Split from Aug FT meeting: Yet another Global Warming thread

[Dardedar]

Austrians join worldwide scientific hoax:

***
Alps Warmest in 1,300 Years as 'Winter' Sets in

AUSTRIA: December 6, 2006

VIENNA - It is warmer in Europe's Alpine region now than at any time in the past 1,300 years, the head of a wide-ranging climatic survey said on Tuesday.

From Ottawa to Moscow, temperatures generally have been way above average at the start of winter in the northern hemisphere, with flowers blooming on snow-starved slopes of Alpine ski resorts and bears struggling to hibernate.

"We are now experiencing the warmest period (for this season) in the past 1,300 years," said Reinhard Boehm, chief climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geo-Dynamics in Vienna.

He cited a study by a group of European climatic institutes that reconstructed more than a millennium of weather patterns in a region ranging from France's Rhone Valley in the west to Hungary in the east, and from Germany's Nuremberg area in the north to Italy's Tuscany in the south.

Temperatures generally did not diverge from a naturally frigid winter level except for one thaw between the 10th and 12th centuries, and Alpine glaciers reached their greatest size around 1850, Boehm told Austrian press agency APA.

Industrial pollution originating in the 19th century began to affect climate from the mid 20th, he said. Unfiltered factory smoke and other emissions initially cooled temperatures somewhat as they impeded the sun's rays, he said.

The latter-day warming trend set in about 20 years ago from the cumulative use of fossil fuels giving off clear greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide, said Boehm.

"This has led to ever higher temperatures since the 1980s and the models indicate that it's going to get even warmer in future," Boehm said.

Many scientists say a single warm winter is most likely part of the natural variations of an unpredictable climate. Still, years of mild temperatures fit predictions of global warming, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels.

Like many places, Austria had its mildest autumn since records began and many ski resorts have delayed the season's kick-off. Snow cannons sit still on green slopes that would usually be pistes, shrinking the billion-dollar winter business.

Glaciers are receding. Rare December pollen is troubling asthma sufferers as far north as Scandinavia, sales of winter clothing are down and Santa Claus is having to reassure children his sleigh will take off on Christmas Eve, snow or no snow.

From Siberia to Estonia, bears have had trouble going to sleep for their winter hibernation because their hideaways are uncomfortably warm, soggy and damp.

link

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Is that "one thaw between the 10th and 12th centuries" Hogeye's "Medieval Warming Period"? Melting glaciers (not only causing problems with the ski industry, but causing serious problems with agricultural and municipal water needs), December pollen causing "out of season" asthma attacks, and bears unable to hibernate should be all the evidence anyone needs. So much for logic.

[Hogeye]

At least they almost acknowledged there was a MWP. They of course failed to tell us how much the glaciers receeded then, or whether the oceans were 30 feet higher. It would be interesting to know what forcings/indicators they used to estimate temperatures - can they get good ice bores in the central European region studied? Why do I distrust a study done by an unspecified "group of European climatic institutes?" Anyway, as Darrel and Crichton like to warn us, local temperatures vary tremendously, and may not reflect the global average atmospheric temperature.

[Dardedar]

At least they almost acknowledged there was a MWP.

DAR
Everyone acknowledges a MWP.

They of course failed to tell us how much the glaciers receeded then, or whether the oceans were 30 feet higher.

DAR
No one says the oceans were 30 feet higher then.

Why do I distrust a study done by an unspecified "group of European climatic institutes?"

DAR
Because they are credentialed scientists with training in the field in which they are speaking.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye cherry-picking again. "Reinhard Boehm, chief climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meterology and Geo-Dynamics in Vienna" sounds pretty specified to me.

The thaw they are tracking was terrestrial glaciers, it's true, but in the middle of a continent. Most of that water went into Alpine lakes. Aside from which, even as massive as the alpine glaciers are, a) they didn't melt completely, and b) they aren't a pimple on the butt of the Antarctic terrestrial ice sheets.

[Doug]

Hogeye cherry-picking again. "Reinhard Boehm, chief climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meterology and Geo-Dynamics in Vienna" sounds pretty specified to me.

Yes, but he is probably a "statist."

[Hogeye]

Learn to read. Reinhard Boehm was the guy interviewed. The article does not say or imply that he was one of the researchers that made the "Alps Warmest in 1,300 Years" claim - he simply cited unspecified groups who allegedy did. For all we know, Boehm is some govt-paid stock "expert" available to reporters. Does he have any more credibility than, e.g. a govt Drug Czar talking about drugs?

No one says the oceans were 30 feet higher then.

Right, which is why alarmists like Gore have some explaining to do. Until they can explain why last time it got hot, the terrible predicted catastrophes didn't happen, they come off as Chicken Littles.

[Doug]

No one says the oceans were 30 feet higher then.

DOUG
Darrel wrote that.

Right, which is why alarmists like Gore have some explaining to do. Until they can explain why last time it got hot, the terrible predicted catastrophes didn't happen, they come off as Chicken Littles.

DOUG
Hmm. So people claim that it is warmer now than in the MWP, yet they must explain why things didn't happen that would have happened had it been this warm in the MWP?

[Hogeye]

When there was considerably less ice cover over Greenland than today (as shown by historical records and archeology of the Viking settlements) and less even than the alarmist-predicted levels of the next 50 years, the oceans did not rise.

But it is true that alarmists like Gore also try to deny that the MWP was approximately as hot (or hotter) than the late 20th century. It was as hot or hotter for a period of centuries; Greenland was not under ice as it is today.

Don't you find it suspicious that the standard paleoclimactic paradigm that had been around for decades was suddenly "overturned" by a political organization's publication in 1998? Can you think of any other major paradigm changes in any science that changed so fast? Mann 1998 is pure political opportunism, like Lysenko 1927.

[Doug]

When there was considerably less ice cover over Greenland than today (as shown by historical records and archeology of the Viking settlements) and less even than the alarmist-predicted levels of the next 50 years, the oceans did not rise.

But it is true that alarmists like Gore also try to deny that the MWP was approximately as hot (or hotter) than the late 20th century. It was as hot or hotter for a period of centuries; Greenland was not under ice as it is today.

Don't you find it suspicious that the standard paleoclimactic paradigm that had been around for decades was suddenly "overturned" by a political organization's publication in 1998? Can you think of any other major paradigm changes in any science that changed so fast? Mann 1998 is pure political opportunism, like Lysenko 1927.

DOUG
Look here.
===============
There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that did exhibit notable warmth but all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now and the temperature is rising faster than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years. Anecdotal evidence like that above can never tell you a global story.

NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

Specifically, they have this to say about the MWP:

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... ieval.html

In specific answer to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, I like to point people here:

http://www.english-wine.com/index.html

==============================
DOUG
Relying on the MWP as a rebuttal to global warming just doesn't work.

[Hogeye]

As usual with the alarmist pages, you have to look at the data for yourself rather than believe their bull. They claim, "all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now" than during the MWP. But looking at the data they cite, omitting the disputed/fraudulent Mann hockeystick, a different picture emerges.

Here's some data from Jones et. al. 1998:

Year NH SH
1074 1.16 0.42
1106 1.25 0.26

The highest they have in the 20th century (they stopped at 1991) was:
1976 0.71 0.31
1990 0.7 0.57

According to their data, it seems the MWP was hotter. (The temps give are normalized by the 1961-90 mean, i.e. in 1074 the Northern Hemisphere was 1.16 degrees C warmer than that average temp.)

D'Arrigo et. al., contrary to the alarmists, says they just don't know which was hotter:

"We stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale." - On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming, Journal of Geophysical Research

Most of the data sets/studies don't go back to the MWP (perhaps it didn't satisfy their preconceptions?), even when the links are labeled as going back that far. Most only go back to 1600 or 1700. Some data sets mislead by showing instrumental data for the late 20th century and "low resolution" (e.g. ice core and sediment) data for previous times. But of course low resolution data doesn't, by definition, show spikes in tempatures, so comparison to the late 20th century spike on a graph is simply misleading - bad science. Much of the data pertains to local areas or only one hemisphere.

Anyway, I've refuted the "all of the various global proxy reconstructions agree that it is warmer now" claim twice over. Note that the article they cite relies on the same old discredited Mann hockey stick. It's easy to find articles saying just the opposite. That's what happens when you politicize science. Lysenko would be proud!

[Dardedar]

DAR
More BLATANT dishonesty. I can't excuse this as incompetence anymore. All you have to do, once again, is follow a Hogeye link and read the parts he snips out:

"We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts....
Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis..."

So once again scientists, using new methods, find (and confirm Mann) that the MWP hottest was cooler than our new average. No surprise there. Hogeye constantly misleads (he cannot be this stupid) and says that the MWP was warmer than now (or actually ninties, which were cooler than now), yet when he stumbles onto an actual scientific site (as opposed to most of the childish anti-Mann junk, ala John Daly), his blinders don't allow him to see that it says, as all the best science does, that the hottest day in the MWP was probably cooler than our average now (with necessary qualifiers of course, as Mann also had).

Mann vindicated (everyone knows this except you know who). Hogeye never laid a glove on him. It's always the same crap, and even in the same pile.

D.

The chart Hogeye's link uses:



Note that it goes to 1990. The decade of the ninties was hotter than any measured before, and we are even hotter now.

[Dardedar]

D'Arrigo et. al., contrary to the alarmists, says they just don't know which was hotter:

Quote:
"We stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale." - On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming, Journal of Geophysical Research

DAR
Oh, I just realised something else. Even the little part Hogeye did quote, he misreads.

Doug said:

"There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today."

That's what Hogeye's cherry-picked quote is saying! It is making the point, as I have over and over, that the MWP can only be compared in a local/regional scale. Why? Because the MWP "reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales,...."

Yet this is the ridiculous song Hogeye sings continously. La la la, the MWP was warmer, but the oceans weren't higher, la la la.

Hogeye's citation is explicity telling him not to do precisely what he is doing and constantly does. Amazing.

Maybe if he reads it over and over, carefully, he will see this too. Wagers anyone?

D.

[Hogeye]

Darrel selectively quotes the part that supports his preconceptions, and leaves out the author's disclaimer/warning that follows. Here is the passage from the abstract in question. Judge for yourself, freethinkers!

Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global "fingerprint." Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

Short paraphrase: While the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were 0.7C cooler, we know that the method used flattens out the estimates. Therefore we cannot make any reliable global claims about the MWP relative to today.

Darrel didn't try to deny that the Jones98 data gave colder temperatures in 1074 and 1106 than any 20th century temp in his data set. Note that the graph Darrel inserted only goes back to 1200, conveniently omitting the MWP highs! (Oops! I looked at the graph from my link, where it's cut off at 1200.) That's a typical trick that I mentioned in my last post. The alarmists like to ignore the MWP on their pretty graphics.

Let me reiterate another point from my last post - comparing instrumental temperatures with flattened low-resolution data is invalid and misleading. For all we know, hot spikes like late 20th century occurred in the MWP, too, but ice bores are too low-resolution to show them.

[Dardedar]

DAR
As usual your comments are mostly nonresponsive to the problems I pointed out, such as that your source refutes you. I'll give these a kick.

...we cannot make any reliable global claims about the MWP relative to today.

DAR
Why? As Doug says:

"There is actually no good evidence that the MWP was indeed a globally warm period comparable to today."

Or as your source puts it:

"...available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale."

So why don't you follow the advice of your source, and stop doing precisely what they recommend you do not do?

Note that the graph Darrel inserted only goes back to 1200, conveniently omitting the MWP highs!

DAR
It's not my graph, it was the graph at the link you provided. Why didn't you include it? I don't wonder why. The graph goes back to 750, thus conveniently including any MWP highs, as anyone can see. And again, your source says we are hotter now (with necessary qualifiers, like Mann).

For all we know, hot spikes like late 20th century occurred in the MWP, too, but ice bores are too low-resolution to show them.

DAR
Then you must admit you have no basis for you MWP claims, aside from the problem with not having a basis for any claims about it being global.

D.

[Hogeye]

"People claim that it is warmer now than in the MWP" was Doug's strawman. My claim is "the MWP was approximately as hot (or hotter) than the late 20th century." Various reconstructions confirm that.



See this page for the sources of these reconstructions. Note that the black part is bogus, as instumental temperatures are incompatable with low resolution indicators ("forcings".)

Now if Gore-type alarmist claims of oceans rising 30-50 feet are to be believable, he must explain why, in a long hot period like the MWP (as opposed to a one or two decade anomoly) that didn't happen. Obviously, there's something (probably quite a lot) going on that climatologists don't know about.

Global warming alarmists usually make the claim that the late 20th century is hotter than the MWP. But as Darrel reiterates, "...available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale." The specific claim of the late 20th century being warmer than the MWP is unreliable. So is the claim that the MWP was warmer than the late 20th century. Ergo, both the alarmist claim and Doug's strawman are unreliable claims. My claim above is somewhat less unreliable, being cleverly hedged by "approximately" and supported by numerous reconstructions. Darrel, please follow the advice of our source and don't claim that it is hotter now than during the MWP.

Then you must admit you have no basis for you MWP claims, aside from the problem with not having a basis for any claims about it being global.

As we've seen, my claim is sufficiently qualified ("approximately as hot") and supported by numerous reconstructions. Furthermore, the consensus is that the MWP was global - even Mann has backed off of his earlier denials of that. Perhaps you were misreading the D'Arrigo abstract again?

[Dardedar]

"People claim that it is warmer now than in the MWP" was Doug's strawman.

vs.

Global warming alarmists usually make the claim that the late 20th century is hotter than the MWP.

DAR
Good humor!

My claim is "the MWP was approximately as hot (or hotter) than the late 20th century."

DAR
As everyone knows, you have repeatedly claimed that the MWP was hotter. The concensus is that it was not, and your latest source, using new methods, recommends against using their information to make such comparisons. Yet no doubt you will continue. It's pretty much the only song you know. What would you do without it?

Various reconstructions confirm that.

DAR
Is that one little green line your little "1998" peak? That's the reed you are leaning on? How lame. And it doesn't go high enough.

Then you provide us a chart I have posted many times. Just another hockey stick like all the rest. And we live on the blade.

the black part is bogus, as instumental temperatures are incompatable with low resolution indicators ("forcings".)

DAR
Of course you can't allow the black part. You would have us throw out the actual accurate temperature reading we can be completely certain of. Why? Because the rate and amount of increase is of great concern (along with the zillion other reasons for concern you never deal with).

The question you have ducked 100% of the time although I have asked it many times. What is the anarchist solution to an earth with a serious global warming problem? More guns?

...the consensus is that the MWP was global...

DAR
Show this. No crackpots, no farmers, miners, economists, PR consultants, oil lackeys, libertarian objectivist anarchist effluent. Show that the scientific consensus is that the MWP was global.

D.
-------------------------
"None of them [GW skeptics] ever come to our scientific conferences. They know they would be laughed out of the building. The stuff they say, some of it is so nonsensical it's hardly worth discussing."

[Savonarola]

Furthermore, the consensus is that the MWP was global - even Mann has backed off of his earlier denials of that. Perhaps you were misreading the D'Arrigo abstract again?

Let's look at that abstract again:

... we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period ...

Doesn't sound global to me. In fact, according to the abpve, the reason the MWP isn't reflected in said methodologies is because it wasn't global.

First you say (or at least, you cite an abstract that says) that the numbers are misleading and incomparable because the methodologies "misrepresent" non-global phenomena like the MWP. Yet you still say that the MWP was global...

[Hogeye]

Hogeye> My claim is "the MWP was approximately as hot (or hotter) than the late 20th century."

Darrel> As everyone knows, you have repeatedly claimed that the MWP was hotter.

No, that is a strawman in your head - something you pulled out of your ass. The claim I actually made, quoted above, was from the post above made on Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:20 pm.

... the rate and amount of increase is of great concern.

You have a habit of changing the subject to duck the issue. I've made no claims about the rate of increase. That worries some alarmists, but not me. As you know, low resolution indicators don't capture that information, so you can't claim that the increase is at a highher rate than during the MWP.

Hogeye> The consensus is that the MWP was global...

Darrel> Show this. No crackpots, no farmers, miners, economists, PR consultants, oil lackeys, libertarian objectivist anarchist effluent. Show that the scientific consensus is that the MWP was global.

I just did - with the chart showing reconstructions. Wake up, dude!

... we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period ...

Sav> Doesn't sound global to me.

You are misreading it, then, Sav. It says that there was more variability, not that the average global temperature was not hotter. The reconstructions are about average global temperature, and clearly show that it was global. (When alarmists claim that global warming causes causes variability, with some places getting colder, and some colder winters, we can reply yes, and it was even more variable during the MWP.)

[Dardedar]

Hogeye> My claim is "the MWP was approximately as hot (or hotter) than the late 20th century."

Darrel> As everyone knows, you have repeatedly claimed that the MWP was hotter.

No, that is a strawman in your head - something you pulled out of your ass.

DAR
No, it is a factual statement that I stand behind. You have repeatedly claimed that the MWP was hotter. If you want to debate me you better get a memory. Good grief, you even once listed it first of your favorite three points to yap about:

"My favorite points are IB (the MWP was significantly warmer than today), IIB (the sunspot theory), and IIIB/IVA (CO2 lags temp change by up to 800 years per another graph I showed; temp rise causes CO2, not the other way around)." Posted: 11 Apr 2006 11:27 am by Hogeye

Wanna pay me $100 for every other example I can find?

Here is another:

"Note that about 500 years ago there was a spike warmer than today, and 1000 years ago there was the Medieval Warm Period which was much warmer than today." Posted: 05 May 2006 03:53 pm, by Hogeye

I found those in a couple minutes in one thread. Black and white, plain as day, posted by you. The only person pulling things out of their ass around here is you.

Oh, and where is your evidence for the howler:

"...about 500 years ago there was a spike warmer than today..."

The claim I actually made, quoted above, was from the post above made on Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:20 pm.

DAR
The claim I made referenced all of your past irrational global warming denial material. Oh, and since you are still using the insulting pergorative "alarmist" to vilify those who hold a different position, perhaps I should start using "irrational global warming denier." Yes, that has a nice ring to it.

...low resolution indicators don't capture that information, so you can't claim that the increase is at a highher rate than during the MWP.

DAR
Doesn't matter. Our spike is long enough and high enough that 20 year smoothing will show it. Besides, any of your talk about hockeysticks is handwaving and red herrings, no current science of global warming relies upon it. You just date yourself with this silly junk.

Hogeye> The consensus is that the MWP was global...

Darrel> Show this. No crackpots, no farmers, miners, economists, PR consultants, oil lackeys, libertarian objectivist anarchist effluent. Show that the scientific consensus is that the MWP was global.

HOG
I just did - with the chart showing reconstructions. Wake up, dude!

DAR
You have shown nothing. As SAV pointed out, your one source above says:

"...spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions,"

This says nothing about the scientific concensus, and as usual, your own, single, source refutes you.

Show that the scientific consensus is that the MWP was global.... At least try. What have you got?

It says that there was more variability, not that the average global temperature was not hotter.

DAR
Do you know what "...spatially heterogeneous" means? Look it up.
Of course they say it wasn't hotter. What part of "MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7C cooler than in the late twentieth century" do you not understand? Look at their chart (provided above) for pity sake. They have reservations against comparing it to today, because it wasn't global, and many other reasons, but ALL of the scientists presenting such findings have given qualifications, especially Mann. Irrational global warming deniers have repeatedly misrepresented their material, as you do constantly.

D.