There were warmer temperatures concentrated in some areas during this time. Other areas were significantly colder. Globally the planet was cooler.
OK, you disagree with the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre who write after reviewing more than 200 climate studies:
Quote:
Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents.
(link in previous post).
Quote:
Also, the causes for warming in some areas during this period are not the same causes for warming today.
That isn't an answer to what I asked, which was:
Quote:
For example, what do you think caused the temperature changes in the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?
Saying that the "causes" then were different to causes today absolutely carries the implication that you claim to know what the causes then were. Why have you declined then to answer my question? You clearly think you know the answer. What were the causes of the MWP and how do you know those causes are not present today?
In any other scientific field, "simplifying the message" is known as "fraud".
Let's assume that is true, to move on - since it's an irrelevant distraction. Although your opinion differs from those chosen to investigate the issue. Does the content of the emails mean the research is wrong, or that just a small part was deliberately not mentioned to save mixing the message. You might want to go back and read the entire report.
If we don't know the outcome of something does that mean we should not act? It seems accurate to say that many in this thread are secure in their false knowledge of how many things in their life works. But are they not infinitely more complicated than they understand? Does this stop them from acting upon them?
This really the crux of the issue.
Strindberg
1 Nov 2012, 12:26 PM
OK, you disagree with the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre who write after reviewing more than 200 climate studies:
(link in previous post).
That isn't an answer to what I asked, which was:
Saying that the "causes" then were different to causes today absolutely carries the implication that you claim to know what the causes then were. Why have you declined then to answer my question? You clearly think you know the answer. What were the causes of the MWP and how do you know those causes are not present today?
That's a reference the infamous 2008 Mann et al paper which has been shown to use upside down proxies/axis (here and elsewhere). More here.
So overall is it a conspiracy or you know better than the researchers?
OK, you disagree with the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre who write after reviewing more than 200 climate studies:
(link in previous post).
That isn't an answer to what I asked, which was:
Saying that the "causes" then were different to causes today absolutely carries the implication that you claim to know what the causes then were. Why have you declined then to answer my question? You clearly think you know the answer. What were the causes of the MWP and how do you know those causes are not present today?
That's a reference the infamous 2008 Mann et al paper which has been shown to use upside down proxies/axis (here and elsewhere). More here.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Centre press release is from 2003. Why would you post a press release that pre-dates (be several years) the scientific literature that I posted?
MWP was caused by solar radiation and less volcanic activity.
Also under consideration are ocean circulation patterns. These brought warmer seawater into the North Atlantic (where the warming occurred).
I also referenced an article from a scientific journal 2009 which you seem to have missed.
Let's assume that is true, to move on - since it's an irrelevant distraction. Although your opinion differs from those chosen to investigate the issue. Does the content of the emails mean the research is wrong, or that just a small part was deliberately not mentioned to save mixing the message. You might want to go back and read the entire report.
A scientific institution has no business managing the message in the first place. They should leave that to the politicians. What they are being funded for is disinterested search for the truth. It is fairly obvious that what we have here are a couple of organisations that are pruning the lines of inquiry in order to keep the results "on-message." It does not invalidate any of the work done by individual researchers but it is certainly very unhelpful in the search for understanding. What is the point of funding research if the result is determined before the inquiry?
Quote:
If we don't know the outcome of something does that mean we should not act? It seems accurate to say that many in this thread are secure in their false knowledge of how many things in their life works. But are they not infinitely more complicated than they understand? Does this stop them from acting upon them?
Well, it all depends on the range of outcomes and it all depends on the severity of the action that is proposed, doesn't it? When the political wing your research institutions are disguising the range of possible outcomes and trying to influence the proposed actions, the decisions get that much harder to make. Despite the attempt to sweep the issue under the carpet, the field of climate science has taken an enormous amount of damage from the whole affair and the public have turned their backs.
Quote:
So overall is it a conspiracy or you know better than the researchers?
It's not a conspiracy. It is just a tawdry affair of researchers making a cack-handed foray into politics. It's not that uncommon, unfortunately.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
According to Anglo-Saxon chronicle the Thames froze solid for 3 months of the years in the 10th century AD, just the same as it did in the 17th century AD.
The amazing thing about the "medieval warm" and the "the little age" is they looked exactly the same.
The entire theory of the "the ice age" arose because in the 20th century the Thames didn't freeze solid for the extended period and then they noticed historical references to the frost fairs of the 17th century. They failed to notice that sparser historical references reported the Thames regularly freezing back to Roman times.
The claim of a little ice age has little basis in fact.
Oh yes, the Greenland Vikings. Just as with whole Scandinavian communities in the homeland itself, which were wiped out by repeated episodes of the Black Death to the 17th century.
"There was once wine growing in Britain". There has always been wine growing since the Romans introduced in the 1st century AD.
"There used to be Malaria in Britain". There was always Malaria in the Britain until the wetlands were drained in the industrial revolution.
The "medieval warm" and the "the little age" are merely science fiction.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
Arguing commonly understood semantics. Everything that follows is childish.
It's not about semantics. Nobody here has denied that the climate changes, or that humans may influence changes in the climate, so I don't see any climate change deniers here.
Quote:
Shadow - why don't you address my post about the space ship tugboat analogy. Do you understand it?
I already addressed in in post #234.
The gravitational forces between earth and sun are in equilibrium and the movement of the Earth around the sun is totally predictable. However the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and the climate in general is not in equilibrium. They have been changing in unpredictable cycles for billions of years. The earth has had much higher and lower levels of C02 and much higher and lower temperatures in the past, and this was all happening long before humans ever appeared. We can't prevent it from happening. It will continue to happen regardless of what we do.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Centre press release is from 2003. Why would you post a press release that pre-dates (be several years) the scientific literature that I posted?
MWP was caused by solar radiation and less volcanic activity.
Also under consideration are ocean circulation patterns. These brought warmer seawater into the North Atlantic (where the warming occurred).
I also referenced an article from a scientific journal 2009 which you seem to have missed.
Is the larger question that global warming alarmists think ONLY CO2 can cause past warming? They understand that climate change can occur from things other than leading CO2. In fact, much of the past warming created CO2 levels in a positive feedback loop.
The earth system is incredibly complicated and CO2 is not the only thing that can cause the climate to change. At the moment, it appears CO2 is doing the heavy lifting.
Shadow
1 Nov 2012, 01:11 PM
It's not about semantics. Nobody here has denied that the climate changes, or that humans may influence changes in the climate, so I don't see any climate change deniers here.
I already addressed in in post #234.
The gravitational forces between earth and sun are in equilibrium and the movement of the Earth around the sun is totally predictable. However the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and the climate in general is not in equilibrium. They have been changing in unpredictable cycles for billions of years. The earth has had much higher and lower levels of C02 and much higher and lower temperatures in the past, and this was all happening long before humans ever appeared. We can't prevent it from happening. It will continue to happen regardless of what we do.
Quote:
It's not about semantics. Nobody here has denied that the climate changes, or that humans may influence changes in the climate, so I don't see any climate change deniers here.
So.....semantics then ?
Quote:
I already addressed in in post #234.
The gravitational forces between earth and sun are in equilibrium and the movement of the Earth around the sun is totally predictable. However the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and the climate in general is not in equilibrium. They have been changing in unpredictable cycles for billions of years. The earth has had much higher and lower levels of C02 and much higher and lower temperatures in the past, and this was all happening long before humans ever appeared. We can't prevent it from happening. It will continue to happen regardless of what we do.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere IS in equilibrium over short time scales. Please....please...stop telling me things you know that I know. Yes, CO2 changes over billions of years - so why is it increasing so rapidly now over a 150 year period? Can you find me a relative acceleration rate of CO2 levels anytime in the past, or do you believe it was always fluctuating this rapidly in the past but we just didn't have the modern instruments to measure to this resolution? Your last statement of "it will continue to happen regardless of what we do" is your faith, it is definitely not from science.
To clarify, which of the below are you saying (or both): A: that CO2 levels will continue to fluctuate over hundreds of years regardless of what we do? B: that CO2 levels will continue to fluctuate over billions of years regardless of what we do?
You are conflating these two statements in your head and building a belief structure around it. Ironically you have faith that CO2 is out of our control. You are everything you accuse others of. Take a look in the mirror.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Centre press release is from 2003. Why would you post a press release that pre-dates (be several years) the scientific literature that I posted?
The Harvard_Smithsonian paper is a respected comprehensive review of 200 studies. The Mann et al 2008 paper you linked has been thoroughly discredited on the basis that it used upside down proxies/axis. This has been confirmed by the originators of the dominant source data. Mann is also the author of the now totalled discredited hockey stick for which he fully declined to provide any data or even the algorithm which he used to construct it.
Refusal to release data seems to be a common practice. Jones was asked many times to reveal the CRUD temperature data to which he responded with ever changing excuses. The emails revealed his deceit.
Quote:
MWP was caused by solar radiation and less volcanic activity.
Can you supply us with the data for each of those? Just one year's data from the MWP and last year's data will do.
Quote:
Also under consideration are ocean circulation patterns. These brought warmer seawater into the North Atlantic (where the warming occurred).
Do you have a chart showing the ocean circulation in the MWP? How does it differ from today? As fas as I know, the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift both still exist. From the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre:
Quote:
The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents.
The Harvard_Smithsonian paper is a respected comprehensive review of 200 studies. The Mann et al 2008 paper you linked has been thoroughly discredited on the basis that it used upside down proxies/axis. This has been confirmed by the originators of the dominant source data. Mann is also the author of the now totalled discredited hockey stick for which he fully declined to provide any data or even the algorithm which he used to construct it.
Refusal to release data seems to be a common practice. Jones was asked many times to reveal the CRUD temperature data to which he responded with ever changing excuses. The emails revealed his deceit.
Can you supply us with the data for each of those? Just one year's data from the MWP and last year's data will do.
Do you have a chart showing the ocean circulation in the MWP? How does it differ from today? From the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre:
Yes mate, come back when you can come up with peer-reviewed literature (instead of a press release from almost 10 years ago) to support what you are saying.
Yes mate, come back when you can come up with peer-reviewed literature (instead of a press release from almost 10 years ago) to support what you are saying.
So you have no data for your assertions re volcanoes, ocean currents etc? None?
Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC
'It was consensual' claims looking shaky
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Science, 23rd March 2012 08:58 GMT
More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist "scientific consensus" was announced yesterday, as a new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the northern hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica.
........
Lu and his colleagues' new work, however, indicates that in fact the medieval warm period and little ice age were both felt right down to Antarctica.
“We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” says the prof, who was at Oxford when most of the work was done but now has a position at Syracuse uni in the States. He and his colleagues write:
This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.
In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al's work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
