Statistical Analysis Debunks Climate Change Naysayers

Originally posted by melatonin

Gradual cooling from about 7500 years ago, that shows no indication of continuing warming from the end of the last glaciation, and that the recent warming trend seems quite anomalous?

Even if there is a small cooling trend the climate has been changing to warm and cool periods, and you are once again forgetting that the sun's output increased in the last 60 years more than the last 8,000 years...you are forgetting that the Earth's magnetic field has weakened since 1845 and it is weaker now than it has been for 770,000 years... you are forgetting that temperatures have been increasing and CO2 levels did not increase until about 260 years after temperatures had been increasing... you are also forgetting that we are seeing Climatte Changes in the form of warming all over the Solar System....


Oh yeah, but it is CO2 which is causing the current warming....

Originally posted by melatonin

Where the hell did you get that? That's not the data presented by Moberg et al. (2005), it's readily available on the NASA website...

Go to the link I provided and you will see where I got it....


[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Even if there is a small cooling trend the climate has been changing to warm and cool periods

It doesn't really help your idea of continuing warming from the holocene sea level rise that you continuously post.

and you are once again forgetting that the sun's output increased in the last 60 years more than the last 8,000 years...

And this is based on Solanki's work. What does Solanki conclude...

They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

linky

you are forgetting that the Earth's magnetic field has weakened since 1845 and it is weaker now than it has been for 770,000 years...

Yet cosmic rays show no trend, and increasing them is suggested to actually cause more reflective clouds and a cooler troposphere. So, I'll keep an eye out for that...

Go to the link I provided and you will see where I got it....
[edit on 5-4-2007 by Muaddib]

But it's not Moberg's graph. I posted that. So this...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Here is what the 2005 graph by A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, W. Karlén, and S.-E. Lauritzen looks like by itself

...seems a questionable assertion.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The "desertification of parts of Spain is being cause by the spread of the desert from North Africa into Spain... Mankind has nothing to do with it, it is part of a natural process, and nomatter how much you or anyone else wants to stop it it is going to continue as long as Climate Change continues happening.

Well, by making this statement, you disagree with most scientists and historians, as pointed out in my first post. You're welcome to disagree, but I'd just like t established that the vast majority of environmental scientists know the desertification of southern Spain was caused by deforestation and the destruction of the top soil in that region.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I never said that, but combating pollution is not going to stop Climate Change and that's a fact some people don't want to accept and want to believe they can control the Earth and it's climate...

Well, sorry to tell you that we can't. The major factors that control the climate are out of mankind's hand and there is not one thing we can do to stop it.

Agreed. The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. The difference is, for some strange reason, you don't believe that humans can make it either better or worse to some degree. No, we can't stop it all together, but if we can mitigate the damage, or lessen it even by a small amount, it would be worth the effort.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, if anyone was "mocking and insulting" anyone else around here it was you... Making false accusation, and then claiming you are the victim doesn't change the fact that it was you making the "insulting and mocking".

I apologize if you feel like I'm mocking you. I don't think I have, and it certainly is not my intent to do so, but I will call you on any bad arguements or contradictory logic.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Weren't you trying to blame mankind for the spreading of the deser5ts from North Africa into Spain?...

Yes, I did, and I stand by that fact. But in reference to global warming, I never claimed it was an entirely man made phenomenon, and I doubt there are any that do. Perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps you're putting words in my mouth. The key word that is used is "contribution" here. We believe that mankind is "contributing" to the already existing problem of global warming. Not causing, but making it worse.

Originally posted by Muaddib
i guess believing that "mankind is at fault is not seeing the world in extremes"?.... Despite the fact that such climatic changes have been happening for billions of years and for most of that time mankind was not around....

Once again, I'd just like to emphasize "contributing" to global warming, not causing it altogether. Making it worse. I hope I've been clear on this point.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really?... I though that CO2 was an evil greenhouse gas which is causing Global Warming... if that was true then CO2 should have been higher when temperatures have been higher in the past....yet they are not...

Again, this is completely faulty logic, as you are assuming CO2 is the only cause of global warming, and no one is claiming that. it is one of the many causes of global warming. Many, many causes. So again, that's why its faulty logic to asusme that when the global tempurature rises, CO2 levels must be higher. It's faulty logic. We're not saying it's the only contributer to global warming, it's one of the contributors, and it happens to be the one that humans contribute to the environment the most (I'm not saying humans are the largest contributors, but that of all the greenhouse gases thrown into the environment by humans, CO2 is the largest, and therefore the one we can cut back on the most). Which is why I think this analogy:

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Athenion
That's like saying when I was six, and I got sick from the chicken pox, it wasn't caused by the flu, therefore, everytime I get sick, it can't have been caused by the flu. It's terribly flawed logic.

......You should really try to find some better analogies when you are trying to make a point.....

I think the analogy works quite well. You're assuming that the sickness in our environment (global warming) has only one cause, CO2, and therefore, if the environment was sick in the past, and no CO2 was there, CO2 must not cause global warming. It's terrible logic, and doesn't make any sense. In fact, you prove that point further on in your post:

Originally posted by Muaddib

i just gave several research excerpts which actually state there were warmer times in the past yet CO2 levels were lower than today...
Let's see what else... that and the fact that temperatures were increasing since the early 1600s and CO2 levels did not increase until 260 years later... Plus the fact that for example the Sun's output has increased during the past 60 years more than during the last 8,000 years... The fact that the Earth's magnetic field has not been as weak as it is now for more than 770,000 years.... The fact that we are seeing Climate Change/warming in other planets in the solar system...

So what about the warming period in the dark ages? The Sun's output wasn't increasing back then, therefore according to your logic, the suns output has no effect on global warming. Do you see how flawed this logic is?

So once again, so I'm clear, I'd like you to provide a peer reviewed scientific paper showing that CO2 does not contribute to global temperature increases. You're not going to be able to find one. Not a scientific paper that shows global temperature was high while CO2 was low, because that is flawed logic, as I've pointed out as many times as possible in this post. I want a scientific paper showing specifically that there is no Correlation between CO2 and Global Warming.

I see that Muaddib is unable to answer my last post.

I thought I'd post this here, as it will throw the other thread away from the focus I feel it needs.

This is Akasofu's comment on the recent 'Great Global Warming Swindle':

[ Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Centre ] CO2 began [to] increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued till about 1975. So this is the opposite to the ration [reason]. When the CO2 increasing rapidly but yet the temperature decreasing we cannot say that CO2 and the temperature go together.


What a stupid statement, it would be an issue if only CO2 was suggested to affect climate.

Maybe he was misrepresented like Carl Wunsch, he should complain if he was.

Originally posted by melatonin

It doesn't really help your idea of continuing warming from the holocene sea level rise that you continuously post.

It doesn't help you at all to claim that it is mankind causing the warming when scientists say it is due to Holocene warming....

As to the "linky" on the solar influence on climate on Earth, here is some more recent work which contradicts your claims.

Your "linky" was from August 2004, the following link is from September 2006.

Published: 14:13 EST, September 26, 2006

Ilya Usoskin (Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland) and his colleagues have investigated the solar activity over the past centuries. Their study is to be published this week in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. They compare the amount of Titanium 44 in nineteen meteorites that have fallen to the Earth over the past 240 years. Their work confirms that the solar activity has increased strongly during the 20th century. They also find that the Sun has been particularly active in the past few decades.

www.physorg.com...

And some other "newer" research with a lot of interesting facts on the effect of the sun on the climate on Earth can be found in the following link...

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

BTW melatonin, nice try once again to try to separate all the natural factors which are occurring during the current warming....

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
It doesn't help you at all to claim that it is mankind causing the warming when scientists say it is due to Holocene warming....

You don't see even a little conflict between this statement and the findings that suggest an overall cooling trend since about 7500 years ago, until an unprecedented recent trend.

As to the "linky" on the solar influence on climate on Earth, here is some more recent work which contradicts your claims.

Your "linky" was from August 2004, the following link is from September 2006.

This doesn't conflict with Solanki's work. You should know, you normally use Solanki to show that solar activity has been high in the recent past. The article makes no claims that warming over the last 30 years is due to solar activity.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

BTW melatonin, nice try once again to try to separate all the natural factors which are occurring during the current warming....

This news article proposes a link between the sun and climate. Well done sherlock...

Originally posted by melatonin
You don't see even a little conflict between this statement and the findings that suggest an overall cooling trend since about 7500 years ago, until an unprecedented recent trend.

Little conflict?... humm let me see... how manmy "warming events has the Earth gone through for the last 15,000 years?.... Oh yeah, more than two dozen, and there is research from all around the globe which shows that in the overall the Earth has been warmer in some of those warming events than it is now...

Originally posted by melatonin
This doesn't conflict with Solanki's work. You should know, you normally use Solanki to show that solar activity has been high in the recent past. The article makes no claims that warming over the last 30 years is due to solar activity.

That is a newer link which does prove the Sun's activity has increased in the last few decades more than it has for at least several centuries..

Originally posted by melatonin
This news article proposes a link between the sun and climate. Well done sherlock...

Wonder why i gave that second link.....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Little conflict?... humm let me see... how manmy "warming events has the Earth gone through for the last 15,000 years?.... Oh yeah, more than two dozen, and there is research from all around the globe which shows that in the overall the Earth has been warmer in some of those warming events than it is now...

Look, it's very simple. You are suggesting that earth's climate is warming due to early holocene sea-level rises, and whatever other early holocene event. When, in fact, it actually seems to have been cooling from a high just following the end of the last ice-age.

Your claim does not fit the evidence.

That is a newer link which does prove the Sun's activity has increased in the last few decades more than it has for at least several centuries..

This is exactly what Solanki's studies show. He says the same thing. But he also sees the evidence that the most recent warming is not due to solar activity. Their study does not conflict with his work.

Wonder why i gave that second link.....

To bore me with something I already know and have not challenged?

[edit on 7-4-2007 by melatonin]

I brought this over here for you muaddib...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Actually there were several others, such as the claim that Dr. Akasofu who has a PhD in geophysics and not only has studied auroras" but in his work he has published books also on the Solar-terrestrial physics and during the last 9 years he has been director of the International Arctic research Center in Alaska studying Climate Change, yet you claim "he doesn't have any knowledge on Climate Change"...

Show me where I claim 'he doesn't have any knowledge on climate change'.

I have said his area of expertise is Aurora. And it is. That could be why he makes statements like the one I quoted earlier, a real schoolboy error. I'm not really sure, maybe he was misrepresented. If he was, he might be wise attempting to rescue some credibility by making a public declaration of this, like Carl Wunsch did. It wouldn't surprise me if Akafosu was, it was Martin Durkin after all.

But at this point, it seems he stands by those words.

The fact that you agreed with the claim by another member who said the Heliosphere is like a static shield, or a spaceship and the Earth is a complete closed system...

Show me where I said that.

What else, the fact that you keep trying to dismiss Holocene warming even when I have given recent research which proves there is dramatic warming in the Arctic due to Holocene sea level rise/warming...

There are quite a few more, but anywyas...

No, I have provided evidence showing that over the major period of the holocene the climate seems to have been cooling. This statement is just your normal complete misunderstanding of a piece of real scientific work.

You mean like my inability to accept your claim that an increase in the kinetic energy released in the form of heat in the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere would "just dissapear into nothing" as more charged particles crash with the already existing charged particles in our atmosphere, and instead, as you have continuously tried to claim, the increase amount of interstelar charged particles, dust, and gases the Earth and solar system are absorbing will only produce cooling?...

Maybe my inability to accept your claim has something to do with the law of conservation of energy?...

BTW, for your information, Svensmark's work does not invalidate the law of conservation of energy...

What are you on about?

You need to take this up with all the researchers who are suggesting ISDs and increased cosmic rays will result in a cooling trend. I have already said before that if this kinetic energy was an important issue, it would warm the higher parts of the atmosphere. And the clouds produced would result in cooling of the troposphere. So, it would be cooler troposphere and warmer middle atmosphere. If we are expecting to attribute this trend to solar effects, we would expect warming troposphere and warming middle atmosphere.

What we are seeing is a warming troposphere and cooling middle atmosphere. This is a prediction of GHG-induced warming.

Therefore you are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

What a stupid statement, it would be an issue if only CO2 was suggested to affect climate.

Wow, what a enlightening comment.... I guess melatonin still doesn't know that the main reason mankind is being blamed for Global Warming is "anthropogenic CO2"....

Anyone was saying anything about "stupid statements"?.....

Originally posted by melatonin

Look, it's very simple. You are suggesting that earth's climate is warming due to early holocene sea-level rises, and whatever other early holocene event. When, in fact, it actually seems to have been cooling from a high just following the end of the last ice-age.

Your claim does not fit the evidence.

Early Holocene?... The Holocene period is still going on melatonin....

Again, another of your statements which shows me you are no scientist, and much less one that knows about Climate Change...

Holocene Period

Definition: The most recent geologic age for our planet earth, the Holocene period includes all the time since the last glaciation, about 12,000 years ago.

archaeology.about.com...

We are still in the Holocene period melatonin, and I ahve given research which proves that there is dramatic warming due to Holocene sea level rise/warming...

Originally posted by melatonin
This is exactly what Solanki's studies show. He says the same thing. But he also sees the evidence that the most recent warming is not due to solar activity. Their study does not conflict with his work.

To bore me with something I already know and have not challenged?

Those two links are further proof that the Sun is one of the major variables of Climate Change.....

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by melatonin

Look, it's very simple. You are suggesting that earth's climate is warming due to early holocene sea-level rises, and whatever other early holocene event. When, in fact, it actually seems to have been cooling from a high just following the end of the last ice-age.

Your claim does not fit the evidence.

Early Holocene?... The Holocene period is still going on melatonin....

Again, another of your statements which shows me you are no scientist, and much less one that knows about Climate Change...

Oh noes, what are you on about now. You are doing yourself no favours...

Who said it wasn't ongoing?

We are still in the Holocene period melatonin, and I ahve given research which proves that there is dramatic warming due to Holocene sea level rise/warming...

And you have proven nothing but you're own inability to make an coherent argument, and understand a coherent argument. You have one article that focuses on a warming wave that has passed through deep sea sediments in the arctic, and possibly produced pingo-like structures, inititated when sea levels rose with the end of the ice-age.

There is no evidence that this phenomena underlies any of the current warming, or produced any continuing effect on climate. If it did, we would see a warming trend over the last 8000 years.

We don't.

Those two links are further proof that the Sun is one of the major variables of Climate Change.....

And no-one has said that solar variations do not have the ability to influence climate. However, the evidence suggests they are unable to completely account for the last few decades.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow, what a enlightening comment.... I guess melatonin still doesn't know that the main reason mankind is being blamed for Global Warming is "anthropogenic CO2"....

Anyone was saying anything about "stupid statements"?.....

I understand that you have difficulty picking out logical fallacies in arguments. But I would expect better from someone of Akasofu's ability.

Originally posted by melatonin

Oh noes, what are you on about now. You are doing yourself no favours...

Who said it wasn't ongoing?

You have claimed several times that "warming from Holocene is a joke"...

The Holocene is a time of fluctuating climate, but on overall warming, you still keep trying to avoid the fact that during the Holocene we have had several periods of warming and cooling

Originally posted by melatonin

And you have proven nothing but you're own inability to make an coherent argument, and understand a coherent argument. You have one article that focuses on a warming wave that has passed through deep sea sediments in the arctic, and possibly produced pingo-like structures, inititated when sea levels rose with the end of the ice-age.

Again, let's see what it says on that article in especific....

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise.

www.agu.org...

The article speaks by itself without "melatonin" trying to change it....

Originally posted by melatonin
There is no evidence that this phenomena underlies any of the current warming, or produced any continuing effect on climate. If it did, we would see a warming trend over the last 8000 years.

We don't.

Really? so I guess again you are trying to propose the Medieval Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period, and the other dozen warming and cooling periods which have happened during the last 15,000 years don't have anything to do with warming caused during the present interglacial cycle, also known as the Holocene?....

Nice try "melatonin"...

Originally posted by melatonin
And no-one has said that solar variations do not have the ability to influence climate. However, the evidence suggests they are unable to completely account for the last few decades.

That's not what the last article i gave from NASA said...

Appart form the fact that CO2 levels did not begin to increase until 260 years after temperatures had been increasing, which proves "anthropogenic CO2 did not cause the present warming"...

---edited to correct errors---

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Let's see again the warming and cooling periods the Earth has had during the last 15,000 years.

large climate changes in Europe/Near East during the last 15,000 calendar years (note that these dates are in 'real' years not radiocarbon years).

14,500 y.a. - rapid warming and moistening of climates. Rapid deglaciation begins.

13,500 y.a. - climates about as warm and moist as today's

13,000 y.a. 'Older Dryas' cold phase (lasting about 200 years) before a partial return to warmer conditions.


12,800 y.a. (+/- 200 years)- rapid stepwise onset of the intensely cold Younger Dryas. Much drier than present over much of Europe and the Middle East, though wetter-than-present conditions at first prevailed in NW Europe.

11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly over a few decades, back to relative warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Isotope Stage 1).

11,500 - 10,500 y.a. - climates possibly still slightly cooler than present-day.


9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's

about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool phase lasting about 200 years, about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas. Wetter-than-present conditions in NW Europe, but drier than present in eastern Turkey.

8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates generally slightly warmer and moister than today's.


(but; at 5,900 y.a. - a possible sudden and short-lived cold phase corresponding to the 'elm decline').

Since about 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present

2,600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas

(but; 1,400 y.a. [536-538 A.D.] wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere).

(Followed by 'Little Ice Age' about 700-200 ya)

www.esd.ornl.gov...

And in the above they didn't add the Medieval Warming period, which started about 800AD until the LIA in the 1300s.


Apparently melatonin wants to follow on the footsteps of Mann, and wants to make dissapear these warming and cooling periods during the Holocene period...


[edit on 7-4-2007 by Muaddib]

What is the point? Oh well. Lets try again.


en.wikipedia.org...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

It is pretty much accepted, even by contrarians, that it was generally cooling through the holocene. Of course, there will be 'noise' within that trend, but overall, it has been a period of cooling since a high about 7500 years ago.

Lets look at the whole abstract from the Paull's article:

The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost. A search for gas venting on the Arctic seafloor focused on pingo-like-features (PLFs) on the Beaufort Sea Shelf because they may be a direct consequence of gas hydrate decomposition at depth. Vibracores collected from eight PLFs had systematically elevated methane concentrations. ROV observations revealed streams of methane-rich gas bubbles coming from the crests of PLFs. We offer a scenario of how PLFs may be growing offshore as a result of gas pressure associated with gas hydrate decomposition.

More details below:
www.mbari.org...

Thermal pulse propogating through deep sea sediments over thousands of years. These sediments are hundreds of meters deep and are/were permafrost. This warming was the cause of pingo-like structures. The ocean is cold, but the permafrost colder.

If this thermal wave from sea level rises at the end of the last ice-age, was causing a change in global climate, we would see this in the data. A gradual warming over the holocene.

we don't.

Honestly, I just can't take you serious anymore.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by melatonin]