Never say never folks. They went another round and it's a text book example of the two different debate styles in action. I think "debate incompatibility" could also describe what went down. This time I kept my comments and additions to a minimum since there's not much to add. Though there is a lot to think about.
Please consider that AL is absolutely certain of what he knows. He is sincere to the bone, so much so that all attempts to confront what he knows to be the 'truth' is seen as a hostile act. If entire communities of independent experts spread over the globe and generations develop an understanding that's contrary to his core Truth, he can't help but blame it on some hostile conspiracy. It makes no sense to him that his understanding could be wrong.
On the other side, we have people for whom the pursuit of better understanding and new discoveries is the goal. Self-skepticism and a willingness to subject one's own convictions to the toughest tests and then allowing the evidence to direct what one trusts or rejects is the order of the day.
If one's pet theory, or one's understanding, turns out to be wrong, one learns from those mistakes and moves forward, hurt feelings be damned.
Unfortunately your climate science uni-directional skeptics aren't built like that.
They don't have the imagination nor desire to look beyond their own limited socio-economic/political perceptions, they don't care about the world out there, only the one in their heads. Crack that nut and you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.
What makes this round so fascinating is that Dave managed to never sink to AL's level.
Instead he took the time to review and comment on the 30 peer-reviewed papers AL cut and pasted and tossed at Dave as though they were self-evident proof that the MWP was no different than today's warming. And the ending is classic.
I don't know who Dave is, but I like his style and depth of understanding, it would be very cool if others (of like capability and disposition) might be inspired by his example of standing up the peddlers of scientific nonsense.
______________________________________________________________
AL to Dave Smith Jesus, you're a big joke.
You don't even realize the stupidity to reference IPCC's political nonsense, when it's the validity of that very thing we are discussing?
It's exactly like in a discussion about gods existence with a religious nut, and the idiot starts referring to the bible to prove it's real and that god exists.
But thank you for pointing out exactly what I said in my previous post: You totally indoctrinated and don't have a clue about the science outside of what the IPCC feed you.
{CC: IPCC is charged with collecting, organizing and reporting on the full scope of climate science that is available. Serious science that is, IPCC does reject junk science. Which of course the echo-chambers that produced the junk resents to no end.}
I have given you sites with collection of links to scientific papers so you have reading for months {CC: but offer nothing specific that speaks to your claims}, but you simply don't want to. You click on 10 of them and makes some lame comment about that they don't back up what I said. That is clear evidence that you haven’t done anything near of ”...the willingness to look at them”.
And if I didn’t know what they was about, then why the hell would I give you those links in the first place??? It’s moronic at best to suggest that someone would prove a point with references to facts that one doesn’t know is there. Or maybe that’s your standard to do things, you own references are nothing more than repeating what’s IPCC has told you.
I can tell you this much though - I have read an order of a magnitude more of them that you have. Here is - for the last time - the references to some of the scientific, peer reviewed papers that my links pointed to. I repeat again SOME of the papers. That you where unable to find them is either a result that you are totally incompetent at a simple task like clicking on a link, or it’s proof that you’re totally unwilling to take in any science that is not in your IPCC bible. Pick one.
Not only do they prove my statements I made about the MWP, it also proves your total lack of knowledge about what you’re spewing out in your TLDR posts:
”The 'hockey stick' graph was one of the first attempts to get a continuous estimation of global temperatures over the past 1000 years.”
No, it wasn’t. Although you try to make it sound like a fact - like with most things you write - it is not. As you can see below, many papers pre-dates Mann’s ludicrous hockey stick debacle, and since almost all those papers mention MWP (or even ”the well known MWP” in one case) it’s clear it was well known and has similar conclusions about it. {CC: Do you not appreciate the difference between knowing something happened, and an in depth study to understand the details?} And again, these are just some of them, I have other things to do then sit and find facts for you.
So here is the list of a fraction of the papers I gave you with one simple link. There are 5-6 times more papers at the end of the links I gave you. The only reason to post {er, you mean... cut and paste them} them here now, is to show your dishonesty, double standards and right out lies in this whole discussion and this is just one example of it. All of them supports what I said to you about MWP, and the fact that you couldn’t even find one of them speaks volumes about you. {CC: I've highlighted pre-hockey stick studies.}
Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.
Griessinger, J., Brauning, A., Helle, G., Thomas, A. and Schleser, G. 2011. Late Holocene Asian summer monsoon variability reflected by δ18O in tree-rings from Tibetan junipers. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 10.1029/2010GL045988.
Ji, J., Shen, J., Balsam, W., Chen, J., Liu, L. and Liu, X. 2005. Asian monsoon oscillations in the northeastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau since the late glacial as interpreted from visible reflectance of Qinghai Lake sediments. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 233: 61-70.
Gupta, A.K., Das, M. and Anderson, D.M. 2005. Solar influence on the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene. Geophysical Research Letters 32: doi:10.1029/2005GL022685.
Zhang, Q.-B., Cheng, G., Yao, T., Kang, X. and Huang, J. 2003. A 2,326-year tree-ring record of climate variability on the northeastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2003GL017425.
Sinha, A., Cannariato, K.G., Stott, L.D., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Yadava, M.G., Ramesh, R. and Singh, I.B. 2007. A 900-year (600 to 1500 A.D.) record of the Indian summer monsoon precipitation from the core monsoon zone of India. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2007GL030431.
Zhang, Q., Gemmer, M. and Chen, J. 2008. Climate changes and flood/drought risk in the Yangtze Delta, China, during the past millennium. Quaternary International 176-177: 62-69.
Fengming, C., Tiegang, L., Lihua, Z. and Jun, Y. 2008. A Holocene paleotemperature record based on radiolaria from the northern Okinawa Trough (East China Sea). Quaternary International 183: 115-122.
Kaniewski, D., Van Campo, E., Paulissen, E., Weiss, H., Bakker, J., Rossignol, I. and Van Lerberghe, K. 2011. The medieval climate anomaly and the little Ice Age in coastal Syria inferred from pollen-derived palaeoclimatic patterns. Global and Planetary Change 78: 178-187.
Tan, L., Cai, Y., An, Z. and Ai, L. 2008. Precipitation variations of Longxi, northeast margin of Tibetan Plateau since AD 960 and their relationship with solar activity. Climate of the Past 4: 19-28.
Qiang, M., Chen, F., Zhang, J., Gao, S. and Zhou, A. 2005. Climatic changes documented by stable isotopes of sedimentary carbonate in Lake Sugan, northeastern Tibetan Plateau of China, since 2 kaBP. Chinese Science Bulletin 50: 1930-1939.
Hong, Y.T., Jiang, H.B., Liu, T.S., Zhou, L.P., Beer, J., Li, H.E., Leng, X.T., Hong, B. and Qin, X.G. 2000. Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year δ18O time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10: 1-7.
Thompson, L.G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M.E., Lin, P.-N., Henderson, K. and Mashiotta, T.A. 2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales. Climatic Change 59: 137-155.
Paulsen, D.E., Li, H.-C. and Ku, T.-L. 2003. Climate variability in central China over the last 1270 years revealed by high-resolution stalagmite records. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 691-701.
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E. 1995. Climatic implications of δ13C variations in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) during the last two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters 22: 2155-2158.
Treydte, K.S., Frank, D.C., Saurer, M., Helle, G., Schleser, G.H. and Esper, J. 2009. Impact of climate and CO2 on a millennium-long tree-ring carbon isotope record. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 4635-4647.
Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Wilson, R.J.S., Buntgen, U. and Treydte, K. 2007. Uniform growth trends among central Asian low- and high-elevation juniper tree sites. Trees 21: 141-150.
Ge, Q., Zheng, J., Fang, X., Man, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, P. and Wang, W.-C. 2003. Winter half-year temperature reconstruction for the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River and Yangtze River, China, during the past 2000 years. The Holocene 13: 933-940.
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.
Eden, D.N and Page, M.J. 1998. Palaeoclimatic implications of a storm erosion record from late Holocene lake sediments, North Island, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 139: 37-58.
Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317.
Hass, H.C. 1996. Northern Europe climate variations during late Holocene: evidence from marine Skagerrak. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 123: 121-145.
Bodri, L. and Cermák, V. 1997. Climate changes of the last two millennia inferred from borehole temperatures: results from the Czech Republic - Part II. Global and Planetary Change 14: 163-173.
Addyman, P.V., Hood, J.S.R., Kenward, H.K., MacGregor, A. and Williams, D. 1976. Palaeoclimate in urban environmental archaeology at York, England: problems and potential. World Archaeology 8: 220-233.
Graumlich, L.J. 1993. A 1000-year record of temperature and precipitation in the Sierra Nevada. Quaternary Research 39: 249-255.
Bryson, R.A., Irving, W.N. and Larsen, J.A. 1965. Radiocarbon and soil evidence of former forest in the Southern Canadian tundra. Science 147: 46-48.
Schwalb, A. and Dean, W.E. 1998. Stable isotopes and sediments from Pickerel Lake, South Dakota, USA: a 12ky record of environmental changes. Journal of Paleolimnology 20: 15-30.
Meyer, G.A., Wells, S.G. and Jull, A.J.T. 1995. Fire and alluvial chronology in Yellowstone National Park: Climatic and intrinsic controls on Holocene geomorphic processes. GSA Bulletin 107: 1211-1230.
Lloyd, A.H. and Graumlich, L.J. 1997. Holocene dynamics of treeline forests in the Sierra Nevada. Ecology 78: 1199-1210.
Jennings, A.E. and Weiner, N.J. 1996. Environmental change in eastern Greenland during the last 1300 years: evidence from foraminifera and lithofacies in Nansen Fjord, 68°N. The Holocene 6: 179-191.
Vance, R.E., Clague, J.J. and Mathewes, R.W. 1993. Holocene palaeohydrology of a hypersaline lake in southeastern Alberta. Journal of Paleolimnology 8: 103-120.
Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Reech, N., Gundestrup, N., Clausen, H.B. and Hammer, C.U. 1975. Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man. Nature 255: 24-28.
Arseneault, D. and Payette, S. 1997. Reconstruction of millennial forest dynamics from tree remains in a subarctic tree line peatland. Ecology 78: 1873-1883.
Cook, E.R., Seager, R., Cane, M.A. and Stahle, D.W. 2007. North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth-Science Reviews 81: 93-134.
Fjellsa, A. and Nordberg, K. 1996. Toxic dinoflagellate "blooms" in the Kattegat, North Sea, during the Holocene. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 124: 87-105.
Keigwin, L.D. 1996. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea. Science 274: 1504-1508.
Moore, J.J., Hughen, K.A., Miller, G.H. and Overpeck, J.T. 2001. Little Ice Age recorded in summer temperature reconstruction from varved sediments of Donard Lake, Baffin Island, Canada. Journal of Paleolimnology 25: 503-517.
deMenocal, P., Ortiz, J., Guilderson, T. and Sarnthein, M. 2000. Coherent high- and low-latitude climate variability during the Holocene warm period. Science 288: 2198-2202.
Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126.
Luckman, B.H. and Wilson, R.J.S. 2005. Summer temperatures in the Canadian Rockies during the last millennium: a revised record. Climate Dynamics 24: 131-144.
Carson, E.C., Knox, J.C. and Mickelson, D.M. 2007. Response of bankfull flood magnitudes to Holocene climate change, Uinta Mountains, northeastern Utah. Geological Society of America Bulletin 119: 1066-1078.
And since you stated that past periods of higher temperatures - like MWP - was because of an active sun, but todays warm period is because high CO 2, here are some papers that proves you wrong on that statement as well.
Your words, repeated from your IPCC’s bible like a parrot:
”The standard explanation for the MWP is an increase in solar irradiance…”
”There has been no significant change in sun….[in our time]”
Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940's
(Physical Review Letters, Volume 91, Issue 21, November 2003)
- Ilya G. Usoskin et al.
Testing an Astronomically Based Decadal-Scale Empirical Harmonic Climate Model vs, the IPCC (2007) General Circulation Models
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, pp. 124-137, May 2012)
- Nicola Scafetta
Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J., 2004, “Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years”, Nature, 431, 1084–1087.
Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling
Authors, T. Kobashi, J. E. Box, B. M. Vinther, K. Goto-Azuma, T. Blunier, J. W. C. White, T. Nakaegawa, C. S. Andresen
———————————————————
Revisiting the Sunspot Number A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle
Frédéric Clette · Leif Svalgaard · José M. Vaquero · Edward W. Cliver
”Still, although the levels of activity were not exceptional except maybe for cycle 19, the particularly long sequence of strong cycles in the late 20th remains a noteworthy episode. Indeed, the 400-year sunspot record and one of its by products, the number of spotless days, show that such a tight sequence of 5 strong cycles over 6 successive cycles (from 17 to 22, except 20), which we can call the “Modern Maximum”, is still unique over at least the last four centuries. Given the inertia of natural systems exposed to the solar influences, like the Earth atmosphere-ocean system, this cycle clustering could still induce a peak in the external responses to solar activity, like the Earth climate.”
———————————————————
Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 18, September 2005)
- Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West
Long-term variations in the correlation between solar activity and climate
(Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, Volume 76, pp. 965-968, 2005)
- K. Georgieva, B. Kirov, C. Bianchi
Temperature response of Earth to the annual solar irradiance cycle
(Physics Letters A, Volume 323, Issues 3-4, pp. 315-322, March 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Eric G. Blackman, Robert S. Knox
Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 16, pp. 33-1, August 2002)
- David H. Douglass, B. David Clader
The Sun-Earth Connection in Time Scales from Years to Decades and Centuries
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 95, Issue 1-2, pp. 625-637, January 2001)
- T. I. Pulkkinen, H. Nevanlinna, P. J. Pulkkinen, M. Lockwood
Sun-Weather/Climate Relationships: A Review (Part I)
(Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy A, Volume 66, Number 3/4, pp. 415-441, May & July 2000)
- Ernest C. Njau
Sun-Weather/Climate Relationships: A Review (Part II)
(Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy A, Volume 66, Number 5, pp. 451-466, September 2000)
- Ernest C. Njau
_________________________________________________
Observations don't agree with AL's conviction: "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions." (learn more at http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm)
For more background see:
Changing Sun, Changing Climate
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Total Solar Irradiance Composite 1975 - 2010
Sunspot Number 1600 -2000
_________________________________________________
These examples above is just for one topic (MWP), but the same thing can be done with anything you try to sell as ”truth” in this discussion. {CC: sure the tactics you employ can be used to disrupt pretty much any constructive dialogue and drive it into worthless drivel and name calling.} You’re just like any other warmist out there - biased, agenda driven, and repeating what you have red in your IPCC bible over and over again with no respect for the majority of the scientific work that is produced out there.
I could also list all the claims you have stated here with the same ”please give me a reference for that”-shit after it as you always do (I started to do that actually), but nah…why bother. {CC: I've got a theory, because you cannot support your claims with substance, you are confined to arm waving and insults.} You have proved to be nothing more than a standard salesman for the IPCC’s nonsens, with no knowledge or interest about all the science that is outside their political driven agenda. And the same thing goes for you pal here, that happily chimes in like a sidekick to you posts.
Now, you can do with these whatever you want. Read then, don’t read them - I don’t honestly care. I’m done with your agenda and lack of intellectual honesty. Go cuddle up with your pal here, read your IPCC bible and convince each other of it’s alternative reality and don’t bother me again.
_________________________________________________________
Dave Smith to AL at 7:45 AM 12/13/15
to AL Part 1
"You don't even realize the stupidity to reference IPCC's political nonsense, when it's the validity of that very thing we are discussing?" -
No. I don't, for the following reasons:1) when we are discussing the reports referencing them is thus unavoidable
2) I am also referencing AR5 when using it as a benchmark representation of mainstream views
3) the point of a reference is not merely to give authority to a statement, but it also allows the reader the opportunity to find out where the statement came from and get further details, and to ensure that the statement is in line with the source. It also allows the reader to formulate a rebuttal
4) I am indicating where I got my knowledge from
5) AR5 is a literature review and as such it is a useful point by which the underlying research can be read
6) it contains many basic facts
7) It has to be at least as good as the links to denialist blogs
8) It is well respected. The current Paris conference is making decisions based on it.
"It's exactly like in a discussion about gods existence with a religious nut, and the idiot starts referring to the bible to prove it's real and that god exists." -
That's only when you are using a reference as a form of authority. I was not doing that.
So if you had questioned where I got something, then I would have replied the AR5, you then could have suggested that that was not an appropriate source and ask for another one, which, if the request was reasonable, I would have done.
"You click on 10 of them and makes some lame comment about that they don't back up what I said. That is clear evidence that you haven’t done anything near of ”...the willingness to look at them”." -
I asked for the reference for a specific reason,
I wanted justification of the claim that the rate of change of temperature around the MWP was greater than the 20thC. Your reference did not answer that question, and you gave me no other reason to read the articles. What would be the point of reading them?
And in terms of links to scientific papers - not really, all of the links were to blogs, and only some of which used a scientific paper as a basis.
"And if I didn’t know what they was about, then why the hell would I give you those links in the first place??" -
You tell me, why did you provide that link?
What was the point?
It didn't answer my question and you never gave a reason for providing it.
I've seen it all the time. Even happens with undergraduate submissions, where references are included without the candidate ever reading them.
"you own references are nothing more than repeating what’s IPCC has told you" -
If they are, why don't you catch me out, like I caught you out?
"Not only do they prove my statements I made about the MWP" -
Your statement was that the temperature rates around the MWP were greater than that of the 20thC. Again, I'll only go through the first 10, and if none of support your claim then I'm calling you out again.
Remember I never disagreed with the claim that it is now accepted that the MWP was a global phenomenon, so if this is what you are now trying to claim then that doesn't count.
"As you can see below, many papers pre-dates Mann’s ludicrous hockeystick debacle, and since almost all those papers mention MWP" -
Are any of them Northern Hemisphere reconstructions? If so which ones? I'll have to find them myself shall I?
"All of them supports what I said to you about MWP" -
Good then all I have to do is look at one to prove you wrong. But I'll give you a chance, I'll go through 10.
So here are the first ten. Can you please tell me how any of them support anything that you have said about the MWP, because I can't see the link. Two possible points that could be derived are, and that are accepted in the mainstream are:
- MWP was a global phenomenon
- MWP was influenced by solar irradiance
Of interest is the wide ranges of dates given to the MWP, almost underlining the lack of global homogeneity. Kaniewski paper found Syrian coast to be cooler in the MWP than today.
Holmgren - I can only find the abstract, not the paper itself. Total comment is "Medieval warming with a maximum at around AD 1500 ... were prominent features of the record." Study looked at South Africa
Griessinger - an analysis of rainfall in Tibet, virtually nothing mentioned about temperature. Describes the MWP as occurring 1200-1400, when it is usually described as occurring 950-1250.
Shen - a demonstration on using a lake in Tibet as a proxy measurement of historic rainfall. Nothing mentioned about temperature. Describes the MWP as occurring from 150 to 1150, which again does not correspond to the accepted range
Gupta - Compares monsoonal winds in India with sunspot activity, virtually nothing said about temperature. MWP mentioned once, but not defined or even clear in the paper what range that was supposed to represent "Our record also shows that the SW monsoon winds were stronger (high solar activity) during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and weak (low solar activity) during the Little Ice Age (LIA)."
Zhang, Q.-B., Cheng, G - studied rainfall in Tibet, nothing mention about temperature. Defines MWP as 929 to 1031
Sinha - Study of monsoonal rainfall in India. No mention of temperatures. Defines MWP as 900 to 1300
Zhang, Q., Gemmer, M - could only find the abstract. Looks like an interesting paper. Looks at temperature and rainfall based on the Yangtse delta over the period 1000 to present. States "The variability of temperature is of great magnitude, and periods dominated by warm/cold temperature are usually interrupted by cold/warm periods". MWP defined as 1000-1400
Fengming - could only find the abstract. Temperatures were reconstructed for sea surface temperatures around Okinawa for the period 10,500 BP to present. No mention made of MWP.
Kaniewski - temperature and rainfall reconstruction for coastal Syria for the last 1000 years. The conclusion was "The TW-2 core also suggests that the MCA is warmer and wetter than the LIA and slightly cooler but still wetter than the present-day". MWP defined as 1000-1250.
Tan - compared rainfall in Tibet with solar activity. Temperature only mentioned in reference to the accepted variations known in northern hemisphere reconstructions. MWP not mentioned explicitly
I then looked for anything about the MWP in the titles in the rest
Keigwin - Study which looked at the sea surface temperature of the Sargasso Sea over the last 3000 years. Found that it was " ~1 C warmer than today 1000years ago ". No mention of the rate of change. This paper was used in the 2010 Ljungqvist reconstruction (Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier. "A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra‐tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia." Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 92.3 (2010): 339-351.), which in turn is used in AR5(Lj10cps).
Tyson - reconstruction of temperature over the last 1000 years for one place in South Africa. This showed maximum warming at around 1250 producing conditions up to 3-4C hotter than present. The paper appears to have been neither criticised nor used.
I then went looking through to see if I could find any global or semiglobal reconstructions that predated. None were found in the list provided.
I did bump into an article from the New Scientist magazine which also claims that Mann's reconstruction was the first Northern Hemisphere reconstruction "The “hockey stick” graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings." www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
Kitagawa - reconstruction only for southern Japan
Eden - not a temperature reconstruction
Wilson - reconstruction only for one part of New Zealand
Hass - not a temperature reconstruction
Bodri - reconstruction only for Czech
Addyman - not a temperature reconstruction
Graumlich - reconstruction only for southern Sierra Nevada
Bryson - not a temperature reconstruction
Schwalb - reconstruction only for South Dakota
Meyer - not a temperature reconstruction
Lloyd - not a temperature reconstruction
Jennings - not a temperature reconstruction
Vance - not a temperature reconstruction
Dansgaard - reconstruction only for Greenland
Arseneault - not a temperature reconstruction
Fjellsa - not a temperature reconstruction
Keigwin - reconstruction only for Sargasso Sea
You then produce a series of references to contradict 2 claims that I made
1) ”The standard explanation for the MWP is an increase in solar irradiance…”
2) ”There has been no significant change in sun….[in our time]” -
This has been taken a little out of context - this is a briefer rewording (and stated as such in the paragraph) of the more correct statement "Both the sun and volcanic activity affect the climate today, but measurements show that they have not contributed in any significant way to the trend in temperature seen over the last 120 years". The sun quite obviously has varied in irradiance over that period, it has a noticeable 12 year cycle.
First, as a matter of background, let me explain how the IPCC came up with the conclusion that the sun has not made a significant contribution to the trend in warming. Chapter 8.4 describes the methodology. The first thing is to get reconstructions of past irradiance, either through direct measurement, or through proxy. Total Solar Irradiance has only been measured since 1978, meaning that before that the use of proxies is required. A variety of reconstructions are mentioned but the preferred one is the one used by Krivova and Ball. For the sake of expedience I shall focus only on that one.
Krivova, N. A., L. E. A. Vieira, and S. K. Solanki. "Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum." Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (1978–2012) 115.A12 (2010).
Ball, William T., et al. "Reconstruction of total solar irradiance 1974–2009." Astronomy & Astrophysics 541 (2012): A27.
Usoskin - This publication has S. K. Solanki. as one of its co-authors. He is also co-author of both of the reconstructions that AR5 relies on, and both reconstructions were published at a later date. Thus without even reading this paper, I know that it can add nothing to the debate
Scafetta - this paper only talks about cycles up to 60 years in length, thus these cannot contribute to the trend over 120 years
Solanki - Solanki is the co-author of the TRI reconstructions that AR5 puts most reliance on. This paper predates the TRI reconstructions, so as for Usoskin this does not add anything
Kobashi - discusses at temporary (30yr) effect on local climate. Nothing raised relating to temperature trends
Clette - could not find this paper.
Nicola Scafetta, Bruce J. West - There are two main differences between the calculations here and those of AR5.
The first is the acceptance of which measured dataset is used. This paper used ACRIM whilst AR5 used PMOD. The second difference is the more important one.
AR5 uses the bottom up approach of calculating all of the relative forcings - this is standard method of calculating contributions in climatology and meteorology. Scaffeta criticises this method 'The climate model approach is problematic because the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are not fully understood and, therefore, cannot be confidently included in the computational models ', and instead uses a more controversial phenomenological approach 'attempts to estimate the climate sensitivity to solar variation by directly studying the signature of the solar cycles within the temperature data', and adopts an adapted version of Douglas and Carter. There are definitely unknown unknowns in both methods leading to uncalculable errors.
The Scafetta paper is specifically criticised here Benestad, R. E., and G. A. Schmidt. "Solar trends and global warming." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 114.D14 (2009). The abstract is as follows
"We use a suite of global climate model simulations for the 20th century to assess the contribution of solar forcing to the past trends in the global mean temperature. In particular, we examine how robust different published methodologies are at detecting and attributing solar-related climate change in the presence of intrinsic climate variability and multiple forcings.
We demonstrate that naive application of linear analytical methods such as regression gives nonrobust results. We also demonstrate that the methodologies used by Scafetta and West (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008) are not robust to these same factors and that their error bars are significantly larger than reported. Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
Scafetta's calculations are also criticised here - Lockwood, Mike. "Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. The Royal Society, 2009.
and here Lockwood, Mike. "Solar influence on global and regional climates." Surveys in Geophysics 33.3-4 (2012): 503-534. (Same author, but slightly different take)
The latest paper by Scafetta seems to be this one - Scafetta, Nicola. "Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs." Energy & Environment 24.3-4 (2013): 455-496. In it he is undeterred by the criticism and extends his conclusions. He now claims "about 50-60% of the warming observed since 1850 and since 1970 was induced by natural oscillations likely resulting from harmonic astronomical forcings that are not yet included in the GCMs;"
His conclusion starts "It may be surprising to many to learn that planetary oscillations probably exert a significant control on the Earth’s climate system, as presented in this paper. However, this is the way climate change has been interpreted and predicted for millennia by ancient civilizations that built sophisticated astronomic observatories to this purpose."
These claims are, to say the least, controversial. I could not find any rebuttal to this (last) paper.
Georgieva - only discusses solar cycles of up to 11 years in length, thus these cannot contribute to the trend over 120 years
David H. Douglass, Eric G. Blackman, - only discusses the yearly cycle
David H. Douglass, B. David Clader - this paper concluded "a surface warming of 0.2°C over the last 100 years from the inferred increase in the solar irradiance of 1.5 W/m2". Similar to Scafetta, this study performs a statistical analysis on the measured TSI to determine how it affected surface and lower tropospheric temperatures over the period of a solar cycle. This paper has not been subject to criticism, like Scafetta, but neither have the findings been explicitly repeated in citing papers. Despite being widely cited, this work appears to have been effectively ignored. However the Benestad and Lockwood papers do criticise simple linear regression calculation methodologies in general for determining climate sensitivities, which Douglass is an example.
Pulkkinen - describes a possible solar cycle of 90 years, and "that the irradiance variations can be traced to variability in the long-term solar magnetic activity, which at Earth leads to natural coupling between the geomagnetic and climatic effects". But this paper is not arguing for any significant effect on the last 120 years
Njau - Makes the statement "on the basis of very recent research results, the recent global temperature rise is to a large extent due to solar forcing." The paper does not quantify that large extent or provide a rigorous argument, however it does cite the research, which are all the author's papers. This claim has essentially been ignored in the literature by other researchers.
One of the arguments the author uses to justify his claim is the completely inappropriate application of amplitude modulation theory.
"These examples above is just for one topic (MWP)" -
None of the references immediately above discuss MWP if that is what you mean. The references further up are - but what point are you trying to make?
" but the same thing can be done with anything you try to sell as ”truth” in this discussion" -
Your list, once again, didn't support what you were originally claiming,
so I don't know why you bother. And I'm not selling anything BTW.
"You’re just like any other warmist out there - biased, agenda driven, and repeating what you have red in your IPCC bible over and over again with no respect for the majority of the scientific work that is produced out there" -
Then point out what I've gotten wrong, and support it with relevant references rather than these masses of irrelevancy. And what's my agenda? In what way am I biased? Why do you call me a warmist? {CC: I'll speculate that he does it to keep the conversation as far from constructive learning as possible. Confusion is the name of his team's game.}
"I could also list all the claims you have stated here with the same ”please give me a reference for that”-shit after it as you always do" -
Happy to supply
"You have proved to be nothing more than a standard salesman for the IPCC’s nonsense, with no knowledge or interest about all the science that is outside their political driven agenda" -
I'm more than happy to discuss other physics. This conversation has been completely driven by you.
The conversation has gone - you make claims, I try to correct you, you make more claims etc. If you wanted to discuss something other than the IPCC's nonsense, it was completely in your control
"lack of intellectual honesty" -
What dishonesty?
"don’t bother me again" -
If you keep posting stuff about physics that is incorrect and damaging to its reputation, I will feel obliged to post something. {CC: If only more informed students and scientifically educated felt that same obligation, perhaps we wouldn't have so many misinformed people out there in YouTube land and other venues.}
________________________________________________________
AL to Dave Smith to AL at 9:34 AM 12/13/15
I said don't bother me again. I have shown you your incompetence at acknowledge massive amounts of facts that proves you wrong.
Take your excuses elsewhere.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"I said don't bother me again" -
Then stop posting to me, then it will end.
"I have shown you your incompetence at acknowledge massive amounts of facts that proves you wrong."
- that wasn't massive amounts of data, that was about 30 papers
- still none of them said what you think they are saying, why don't you read what you post?
"Take your excuses elsewhere" -
What excuses?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
AL to Dave Smith Jesus your an idiot. What part of don't bother me again do you have a hard time understanding?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What part of I don't care what you want don't you understand?
You've done nothing but insult at every opportunity throughout this discussion. Why do you think that you have endeared yourself to me enough that I care what you want?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Closing thoughts...
Richard Alley - what drives scientists?
No comments:
Post a Comment