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.
No. I posted the Svalbard study to show that the MWP was not necessarily a global effect.
The only reason you've posted the Svalbard study plus the quote from the press release twice in this thread alone is because you thought it would support your pseudo-scientific argument that there has been no other time in recent history when the climate has changed in ways like we have seen in the last couple decades.
I have not switched my position. I do however, read and consider evidence when it is offered.
And there is no consistency in your argument itself, you constantly switch positions in your attempt to make the facts fit your beliefs.
Straw man. I have never said that global warm periods never have happened. I brought up a very recent study which shows that the the MWP may not have been a global phenomenon.
The single study you've posted in support for your claim that any past Global Warm Periods didn't really happen at all doesn't even deserve to be called scientific research.
The accuracy (of the temperatures) is questioned by many of the researchers themselves. I was pointing out that 16 proxies do not demonstrate that the MWP was a global phenomenon. A single location with summer temperatures which are significantly higher now than during the MWP would tend to indicate that it was not a global phenomenon.
If you're trying to argue that the number of proxies and the spatial distribution has any relevancy for the accuracy of the reconstruction, contemplate in a quiet moment why you've posted a study where only three proxies were used from a single site.
Are you sure? Did you read the study? For what season were those reconstructions done? D'Andrea addresses prior ice core studies from the region, including Devine,2011.
In addition, every other single or multi-proxy reconstruction from the same area completely refutes the overconfident claims made by authors of the study, unsurprisingly.
www.geo.umass.edu...
There is weak correlation (r2 = 0.15) between ice core δ18O and Svalbard mean annual air temperature during the instrumental period (Isaksson et al., 2005), and it has been proposed that Svalbard ice core δ18O is a better proxy for winter temperature (Divine et al., 2011); however, the complications outlined above remain and additional paleotemperature records are needed to evaluate temperature changes outside of the winter season.
On the contrary. Much of the evidence you yourself provided makes this very point. That ocean currents had much, to do with the warming during the MWP. In any of the studies which you posted, can you provide one which says that ocean and atmospheric conditions were similar during the MWP to modern conditions?
We both know you don't make these claims after a careful examination of all availble evidence.
At least I could be more confident that you had actually read the material. Because so far it doesn't seem like you have. It seems more that you have selected portions which support your position.
What makes you believe we could have a reasonable discussion that wouldn't end up with me having to respond to your circular logic?
No. I posted the Svalbard study to show that the MWP was not necessarily a global effect.
Straw man. I have never said that global warm periods never have happened. I brought up a very recent study which shows that the the MWP may not have been a global phenomenon.
The accuracy (of the temperatures) is questioned by many of the researchers themselves. I was pointing out that 16 proxies do not demonstrate that the MWP was a global phenomenon. A single location with summer temperatures which are significantly higher now than during the MWP would tend to indicate that it was not a global phenomenon.
Devine uses "indirect indicators" for summer warmth during the MWP. D'Andrea uses direct proxies for summer temperatures. Do you think that a winter reconstruction which shows "that the Medieval period was at least as warm as the end of the 1990s in Svalbard" carries more weight that a summer reconstruction which show a much lower level of warming?
In looking at how summers on Svalbard varied, researchers also discovered that the region was not particularly cold during another recent anomalous period--the “Little Ice Age” of the 18th and 19th centuries, when glaciers on Svalbard surged to their greatest extent in the last 10,000 years and glaciers in many parts of Western Europe also grew.They suggest that more snow, rather than colder temperatures, may have fed the growth of Svalbard glaciers.
Tree ring studies from Scandinavia and northern Europe do not reveal cold summer temperatures during 18th century glaciations (Nesje et al., 2008), while proxy-based NAO studies suggest positive NAO mode dominance during the 19th and early 20th centuries (Glueck and Stockton, 2001; Luterbacher et al., 2004; Trouet et al., 2009), supporting our interpretation that winter precipitation exerted primary control on LIA glaciations on Svalbard.
On the contrary. Much of the evidence you yourself provided makes this very point. That ocean currents had much, to do with the warming during the MWP. In any of the studies which you posted, can you provide one which says that ocean and atmospheric conditions were similar during the MWP to modern conditions?
It seems more that you have selected portions which support your position.