What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC'S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...stakes_by.html

[Guillermo]

Reference
Cook, T.L., Bradley, R.S., Stoner, J.S. and Francus, P. 2009. Five thousand years of sediment transfer in a high arctic watershed recorded in annually laminated sediments from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada. Journal of Paleolimnology 41: 77-94.

Description
Working with sediment cores extracted from Lower Murray Lake, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada (81°21'N, 69°32'W) in 2005 and 2006, the authors calculated annual mass accumulation rate (MAR) for the past five millennia, which they used to derive a relationship between MAR and July temperature at the two nearest permanent weather stations over the period of instrumental measurements. This work revealed there were several periods over the past 5000 years when the temperature of the region exceeded the peak temperature of the 20th century, the most recent of which was during the Medieval Warm Period, which we have delineated on the following figure as occurring between about AD 930 and 1400, and where the peak temperature of that period can be seen to have been about 0.6°C higher than the peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.


Attached figure: Reconstructed Lower Murray Lake temperature anomaly relative to the AD 1001-2000 mean. Adapted from Cook et al. (2009).

[Guillermo]

Northwest Spain Peat Bog

Reference
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W. 1999. Mercury in a Spanish peat bog: Archive of climate change and atmospheric metal deposition. Science 284: 939-942.

Description
Mean annual temperatures were inferred from a record of mercury deposition in a peat bog in northwest Spain (43°32'N, 7°34'W) spanning the last 4000 radiocarbon years. The Medieval Warm Period occurred between AD 1000 and 1200 and the mean annual temperature during this time was as much as 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/284/5416/939

[Guillermo]

Climate change and coastal hydrographic response along the Atlantic Iberian margin (Tagus Prodelta and Muros Ría) during the last two millennia

http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/7/1003

The Tagus Prodelta (W Portugal) and the Muros Ría (NW Spain) are areas of high deposition rates registering high-resolution palaeoclimatic records for western Iberia. We compare the climatic conditions of the two areas over the last two millennia based on proxies of temperature (sea surface temperatures and oxygen isotopes), continental input (grain size, iron and magnetic susceptibility) and productivity (inorganic and organic carbon, carbon isotopes, benthic foraminifera and diatoms). Biogeochemical changes in the Tagus Prodelta reflect widely recognized North Atlantic climatic periods encompassing the Roman Period (AD 0-350), the Dark Ages (AD 400-700), the ‘Mediaeval Warm Period’ (MWP; AD 800-1200) and the ‘Little Ice Age’ (LIA; AD 1300-1750). The atmospheric North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) drives the Tagus Prodelta multidecadal, long-term variability in precipitation-river input during cold periods (negative NAO) and marine upwelling during warmer periods (positive NAO), a scheme that is reversed in the Galician region. The Muros Ría shows only local hydrodynamics until AD 1150, including a ‘suboxic’ event in the inner Ría around AD 500-700. Since AD 1150 Atlantic warm upwelled waters have ventilated the outer Ría but only reach the inner Ría at AD 1750. The twentieth-century records are also interpreted as a reflex of the inverse NAO mode in both areas, resulting in amplification of the LIA biogeochemical water conditions. Centennial-scale solar activity appears to be another important forcing mechanism (or the only one, if solar activity drives the NAO and ‘Bond-cycles’) behind changes in the hydrography of the Tagus Prodelta, and primary production, bottom ventilation and organic carbon degradation in the Muros Ría.

[Boston]

looks like I understood it better than most and was one of the few to notice that the graphs had the upward trend cooked out of em

detrended
means an alteration in the relative values of the relationship between axis

has a huge impact on the visual appearance of a graph
might even remove the obvious upward movement of the pertinent indices

also Im kinda curious
this guy claims in reference to Greenpeace

'They have formulated their view based on one glacier which showed what they wanted it to show. It is a simple, even naive, approach. This glacier has retreated, but that doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of other examples of glaciers that have expanded, which they have ignored.

when clearly there is ample data to suggest that the vast majority of glaciers are in rapid decline and it was he who references only one glacier that just happened to be in advance when in fact the vast majority are in decline





so what is it that you think is correct about his statement
because even his native colleagues came out and said he was wrong

also in what way is it not misleading to suggest that even though one glacier is receding there are numerous that are advancing when clearly the opposite is true

with declining glaciers outnumbering advancing ~30 to 1
and those that are advancing doing so largely because so much melt water has lubricated there flow rate

seems that it is not I that has a some things to learn G
although I have learned a lot here

maybe you could be a little more specific with your concerns regarding my refutation of the good professor

cheers
B

[Boston]

the reality of the unprecedented rise in the carbon content of the atmosphere

[BillyDoc]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

You keep on misunderstanding things . . .

Autobiography now Guillermo?

Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7984054.stm

David Vaughan says the breakage is a 'really strong indication' of warming

An ice bridge linking a shelf of ice the size of Jamaica to two islands in Antarctica has snapped.

Scientists say the collapse could mean the Wilkins Ice Shelf is on the brink of breaking away, and provides further evidence of rapid change in the region.

Sited on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, the Wilkins shelf has been retreating since the 1990s.

Researchers regarded the ice bridge as an important barrier, holding the remnant shelf structure in place.

Its removal will allow ice to move more freely between Charcot and Latady islands, into the open ocean.

European Space Agency satellite pictures had indicated last week that cracks were starting to appear in the bridge. Newly created icebergs were seen to be floating in the sea on the western side of the peninsula, which juts up from the continent towards South America's southern tip.

Professor David Vaughan is a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey who planted a GPS tracker on the ice bridge in January to monitor its movement.

He said the breaking of the bridge had been expected for some weeks and much of the ice shelf behind was likely to follow.

"We know that [the Wilkins Ice Shelf] has been completely or very stable since the 1930s and then it started to retreat in the late 1990s. But we suspect that it's been stable for a very much longer period than that," he told BBC News.

"The fact that it's retreating and now has lost connection with one of its islands is really a strong indication that the warming on the Antarctic is having an effect on yet another ice shelf."

While the break-up will have no direct impact on sea level because the ice is floating, it heightens concerns over the impact of climate change on this part of Antarctica.

Over the past 50 years, the peninsula has been one of the fastest warming places on the planet.

Many of its ice shelves have retreated in that time and six of them have collapsed completely (Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Larsen B, Wordie, Muller and the Jones Ice Shelf).

Separate research shows that when ice shelves are removed, the glaciers and landed ice behind them start to move towards the ocean more rapidly. It is this ice which can raise sea levels, but by how much is a matter of ongoing scientific debate.

Such acceleration effects were not included by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when it made its latest projections on likely future sea level rise. Its 2007 assessment said ice dynamics were poorly understood.

So Guillermo, this ice breakup and all those retreating glaciers are happening because we are "really" in a cooling trend? And only you seem to understand this?

BillyDoc

[Jimbo1490]

Boston,

Look at the graphs YOU just posted (#2671), you *****. Both CLEARLY show a COOLING trend from 1999-2009. ANY average idiot could pick that out. What's wrong with YOUR eyes?

Jimbo

[Boston]

although its difficult to dignify that last with a response
by that logic it could be said that there are about twenty downward trends in that graph

here is the first graph I posted
that bright green line
thats the warming trend

trend (trnd)
n.
1. The general direction in which something tends to move.
2. A general tendency or inclination. See Synonyms at tendency.
3. Current style; vogue: the latest trend in fashion.
intr.v. trend·ed, trend·ing, trends
1. To extend, incline, or veer in a specified direction: The prevailing wind trends east-northeast.
2. To show a general tendency; tend: "The gender gap was trending down" James J. Kilpatrick.

this next graph I posted is the cooked graph
notice it says that its been detrened for linear fit



which removes the relevant data
IE that the increase in temp over time is not only a cyclical increase but also an equable one
with the magnitude of the cycles being directly dependent on the linear trend
which has been removed from the graph

if you look at it you will see that the good professors assessment that

The rate of temperature increase during the time leading up to the warm period around 1940 obviously was of similar magnitude.

is a purely academic argument given that the real question is not the variability of the fluctuations along a significantly rising trend
but the significance of the rising trend itself

your inability to converse or politely rebut the obvious flaw in Prof. Humlum's work is admission enough to the readers that you have no proper scientific argument to present


in case you have trouble with my use of the term academic in this context

ac·a·dem·ic (k-dmk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning.
2.
a. Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational.
b. Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
3. Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
4. Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic.
5. Based on formal education.
6. Formalistic or conventional.
7. Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See Synonyms at theoretical.
8. Having no practical purpose or use.
n.
1. A member of an institution of higher learning.
2. One who has an academic viewpoint or a scholarly background.

[Jimbo1490]

Since a little more than HALF of ALL anthropogenic CO2 releases has occurred since 1975, how do you account for the steady rise in temperature occurring decades before this? Or the current cooling trend which seems pretty anomalous if you believe that incidental CO2 somehow drives climate? Seems like the trend is completely independent from anthropogenic CO2 output as it predates our emissions by many decades and is still subject to natural short term variation that overcome our exponentially rising emissions to cause cooling.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Boston

although its difficult to dignify that last with a response
by that logic it could be said that there are about twenty downward trends in that graph

Beautiful! Thank You!

Now that Wonderboy has admitted that there are indeed several warming and cooling trends discernible in ANY earth historical temperature graph, it's the perfect time to revisit the Bob Carter presentation on why AGW via CO2 is a failed hypothesis.



Pay attention starting around the 2:40 time mark. His words are in perfect agreement with the above admission that there are always warming and cooling trends visible on both short and long timescales, and even when comparing to past long timescale warming periods there is absolutely NOTHING anomalous about 20th century warming, meaning the AGW hypothesis has yet and still FAILED to overcome the very first logical/scientific hurdle of proof: That there is something anomalous going on with the earth's climate, for which an unusual cause must be identified.

Jimbo

[BillyDoc]

Jimbo,

I know you're frustrated, and for good reason given the position you are taking, but do you mind keeping the school-yard name calling out of it? It doesn't help your position at all. In fact, it looks very much like desperation on your part.

Now, to get back on subject, would you also say that because it gets warm in summer we have to conclude that we are all going to burn up from heat? Or, If I walk from my office into the next room (heading west) I will inevitably end up in California? Surely you can visually integrate the noise in these graphs and pull out a long term trend. Most people can do this very accurately. And as for this warming trend being unusual, speaking for myself I think I told you quite a while ago that it is not. There are at least three mass extinctions that look extremely similar. In fact, that's the scary part. THEY LOOK SIMILAR!

BillyDoc

[BillyDoc]

Jimbo, another issue.

You present yet another unattributed source in your last post. Why should I, or anyone for that matter, waste their time with it? This gets back to the issue Boston was pounding on you with earlier: Why are your sources so full of industry propaganda? Are you ever going to address this issue?

BillyDoc

[Jimbo1490]

Billy

If you had bothered to watch the video (clearly you did not) you would have received all the attribution and credentialling you could have asked for as the presenter is a respected scientist in the field with many peer reviewed papers to his credit. You want to find fault with everyone that disagrees with the AGW orthodoxy while swallowing mountains of unsupported ******** from those that agree. This makes you little more than a hypocrite, and a pretty mis-informed one at that.

Jimbo

[BillyDoc]

Jimbo, you and Guillermo have dumped tons of unattributed crap on these pages, obviously in an effort to simply wear everyone down with BS. And now you ask why I won't go look at it? If you have something to say, a real argument for your position, then make it. Meanwhile, how about addressing the question put to you so many, many times that you persist in evading: WHY DOES SO MUCH OF THE STUFF YOU REFERENCE COME FROM THE OIL INDUSTRY, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY? Are you on their payroll? Or is it that you simply don't understand the difference between an argument and eristic?

Here, let me help you.

Argument Ar"gu*ment, n. [F. argument, L. argumentum, fr.
arguere to argue.]
1. Proof; evidence. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

2. A reason or reasons offered in proof, to induce belief, or
convince the mind; reasoning expressed in words; as, an
argument about, concerning, or regarding a proposition,
for or in favor of it, or against it.
[1913 Webster]

3. A process of reasoning, or a controversy made up of
rational proofs; argumentation; discussion; disputation.
[1913 Webster]

4. The subject matter of a discourse, writing, or artistic
representation; theme or topic; also, an abstract or
summary, as of the contents of a book, chapter, poem.
[1913 Webster]

Eristic
adj : given to disputation for its own sake and often employing specious arguments [syn: eristical]
n 1: a person who disputes; who is good at or enjoys controversy
[syn: disputant, controversialist]
2: the art of logical disputation (especially if specious)

BillyDoc