tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post936978350660834804..comments2024-03-17T23:50:03.863+08:00Comments on Government and Taxes: Climate stupidity 3: Cowards to face public debatesBienvenido Oplas Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07799756132761366267noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-14924156913423139742010-11-08T18:05:45.361+08:002010-11-08T18:05:45.361+08:00Thanks sdcougar. The MWP is a very inconvenient tr...Thanks sdcougar. The MWP is a very inconvenient truth for the peddlers of the AGW scam.<br /><br />Cthulhu, I made a new blog entry, with 5 graphs to illustrate the points, "Climate stupidity, part 4". It would made additional counter-points to your comments above.Bienvenido Oplas Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799756132761366267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-52583458464049379552010-11-08T14:58:13.802+08:002010-11-08T14:58:13.802+08:00Re the MWP, I read this comment elsewhere:
"...Re the MWP, I read this comment elsewhere: <br />"What you learn quite quickly when discussing with AGW believers is, that hundreds of local measurements from all over the globe will always be local. To show global warming on the other hand, some North American Bristlecone Pines or even one single tree in Siberia is more than sufficient to represent the global temperature."<br /><br />Excellent article here:<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/<br /><br />Anonymous suggestion sounds excellent. How many people know that world class climate scientists like Roy Spencer, John Christy [an IPCC lead author], Richard Lindzen of MIT, etc, dispute the AGW theory?<br />Some excellent resources here:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/lindzen_heartland_2010.pdf<br /><br />http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/PDFs/Lindzen.pdf<br /><br />And as far as warming, people need to be constantly reminded that we are only looking at tenths of a degree in changes, all within the range of natural variability.MikeSnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12462825086786614647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-32131027922716871862010-11-06T19:59:36.375+08:002010-11-06T19:59:36.375+08:00Oxygen isotope analysis of ice cores in Greenland ...Oxygen isotope analysis of ice cores in Greenland is not a hemispheric reconstruction let alone a global one. It's only a proxy of temperature in greenland. It tells us nothing about temperature patterns in asia or central europe. Therefore it doesn't demonstrate the MWP period (and when is the MWP?) warmer than today over the entire NH or the globe.<br /><br />ALso the variations in greenland, like any other specific region, are much larger than the world average, so cannot be compared to the recent global anomaly. The values need to be converted to NH anomaly or global anomaly in order to do that. They can't be left as "greenland temperature".<br /><br />There were already humans living in Greenland before the Vikings arrived and after they left. I don't see why the Vikings would have been unable to survive in Greenland in it's current climate. But that's beside the point anyway - the issue is the entire NH not greenland.<br /><br />Comparing the MWP with IPCC's projections of warming is useful because it shows that the expected warming is easily going to overshoot the MWP.<br /><br />"your statement "all global and hemispheric reconstructions show that the MWP was probably cooler than temperature in the past decade" is not correct."<br /><br />It is correct. None of these hemispheric or global reconstructions demonstrate a warmer MWP:<br />http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/shooting-the-messenger-with-blanks/<br /><br />What other reconstructions are there?<br /><br />"IPCC models only used anthropogenic factors. They did not include natural factors like volcanoes, water vapor, clouds, galactic cosmic rays, PDO and AMO, natural CO2 emission from human and animal kingdom breathing, and the values they assigned for solar forcing was very small."<br /><br />They do include volcanoes, water vapor and clouds. They do include natural co2 emissions from human and animal kingdom breathing (which is carbon neutral anyway so doesn't contribute to any rise in co2). They don't include GCRs because there's no demonstrated physical mechanism. Climate models exhibit AMO and PDO like oscillations in their oceans. The values assigned for solar forcing are based on physics so are only low because that's what the physics shows.<br /><br />There is a MWP and LIA in the hockey stick graph. Quite clearly the period around 1000AD is warmer than the period around 1750AD in the hockeystick graph.<br /><br />"Meanwhile, you did not comment on the most recent global temp graphs I showed above. Current global cooling trend simply shows natural fluctuations of global temp and climate, up-down-up-down, even if human CO2 emission keeps rising constantly."<br /><br />That's what I would expect. It's the same behavior that's been going on for the last century of global warming. Temperature fluctuates naturally around a mean. It's the mean that's increasing.Cthulhunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-9689546000822425082010-11-06T08:36:16.379+08:002010-11-06T08:36:16.379+08:00Thanks for the debate, Cthulhu. I did not show the...Thanks for the debate, Cthulhu. I did not show the MWP graph in my 3 papers, "climate stupidity". But I showed that MWP graph, the past 10,000 years actually, in another posting, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/08/climatism.html<br /><br />The temp reconstruction was based on oxygen isotope analysis of ice cores in Greenland. And the most recent warming in the past century, peaked in 1998, then generally flattened this decade, showed a temp anomaly of only about 0.6 C or 1 F. So if we compare the recent warming with the MWP, the former was a mild one. The MWP explained why the Vikings were able to conquer the Greenland and stayed there for s few hundred years even without modern heating system. Many of the Vikings though, left or perished when the LIA set in.<br /><br />Comparing the last, actual warming, with IPCC's projections of warming, is not useful. Projections are not evidence. They are mere guesses. And guesses are only as good as the validity of the assumptions considered. <br /><br />Thus, your statement "all global and hemispheric reconstructions show that the MWP was probably cooler than temperature in the past decade" is not correct.<br /><br />IPCC models only used anthropogenic factors. They did not include natural factors like volcanoes, water vapor, clouds, galactic cosmic rays, PDO and AMO, natural CO2 emission from human and animal kingdom breathing, and the values they assigned for solar forcing was very small.<br /><br />Re Mann's "hockey stick" graph, thank you for pointing out that link. I missed it. But there's no MWP or LIA there. That's why it's called a "hockey stick" graph because Mann portrayed the past temperatures as generally flat, until the 1800s industrialization up to the present that temps rose.<br /><br />There were other studies that showed MWP, in about 4 regions of China by Chinese scientists. <br /><br />Meanwhile, you did not comment on the most recent global temp graphs I showed above. Current global cooling trend simply shows natural fluctuations of global temp and climate, up-down-up-down, even if human CO2 emission keeps rising constantly.Bienvenido Oplas Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07799756132761366267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-71857575532715596232010-11-06T05:02:43.638+08:002010-11-06T05:02:43.638+08:00You also stated that Mann's "hockey stick...You also stated that Mann's "hockey stick" wasn't in AR4, but it is:<br /><br />http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html<br /><br />The one labeled MBH 1999<br /><br />Mann 1999 was the first reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperature going back to 1000AD and appeared in the TAR. It does have a MWP and LIA but the recent warming is significantly larger than that past variation.<br /><br />Before Mann there was no hemispheric reconstruction. The oft-quoted graph from the first IPCC report that showed a large MWP (http://www.americanthinker.com/Theo%20Vermaelen%201.gif) is not a hemispheric reconstruction but a graph based on central england temperature (so not even the whole of europe).<br /><br />Mann's reconstruction was groundbreaking in the sense that it demolished the prevailing dogma of a MWP much warmer than present. It was a stab at an answer from combining multiple proxies rather than a guess from a single location. Like all initial work it wasn't the final answer and subsequent reconstructions, including Mann's own (eg Mann 08), have refined the process. There is a larger MWP (or deeper LIA) in recent reconstructions than in MBH99, but it's nothing like the initial IPCC graph and doesn't support a MWP warmer than present (let alone one much warmer)Cthulhunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-28890526751235499772010-11-06T04:50:03.450+08:002010-11-06T04:50:03.450+08:00I'll debate you.
On an earlier post you clai...I'll debate you. <br /><br />On an earlier post you claimed <br />"The existence of the medieval warm period (MWP), much warmer than past century's warming (roughly from 1850 to 1998) was written by several hundred peer-reviewed authors and articles"<br /><br />I argue that you've compared the wrong thing. What's more relevant is to compare temperature of the last 10 years with the MWP, the last 10 years being the warmest in the past 100. Also it would be relevant to compare the MWP to where warming could take us by 2100 at the very least.<br /><br />On the first point there's a lot of uncertainty, but all global and hemispheric reconstructions show that the MWP was probably cooler than temperature in the past decade.<br /><br />Certainly if we warm by 2C by 2100 we will be easily warmer than the MWP.<br /><br />You cite individual proxy studies on co2science. These are well known but they are not global or hemispheric reconstructions. Some of them show a warm period in 1100-1300AD, others show a warm period in 800-1000AD. They miss. They can't both be described as a MWP.<br /><br />In order to get a true global or hemispheric picture the individual proxies need to be combined. That's what the global and hemispheric reconstructions have done.Cthulhunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17839575.post-46951067847787745122010-11-06T00:05:40.726+08:002010-11-06T00:05:40.726+08:00I suggest you target the very vocal, grassroots pr...I suggest you target the very vocal, grassroots pro-warming radio commentators like those on Kalikasan Vigilante since they like to cite scientific studies. If you can convince them, they should be equally vocal in their support for the skeptics' side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com