "Geomagnetic Reversal" or "Geomagnetic Excursion"),which is pretty much all the Evidence we need to explain what is happening right now with our Climate...


Edit: If someone wants to make a Thread on this Theory,go ahead (but mention me at least,please
) I´m not very good in explaining things....
edit on 3-9-2011 by Shenon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by jdub297
 


Polar Ice is melting faster than expected

Glaciers are melting faster than expected

Sea level rise may exceed worst expectations

Migrations are happening MUCH faster than before


How typical to ignore the lies and exaggerations that the AGW panderers depend upon to suuport their government funding and the public's fear.


This past year, … between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
The scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

www.newscientist.com...


In a new research, scientists in India and China have determined that glaciers in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau … are melting faster because of the effects of clouds of soot from diesel fumes and wood fires (NOT CO2).

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...

Global warming advocate Dr. Steven Schneider claimed the west Antarctic ice sheet could melt before the year 2000 and inundate American coastlines with up to 25 feet of sea level rise.
NCAR Forecast : Sea Level May Rise 15-25 Feet Before The Year 2000


What about federally-funded AGW prophet Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, who predicted the complete loss of polar ice in 2008?
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
(As it turns out, the Arctic Ocean contained 1.65 million square miles of sea ice at its 2008 minimum.)

The false prophets of the AGW religion depend upon sensationalist headlines with no rational support to sustain the hysteria and their public funding.

Hansen falsely "predicted" NYC would be under water by 1998, then 2010, now 2020.

IPCC falsely claims no Himalayan glaciers within the next 25 years.

IPCC and climate "scientists" falsely predicted HUMAN migrations in the billions by 2010 due to AGW."Climate scientists" have falsely predicted totsal disappearance of Arctic ice by 1998, 2000, and 2008.

The AGW models intentionally do not account for factors the "climate scientists" agree influence climate.
The AGW models intentionally employ manipulated data and reject direct observation.

And, of cousrse, those unwilling and too incredulous to accept the AGW lies. distortions and exaggerations are the ones who are called demented and sheeple?

deny ignorance

jw
edit on 3-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Stratus9
 

I note all denialist talking points mention 'belief' and 'faith' in AGW as if it were 'faith based'.


If it's not faith, then it's intentional deception, because the stats and figures hyped in support of the AGW theory have to be one or the other.

Need a couple of examples?

Yes, there are millions of studies that have been done on AGW since the 1970's by scientists worldwide.


If "scientists worldwide" pulished 50 pro-AGW studies each day for 40 years they still would not reach one million studies, much less "millions!"


[AGW] is currently a theory that approximately 98% of the worlds scientists have signed on to.

98% of ALL scientists?

Who asked them? When and where was this published? (It wasn't; you made it up.)

If "98% of all scientists" agree, does that mean that the millions of scientists in the BRIC countries, the Western skeptics and those scientists who don't accept the AGW hypothesis do not count, do not exist, or are not "scientists" since they are not "one in the faith?"


All of them come to the same inescapable conclusion.


If they all agree all the time, why is there debate?
(They don't "come to the same inescapable conclusion; you made that up, too. Even among AGW advocates there are differing opinions and multiple "models" to reflect the multiplicity of opinions, theories and data sets.)

Then why would they repeat their studies "millions" of times? Is it that the the larger the number of conclusions, the more true it becomes?

Does this mean that there have NEVER been any dissenting, or disproven articles or studies in 40 years?

What about the studies published in 1972, 1974, 1975 and beyond that claimed Earth would experience "Global Cooling?"

AGW advocates' faith has blinded them to the fact that the science is NOT settled.


One of those sets of data and modeling studies published in 1998 by the IPCC caused me to move myself and family to a part of the US less likely to suffer disastrous weather effects


If the "warming" is "global," what difference does it make where you live?

I am truly sorry for your family. It is precisely the goal of the AGW fearmongers to make people believe that they have to drastically alter their lives to survive the "crisis" they have manufactured, but which 5 billion people of the Earth's population refuse to accept.
If that isn't a "consensus," I don't know what is

jw

edit on 3-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp, add quote



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Wow. Grasp at straws much?

Honestly - who do you think you are fooling with these resoundingly weak, distorted, and cherry-picked memes (other than yourself of course)?

The way you try to pass this stuff off as credible evidence of your claims is just bonkers - and you are either knowingly posting false information now or...well...I'm not allowed to say it because I'll get in trouble from the mods.


Yes, right - sea level rise has been "proven false" because "this past year" it dropped - that's some really impressive data you have there!


I really want to just get away from this thread, but feel an obligation now to uphold ATS motto in regards to your intellectually dishonest posts. So for that reason I have compiled a visual presentation for everyone on why sea level rise, glacial and artic melting have all been "proven false" according to jdub.

Behold:







VIDEO BONUS: jdub's proof that glaciers are in fact growing* -
(*note - video must be played backwards)




Meanwhile -
You are quoting an article about Stephen Schneider from 19-friggin-79 (!), where he doesn't say the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is imminent, he merely states it's not out of the realm of possibility that this process "might" start by the year 2000. That is hardly a "failed prediction".

But my absolute favorite is this one -


What about federally-funded AGW prophet Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, who predicted the complete loss of polar ice in 2008?


No he didn't. This is painfully obvious just from the giant picture provided at the top of your own link:



He stated that the North Pole itself might be ice-free, not the entire Arctic Ocean. There is a HUGE difference. It says right below that 2008's melting sea ice "could match" 2007's record.

So once again you are completely distorting the info you provide and blowing it entirely out of proportion, therefore misleading the ATS readership. You are writing sensationalist cheques that your sources can't cash. This is something I have personally caught you doing before - and something you have been doing since the beginning of this thread, starting with the title.


So there are two options here:

1. Either you are careless and have an inexcuseably poor comprehension of the subject matter being discussed (considering how much you constantly seek to eviscerate it).

or

2. You are knowingly and willfully distorting the information you present to support an agenda, and simply hoping no one will actually check your sources.

So which one is it?

Please explain yourself. It's been made clear there is a mod closely watching our behaviour in this thread, so I am holding you accountable for yours. Last time I checked - option #2 is an extreme violation of the T & C.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Wow, a lot of hubub over all this.

Lets make it simple.


jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...


Warmer better than cooler


P.S. I believe we were in very slight warming trend, within a much larger cooling trend

edit on 4-9-2011 by wlf15y because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


Yes - and did you know that particular graph is only for Greenland and it only goes up to 1855 (that's what the 95 at the bottom represents - 95 years before 1950).

I have explained this graph before in this post. If you factor in modern warming in Greenland since 1855 - it actually looks more like this:



Even this graph is slightly off because when I made it I thought the original started 95 years from the present, but it turns out it's 95 before 1950 - meaning the current warming would be even more off the chart lol.

But do you know why your graph is being presented in the context it's in anyway? Because it is posted on Joanne Nova's "skeptic" website. She is just another denial industry shill with connections to Shell Oil. I have researched proof of that myself here.

So much for that cooling trend, huh?





edit to add: in case you don't believe me about the 1950 thing - see here


One of the last comments to my “100 years of warming” post suggested that the GISP2 “present” followed a common paleoclimate convention and was actually 1950. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.



edit on 4-9-2011 by mc_squared because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Like i said...warming better than cooling. Thanks for the homemade graph.

How many farms are productive under ice???



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


Thanks for your incredibly informed scientific opinion.

How many farms are better under drought?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I always come back to the bath tub theory. it just makes sense to me on an instictive level. of course the sun is the largest factor, but the atmosphere it is interacting with has changed, and it had been changed by man.

link to article





heck, there was a mini ica age just 200 years ago. if it weren't for us, maybe the increase in radiation would be bringing the average temps to about 3 degress less than what they are now

I don't hink any thinking person can say humans have had no impact. it's just the definition of ignorance, and what's worse, willfull ignorance



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


So your saying cooling is better? A drought can be mitigated with irrigation.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wlf15y
 


No I'm saying trying to marginalize it into one or the other is a ridiculous oversimplification to a much more complicated problem.

The real "threat" behind climate change is not even dependent on whether it gets warmer or colder, or even really how much. It's how fast.

Right now we are altering the climate at a rate that might seem slow to you, but it's a geological eyeblink. All the real problems associated with climate change are centered around the fact that our ecosystems and our society, infrastructure, etc will simply not be able to appropriately adapt in time.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Thats assuming that "we" are truly responsible for the warming. Yes we should be prepared to adapt either way.

That adaptation should be done in an economically sensible way, not forced on us at astronomically high, artificially

inflated(through gov. mandate) prices.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 

How sad that AGW advocates must take direct refutation of their premises and predictions, then exaggerate them into farcical statements which are falsely attributed to the skeptic.

I never said sea levels could not rise. What I pointed out was that alarmist "predictions" of an unrelenting encroachment are not consistent with the data. Your exaggeration and misrepresentation of my posts are false.

25 years ago, your "high priest" of AGW "predicted that New York City would be underwater before the turn of the century. When that proved false, he merely moved the goalposts out. And then again, when that "correction" proved equally inaccurate and insupportable. NASA's own data show that whatever rising may have been "proxied" or observed in the past has been quickly offset, despite rising CO2 levels.

Facts are facts. Thoeries are made to be challenged and tested. AGW advocates fear and abhor any challenge to their life-blood and golden goose, contrary to real science, which welcomes testing, review and reconsideration.

I never said that glaciers were not melting somewhere. What I pointed out was the jump to adopt and stand behind baseless projections about Himalayan glacial disappearance. The IPCC and AGW elite blithely ignore the errors and misrepresentations of what "science" actually reveals.

Despite the IPCC report, and Pachauri's ignorant castigation of "voodoo science," it turns out the real high priests and acolytes of the AGW voodoo cannot abide factual refutation of their prophecies.

In addition, I pointed out that there are other explanations for glacial retreat than CO2-induced AGW. With the Himalayan example, "black soot" has been irrefutably established as the major culprit, and has been implicated in other climate changes that the AGW-dependent would rather attribute to Western industry and consumption than an easily- addressed and remedied cause in the "developing" world of rampant pollution and non-believers.
You cannot refute this observed data so you just exaggerate it into nonsense attrubutable solely to an intent to discredit, rahter than any statement of fact
.
Your exaggeration and misrepresentations of my position are false. Is that a violation, officer -squared?

I never said that Artcic or Antarctic ice sheets were not dynamic, and changing over time, or even disappearing.
Just as it is stupid to presume a static ice cover, it is equally uninformed to presume a static climate, or that the conditions of the last half of the 20th century are the ideal or the best for the Earth and its ecosystems.
( How the AGW cabal ever succeeded in convincing the elite and powerful that their vision of what was best for the Earth should be controlling, or that mankind could ever change what Nature intends, is beyond me. Many guess that it's the "controlling" that is key.)

I pointed out that AGW "prophets" have been falsely projecting a complete loss of Arctic ice for over 30 years. Again, you cannot un-publish their prophecies, so you resort to distortion of my post
Officer -squared, isn't that also sort of contrary to the AGW tenets?

It is a symptom of the fragility of the AGW doctrine that any critique of the theory, or revelation of the hyperbole upon which it depends for government funding and redistribution of resources, is attacked with equal exaggeration, character assassination, ad hominem, and pure name-calling.

So, now officer -squared, what was it you said?


Once again you are completely distorting the info you provide and blowing it entirely out of proportion, therefore misleading the ATS readership. So there are two options here:
1. Either you are careless and have an inexcuseably poor comprehension of the subject matter being discussed (considering how much you constantly seek to eviscerate it).
or
2. You are knowingly and willfully distorting the information you present to support an agenda, and simply hoping no one will actually check ....

So which one is it?

Please explain yourself. It's been made clear there is a mod closely watching our behaviour in this thread, so I am holding you accountable for yours.


Can you, officer -squared, justify your deliberate misrepresentations of my post and statements?
Will you be turning yourself in, now?

How sad for the faith.

The bottom line is that AGW advocates and their MSM and government mouthpieces depend and thrive upon exaggeration for their very existence and for the attention they need to maintain to their raison d' etre: fear and other peoples' money.

The Earth is not static. We cannot change it with $100,000,000,000 per year or any other number sent to their UN vatican or their beneficiaries and priests.

Bottom line? The science is not settled, "consensus" can be spectacularly wrong, and true science welcomes challenge and skepticism.

Sorry.

Deny ignorance.

jw
edit on 4-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp, add quote



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


have you read prof mullers testimony in front of congress ? he was a guy known for raising the "exaggeration" flag
edit on 4-9-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 

Was? What did I miss; isn't he OK?

Muller and his team at Berkeley are trying to eliminate "selection bias" from surface temp data, among other things. Good for them. The more scrutiny, the better.

Here we are, almost 25 years after Hansen first "raised the flag" on AGW and the soon-to-be-flooded New York, and we are only just now finding a scientific team willing and able to apply true scientific protocols in the examination of the AGW hypothesis!

I am not certain that his proposed "Climate-ARPA," funded by a new government bureaucracy, is the optimal solution or even a good approach to funding climate studies, but it would have definite advantages over present-day ad hoc practices. (Maybe, an "X Prize" for climate modeling would be worth trying.)

In any case, Dr. Muller's research and testimony make it very clear that the "science" is anything but "settled;" no matter how greatly any "consensus" may protest otherwise.

jw
edit on 4-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
Wow. Grasp at straws much?
...


Why are you claiming some other member grasps at straws much when you are the king at grasping straws?...



Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
compo@colorado.edu
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...


Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
10:04 09 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
For similar stories, visit the Mysteries of the Deep Sea Topic Guide

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.

"The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth," says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. "But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them," he says.

Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean's surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.

www.newscientist.com...

Between the increase underwater volcano activity, the past activity of the Sun which was during the 20th century, and a few years in the beginning of the 21st century at the highest level of Solar activity in about 1,000 years, and the fact that several planets, and even Moons with atmosphere in the Solar System were/are WARMING at the same time Earth was/is WARMING, all of this should tell people the past warming, and the ongoing Climate Change are natural.

But don't tell some people, and some members that nature, the Sun, and the Universe are more powerful than them, they will go nuts and deny it until the day they die...



edit on 5-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
...


He stated that the North Pole itself might be ice-free, not the entire Arctic Ocean. There is a HUGE difference. It says right below that 2008's melting sea ice "could match" 2007's record.


That's it, that's the nail in the coffin.... NOT....

I wonder how in the world the oceans were warmer during the Medieval, and Roman Warm Periods than at any time in the 20th, and 21st century yet did the world didn't come to an end...


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...


However, large and extreme disasters did occur, but they were NATURAL, just like the ongoing Climate Change...


Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA All rights reserved.
Extreme Nile floods and famines in Medieval Egypt (AD 930–1500) and their climatic implications

References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Fekri A. Hassana,

aInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34 Gordon Square, WC1H 0PY, London, UK


Available online 7 June 2007.

Abstract

Nile gauge records of variations in Nile floods from the 9th century to the 15th century AD reveal pronounced episodes of low Nile and high Nile flood discharge. Historical data reveal that this period was also characterized by the worst known famines on record. Exploratory comparisons of variations in Nile flood discharge with high-resolution data on sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic climate from three case studies suggest that rainfall at the source of the Nile was influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation. However, there are apparently flip-flop reversals from periods when variations in Nile flood discharge are positively related to North Atlantic warming to periods where the opposite takes place. The key transitions occur atAD 900, 1010, 1070, 1180, 1350 and 1400. The putative flip-flop junctures, which require further confirmation, appear to be quite rapid and some seem to have had dramatic effects on Nile flood discharge, especially if they recurred at short intervals, characteristic of the period from the 9th to the 14th century, coincident with the so-called Medieval Warm Period. The transition from one state to the other was characterized by incidents of low, high or a succession of both low and high extreme floods. The cluster of extreme floods was detrimental causing famines and economic disasters that are unmatched over the last 2000 years.

www.sciencedirect.com





Originally posted by mc_squared
2. You are knowingly and willfully distorting the information you present to support an agenda, and simply hoping no one will actually check your sources.


You described yourself very well with the above paragraph.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Apparently mc-squared, and a few others believe that glaciers have never retreated as they have done in recent times...



Hormes, A., Beer, J. and Schlüchter, C., 2006. A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogr. Ann., 88 A (4): 281–294.


Abstract — We present a radiocarbon data set of 71 samples of wood and peat material that melted out or sheared out from underneath eight present day mid-latitude glaciers in the Central Swiss Alps. Results indicated that in the past several glaciers have been repeatedly less extensive than they were in the 1990s. The periods when glaciers had a smaller volume and shorter length persisted between 320 and 2500 years. This data set provides greater insight into glacier variability than previously possible, especially for the early and middle Holocene. The radiocarbon-dated periods defined with less extensive glaciers coincide with periods of reduced radioproduction, pointing to a connection between solar activity and glacier melting processes. Measured long-term series of glacier length variations show significant correlation with the total solar irradiance. Incoming solar irradiance and changing albedo can account for a direct forcing of the glacier mass balances. Long-term investigations of atmospheric processes that are in interaction with changing solar activity are needed in order to understand the feedback mechanisms with glacier mass balances.

The Role of Solar Activity on Holocene Glacier Length Variability in the swiss Alps

And it is not like there are dozens, upon dozens of peer-reviewed research work, like the one below, that prove the ongoing Climate Change is not the warmest, nor the fasteset that has occurred for thousands of years like the AGWists claim...



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

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

www.diva-portal.org...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlf15y
reply to post by mc_squared
 


Like i said...warming better than cooling.


Tell it to Texas.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join