What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

The funny part is my credentials were readily available through a link I had provided and now that I'm not providing it any more all of a sudden G is demanding credentials

lMAO

Quack
Quack
Quack quack
Quack

[Boston]

Quack

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

Quack

Add it to your bill.

[wardd]

now I can't allow my ducks on this site

[hoytedow]

Pato!

[Boston]

quack
quack

quack quack

quack

[Guillermo]

Boston,
As suspected you are now making distracting manoeuvres because you can't present any kind of credentials for your imaginary universitary formation. Not even for secondary school.

I say:
YOU ARE A LIAR
(we already knew that)

On top of that you hide behind a nickname to insult, scorn people and lie with all of your theeth, not facing up as the honest people do.
YOU ARE A COWARD

Pathetic.

[Guillermo]

N. Hemisphere Extra-Tropics 2,000yr Decadal Temperature Reconstruction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
and
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...gqvist2010.txt

LAST UPDATE: 8/2010 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
CONTRIBUTOR: Ljungqvist, F.C.
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2010-089


WDC PALEO CONTRIBUTION SERIES CITATION:
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2009.
N. Hemisphere Extra-Tropics 2,000yr Decadal Temperature Reconstruction.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2010-089.
NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.


ORIGINAL REFERENCE:
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010.
A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical
Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.
Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351,
September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x

ABSTRACT:
A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering
the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern
Hemisphere (90-30°N), utilizing many palaeotemperature proxy records
never previously included in any large-scale temperature reconstruction.
The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial
time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show
a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1-300, reaching up to the 1961-1990
mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300-
800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice
Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300-1900, followed by a rapid temperature
increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures
in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century
and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures
seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961-1990 mean temperature level
during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm
Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly
higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although
this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the
multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees
well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al.
(2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the
timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300-800,
despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.


GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Northern Hemisphere extra-tropics (90–30°N)
PERIOD OF RECORD: 0 - 1999 AD, decadal resolution

DESCRIPTION:
Multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the extra-tropical Northern
Hemisphere (90-30°N) during the last two millennia based on 30
palaeotemperature proxy records with annual to multi-decadal resolution.
Proxy types include historical documentary records, seafloor sediment records,
lake sediment records, speleothem records, ice-core records, varved thickness
sediment records, tree-ring width and maximum latewood density records.
The reconstruction is presented as decadal anomalies in degrees C relative
to the 1961–1990 reference period and provided with quantitative error bars.

[wardd]

some people are creative readers

[Guillermo]

The period 1698-1730 is one of the steepest warming parts for the studied period. Temperatures have generally been rising ever since that earlier date.
Three 30 years rapid warming periods are quite apparent in the graph, during the last 300 years: 1700-1730, 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 (about)
Although the time frame is short for a precise determination, a quasi 1000 years cycle could be apparent.

The question that arises is: Could we be facing a +/- 500 years cooling period?

[Guillermo]

Perhaps not a 500 years dramatical cooling but a 500+ years slightly cooling plateau were shorter solar cycles will dominate the climate variations.

Let's revisit my post 4265 of 01-17-2010:


The 2200-2400 year solar cycle structure was initially studied by Dergachev and Chistyakov in 1990. It shows that this quasybimillenial cycle starts with a Maunder-type minimum, corresponding with a ‘litle ice age’ . Subsequently it begins a initial active phase of 300-350 years duration. Climate warms up and to the end of this phase the global temperature is 1.5 – 2°C higher than during the ‘litle ice age’.

Then a relatively quiet age or ’plateau’ follows (as named by Boris Komitov, to whom I'm resuming in this post), with a duration of ~ 500 years. The supercenturial increasing of active solar processes stops and the amplitude of the Schwabe-Wolf’s cycles is predominantly high during the 'plateau'. Superimposed to the general trend they take place subcenturial, quasycenturial and relatively weak bicenturial oscillations. The Earth enters in a ‘climatic optimum’, i.e. a continuous age of relatively warm climate.

When the ‘plateau’ aproches its end temperatures slip down to a secondary minimum with a duration of around 300 years. This is the end of the ‘climatic optimum’ and the climate stay temporary cooler by ~1°C.

The existence of a secondary minimum in the 2200-2400 year cycle structure shows that it is a double wave, containing two 1100-1300 year oscilations.

The main active phase of the quasybimillennial cycle lasts for another 300-400 years in which climate warms up again until it reaches the maximum of the cycle. The last age of that kind was between the 8-11th centuries, when the MWP happened. All existing data indicates quite clearly that this last maximum has been essentially warmer than present (in spite of "The Team" efforts to hide it).

At last, the forthcoming cooling phase of the 2200-2400 year cycle happens for another 600-700 years. This strong cooling phase ends with a new ‘litle ice age‘ in coincidience with the corresponding Maunder-type solar minimum. The last one we have experienced has been the 17-18th century LIA.

During the second half of the 20th century solar activity (note: all activity, not only irradiance) has been the highest for the last 800-1000 years. It has been the result of superpositions of quasycenturial and supercenturial solar oscillations maximums. Amongst them the quasybicenturial cycle, which last minimum has happened close to 1850 AD, played the most important role.

See attached figure. We are presently in point 'Q', so entering the 'plateau'. This means Earth will stay for around 500 years in a warm age, were shorter solar cycles will dominate the climate variations. Specifically we are now at the beginning of the slip down to a new Dalton type minimum at around 2050 (92% probability). (Komitov)

[Guillermo]

Yesterday's comments from Dr. Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist (NOAA), author of the AD 0-2000 years temps reconstruction:

For the last 1100 years the errors bars between my new reconstruction, Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008) and Loehle (2007) more or less always overlaps. They are clearly in major agreement despite differences in method and data and show a consistent other picture than pioneering “hockey stick” shaped reconstructions (e.g., Jones et al. 1998; Mann et al. 1999, Mann and Jones 2003).

......there are a lot of references to Mann et al. (1999) – the so-called “Hockey Stick Graph”. It is science history now.

Any references to temperature reconstructions by Michael E. Mann should be to his 2008 and 2009 temperature reconstructions. They actually show an even warmer Medieval Warm Period than I do. I don’t think it is fair to refer to an outdated work (from 1999) when we have newer and better.

Credit: WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...on/#more-25461

[Boston]

You are way to much fun to play with G

And still you quack on

How about if I send proof to some one I actually trust

Cause you, once again are so far off base it's beyond ridiculous

All I can say at this point is you must really enjoy embarrassment

Love
B

[Guillermo]

Send it to me (PM or e-mail to: g.gefaell at mundo-r dot com). If after checking the info I'm proved wrong, I'll gladly apologize.
Or then send it or deliver it to somebody I trust. I can try to find someone in Denver.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

The period 1698-1730 is one of the steepest warming parts for the studied period. Temperatures have generally been rising ever since that earlier date.
Three 30 years rapid warming periods are quite apparent in the graph, during the last 300 years: 1700-1730, 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 (about)

We can point out again:

1.- Present decadal temps do not seem to be much higher (if they in fact are at all) than the ones for the MWP (about 0.2ºC at its most)
2.- Anthropogenic CO2 is only significative since around 1940, but temperatures have been rising since around 1700.
3.- Decadal temps have rised +/- 0.72ºC from 1690 to 1940, and +/- 0.36ºC for 1940-2000
3.- Of the three rapid warming periods since 1690, of about 0.4 - 0.5 ºC each, only the last one coincides with significant anthropogenic CO2

Why should we consider this last period (+/-1970-2000) as extraordinary at all? Why shall we consider anthropogenic CO2 drove the temperature increase in that period?

The more new information becomes available, the less the ACGW theory is supported.