No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Lots of non-primary sources and solitary proxies again...

If you want to claim these periods were truly global, you'll need to explain why the research I have presented shows otherwise. Showing a handful of proxies that cover some point during a few hundred year period (MWP) is not sufficient. We need high resolution temperature proxies to see the how the trends are occuring across large areas.

Why were the trends duing these periods non-synchronous?

The five scientists determined that the mean temperature of the Medieval Warm Period in northwest Spain was 1.5°C warmer than it was over the 30 years leading up to the time of their study, and that the mean temperature of the Roman Warm Period was 2°C warmer. Even more impressive was their finding that several decadal-scale intervals during the Roman Warm Period were more than 2.5°C warmer than the 1968-98 period, while an interval in excess of 80 years during the Medieval Warm Period was more than 3°C warmer.

ff.org...

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China

Abstract The collected documentary records of the cultivation of citrus trees andBoehmeria nivea (a perennial herb) have been used to produce distribution maps of these plants for the eighth, twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D. The northern boundary of citrus andBoehmeria nivea cultivation in the thirteenth century lay to the north of the modern distribution. During the last 1000 years, the thirteenth-century boundary was the northernmost. This indicates that this was the warmest time in that period. On the basis of knowledge of the climatic conditions required for planting these species, it can be estimated that the annual mean temperature in south Henan Province in the thirteenth century was 0.9–1.0°C higher than at present.

www.springerlink.com...

Everywhere there are signs these events were not only global, but the RWP and the MWP were warmer than the present warming period, yet CO2 levels were much lower than today....

Only if you completely ignore research that directly assesses your claims, and cherrypick solitary regional studies to support your claim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Deja-vu all over again, heh.

No melatonin, you are the one "cherry-picking"....

You are in denial, I don't know exactly why, but it is obvious.

Go back to "Fake" Climate website, i mean "Real...." Climate website and stay with Mann and associates who already tried to lie to the world as to the Climate Change events of the past 2,000 years...

In muaddib fantasyland maybe...

Which I have demonstrated has been another attempt to hide the facts about these Climate Change events....because, once again.... these Climate Change events left an imprint in the geological record of the entire Earth....

You see, the above statement is clearly wrong. If an imprint was left in the geological record of the entire earth, then this...

Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years

Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

...would not be found. Unless, of course, we can say current warming is over an 'entirer' earth, heh.

Melatonin still trying to pull April's fools again?...

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

Not to mention the fact that the RWP and the MWP, despite melatonin , Mann and associates trying to lie, can be found in the geological record around the world.

Heh, again you produce one proxy mentioned in a some web lecture, an ice-core, and attempt to use this to show what?

Just looking at the Osborn & Briffa figure, it is obvious that current warming is most likely of greater spatial significance than either the LIA or MWP.

*Cough- BS...cough*....

I showed several research. from several different continents from around the world which contradicts Mann, associates and your claims...

The RWP and the MWP events were global, and were warmer than the current warming period...

Give it up melatonin....

Pity the evidence doesn't support your position. If you said that the LIA and MWP periods were significant in their climate trends, I would agree. If you say they were over the entire globe, the evidence says you are wrong. If you say the MWP was warmer than currently, again, the evidence suggests you are wrong.

Of course, you can believe whatever you like, many people do...

[edit on 22-5-2007 by melatonin]

Pity the evidence does not show the exact same changes are happening during the current Warming period all over the world... In fact the southern glaciers have been gaining ice mass...hence it is not a global event either....

You can twist and repeat the mantra of Mann and associates, but you all are wrong. Several research from all over the world proves so...

[edit on 22-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Muaddib, what does this research say to you, they aimed to assess the spatial significance of climate trends over the last 1200 years?

Science 10 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5762, pp. 841 - 844
DOI: 10.1126/science.1120514
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years

Timothy J. Osborn* and Keith R. Briffa

Periods of widespread warmth or cold are identified by positive or negative deviations that are synchronous across a number of temperature-sensitive proxy records drawn from the Northern Hemisphere. The most significant and longest duration feature during the last 1200 years is the geographical extent of warmth in the middle to late 20th century. Positive anomalies during 890 to 1170 and negative anomalies during 1580 to 1850 are consistent with the concepts of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age, but comparison with instrumental temperatures shows the spatial extent of recent warmth to be of greater significance than that during the medieval period.

From the article...



This shows the fraction (number] of records during a particular timeframe that are above a threshold level of temperature, this uses 14 temperature proxies across the northern hemisphere.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yet you can see in that and other graphs that temperatures and the climate changes regularly, and it has done so countless of times without any help from mankind.

lol..what?

yeah i'm still offering the 1250/1

I am convinced that while global warming is occuring, its not catastrophic, nor manmade. I've looked at the evidence and ignored the hype. Climate change is natural and has occured many times before, and will continue. I find the global warming religonists fanatical and overbearing, and many of them have their own agendas.

All this crap about global warming has detracted from more serious environmental issues, like water pollution and urban sprawl.

Yeah...what she said right there...positively.

Skadi....

[edit on 5/25/2007 by darkbluesky]

Here is just one example of man made problems we face that dwarfs anthropogenic climate change....Endocrine disruptors and their entry routes....

www.nrdc.org...

POTWs are not designed or capable of isolating/treating many man made chemicals entering the waste stream every day through human elimination processes. The abnormal changes seen in amphibians over the last 10-15 yrs. is the proverbial "canary in the coal mine" and no one is paying attention because we're all so freakin' worried about changing coastlines, and drowning polar bears thanks to Algore.

unfreakinbelievable...

[edit on 5/25/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by melatonin
Muaddib, what does this research say to you, they aimed to assess the spatial significance of climate trends over the last 1200 years?

It means that some researchers are changing their data around to corroborate their lies. Plain and simple.

This is another graph, which i have given in the past, from Briffa 1998.



If you would bother to separate, as i have done a couple times now, the "10 extrapolated graphs" which you have been using for a while now, and which has at least 2 graphs that were done by no other than Mann, you will see many of the graphs do not even corroborate with the others.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Mann and associates are just trying to keep their jobs. If GW/CC is accepted not to be manmade, Mann and associates would lose their jobs, plain and simple.

I have given several research work from around the world and they all say the exact same thing. The RWP, the MWP and the LIA were global events, and the RWP and the MWP were warmer than at present.

I don't know why you are still in denial, but showing the same graphs, which still use Mann's data does not refute the research done in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, China, Japan, Africa, the Sargasso sea, etc, etc, etc...

I just wish the bickering would stop and that the money was actually spent on contingency plans and preparations.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by aylyan

lol..what?

yeah i'm still offering the 1250/1

What are you talking about?...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
..................
All this crap about global warming has detracted from more serious environmental issues, like water pollution and urban sprawl.

I do agree with you on this one skadi, and also with darkbluesky.

If people want to stop pollution spend the money for example on cleaning up rivers, or even making the companies that are polluting rivers pay for the clean up, and make them do it right.

CO2 however is not a pollutant, and it is not the cause of the current Climate Change/Global Warming.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
It means that some researchers are changing their data around to corroborate their lies. Plain and simple.

Now that is BS. Show the evidence.

The worst anyone can say about MBH1998 is that the statistics could have been more appropriate, there was no cooking of data. And the research I presented was not Mann's.

This is another graph, which i have given in the past, from Briffa 1998.

If you would bother to separate, as i have done a couple times now, the "10 extrapolated graphs" which you have been using for a while now, and which has at least 2 graphs that were done by no other than Mann, you will see many of the graphs do not even corroborate with the others.

Why even use this data, you've just accused Briffa of fixing data. Plus, as I keep telling you, Briffa et al 1998 is not included in the wiki graph, at least learn what data you are using.

The data speaks for itself. We wouldn't expect different proxies and different analysis techniques to give exactly the same result, if it did, I would question the data. What the 10 proxy reconstructions do show is that current warming is likely greater than anything for at least 1000 years, and that your attack on Mann is just disingenuous and an attempt to divert, MBH1998 isn't even in the graph.

The more data that can be used the better. When brought together, like in the wiki graph, we can make a stronger inference than with any single study.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Mann and associates are just trying to keep their jobs. If GW/CC is accepted not to be manmade, Mann and associates would lose their jobs, plain and simple.

More BS. It wouldn't make any difference, there is always a place for good researchers in academia, and no matter how much you want to falsely accuse these researchers, they have more integrity in their little finger than you.

The research will carry on whether AGW is an issue or not. Science will continue to look for more knowledge, and paleoclimate and climate science will always be active. You just show that you know little about how science works. Mann is one of the foremost paleoclimatologists, he will have a place in academia until the day he decides to leave.

I have given several research work from around the world and they all say the exact same thing. The RWP, the MWP and the LIA were global events, and the RWP and the MWP were warmer than at present.

I don't know why you are still in denial, but showing the same graphs, which still use Mann's data does not refute the research done in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, China, Japan, Africa, the Sargasso sea, etc, etc, etc...

No, what you've shown is that in certain places, at some point in a period of a few hundred years, it was likely warmer than now. And I've shown from high resolution proxies, that are reliably correlated to temperature, that these trends were not synchronous and not on the same spatial scale as current trends. That is, yes, there were places in which it was warm during the MWP, some warmer than now, but it was not on a similar spatial scale, and was less synchronous, to current warming

And the best you can do is question the integrity of these researchers, which is funny coming from you, and repeat the same old flaky argument. I can answer the challenge of your presented data, you have to resort to attacks on the integrity of the researchers.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Now that is BS. Show the evidence.

LOL, that's what I have been doing ever since you started presenting Mann's data and quoting from the "Fake"Climate wbsite.... I know you, Mann and associates call it "Real Climate website"...but there is nothing real about the lies Mann, you and associates keep trying to spread.

Originally posted by melatonin
The worst anyone can say about MBH1998 is that the statistics could have been more appropriate, there was no cooking of data. And the research I presented was not Mann's.

Briffa and some other researchers who put together the extrapolated "wiki" graph, "cooked" the data together when they decided to band with Mann to try to decieve the world again...

Originally posted by melatonin
Why even use this data, you've just accused Briffa of fixing data. Plus, as I keep telling you, Briffa et al 1998 is not included in the wiki graph, at least learn what data you are using.

Because it shows very clear that such "proxies" made by Briffa, Mann and associates can be rigged to look anyway they want it to look.

Originally posted by melatonin
The data speaks for itself. We wouldn't expect different proxies and different analysis techniques to give exactly the same result, if it did, I would question the data. What the 10 proxy reconstructions do show is that current warming is likely greater than anything for at least 1000 years, and that your attack on Mann is just disingenuous and an attempt to divert, MBH1998 isn't even in the graph.

The more data that can be used the better. When brought together, like in the wiki graph, we can make a stronger inference than with any single study.

So you are saying you are questioning MBH98 and RegEm? Or even Mann et all (2005) in which Mann compares both methods trying to give credence to his old lies?... They both show almost the same results....

Originally posted by melatonin
More BS. It wouldn't make any difference, there is always a place for good researchers in academia, and no matter how much you want to falsely accuse these researchers, they have more integrity in their little finger than you.

The BS comes from people like yourself. Mann's PhD dissertation was the data used in the Hockey Stick Graph"... His whole career came to be "because of the lies of the Hockey Stick Graph"... and like him there are dozens of researchers whose line of work depends on people believing "mankind is at fault for Climate Change...

LITERATURE REVIEW OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

Michael Mann’s Dissertation and Related Work

In his 1998 dissertation, Michael Mann used instrumental data and multi-proxy datasets to observe climate variability over the past few centuries. He also used a simplified coupled ocean-atmosphere model to describe mechanisms that may contribute to the climate variability. In his dissertation, Dr. Mann described a 70 to 100 year oscillation in the climate signal formed by the proxy and instrumental data. He notes that this century-scale variation in the climate involves a combination of meridional overturning (the circulation of cold water in the ocean) and gyre-scale circulation. After being awarded his doctorate, Dr. Mann, together with his colleagues Dr. Bradley and Dr. Hughes, continued multi-proxy reconstruction research with his 1998 paper,....

AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY

If you don't trust that site, this is from Mann himself...

My Ph.D. dissertation (Department of Geology & Geophysics, Yale University) involved the development of statistical techniques for detecting "signals" in climate data. This work was limited to an analysis of the instrumental record, which only provides widespread spatial coverage over the globe for roughly the past century. My interest in extending such analyses to longer timescales inevitably led me to seek other sources of climate information, namely, "proxy" climate data sources of the sort discussed above. As I began to seek out scientists with expertise in this area to collaborate with in this undertaking, I had the good fortune to meet up with two top-notch paleoclimatogists in particular: Professor Raymond Bradley at the University of Massachusetts, and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona. Supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Department of Energy, and a grant from the National Science Foundation "Earth Systems Research" program, I collaborated with Bradley and Hughes on the scientific problem of reconstructing past climate changes from "proxy" climate data, for my postdoctoral research.

Professor Michael E. Mann

His dissertation was not only flawed but he alongside his colleages tried to bury and ignored the data from dozens of researchers from around the world all which proved Mann and associates were wrong, and they are still wrong.....

The "Regularized Expectation-Maximization" (RegEm), Schneider (2001), which Mann et al have been using for the past 6-7 years, and which led to data in 2005 which is being used as part of the "extrapolated wiki graph", which in fact uses 2 sets of graph from none other than "Mann himself", is just as wrong as MBH98..

Mann himself proved so without realizing it when he responded to Burger and Cubasch's inquiries in 2005, which in fact were more like Ad Hominem attacks and not proper responses to Burger and Cubasch' questions.

In the 2005 Mann et al there is a comparison to the MBH98 and RegEM, Schneider (2001), and both methods give almost the same results. Since we know that the MBH98 data/graph was wrong, and most scientists have already discredited that data, the same can be said of RegEm.

Mann et all 2005 data is just as wrong as his initial data...

Even Mann's PhD should be revoked since his dissertation was and still is wrong.

Originally posted by melatonin
The research will carry on whether AGW is an issue or not.

Oh yes, that is true, at the end it will be found out. Nomatter what, there is nothing anyone can do to "mitigate or stop Climate Change", nomatter how much you, Mann and associates are trying to claim....

Originally posted by melatonin
No, what you've shown is that in certain places, at some point in a period of a few hundred years, it was likely warmer than now.

....That's again the lamest excuse you can come up with....

Climate Change is not "uniform", it has never been "uniform" and it never will.... Climate Changes are always more pronounced in some areas than in others...

Even during this warming time period, the warming began in some areas in the early 1500s, and for most of rest of the world it started in the early 1600s... Even now the changes in the arctic are not the same as the ones in the Antarctic... The Antarctic has been gaining ice mass, while on overall the Arctic has been losing ice mass, and that depends on the area observed in the Arctic because there are places where ice mass has been increasing even in the Arctic.... I guess that shows the current "Climate Change/Global Warming" is not really "Global" huh?...

There are places right now where Climate Change doesn't seem to be happening, or instead of warming, there is a cooling trend. As I speak in Wyoming temperatures are 34F, and we only had a few days of hot weather, and when I say hot, it has been around 75C some days. We even have had snow in May, and that does not happen frequently.

Originally posted by melatonin
And the best you can do is question the integrity of these researchers, which is funny coming from you, and repeat the same old flaky argument. I can answer the challenge of your presented data, you have to resort to attacks on the integrity of the researchers.

I got more integrity in my little finger than you, Mann and associates...

By now you should have known very well that not only did Mann and associates tried to lie to the world with the MBH98 data, but they have tried the same old trick with some more associates by extrapolating 10 different proxies, 2 such graphs which had Mann's input, that when separated show different results as to the temperature variations of the last 2,000 years...

Nomatter how much you want to yell and scream, you, Mann and associates are wrong. CO2 is neither a pollutant and it has not caused any Climate Change in the past, nor has it caused the current Climate Change/Global Warming.

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Muaddib]