Climate Science You Won't Hear About: Convincing evidence global warming caused by cosmic rays,sun

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Leaving out the most important element?
In the ancient past, glacial advances and retreats took millions of years.

Nature can slowly change over millions of years and animals and plants can adapt to changes without major extinction events

This glacial retreat is happening over a few decades.

I'll repeat:

In the ancient past, glacial advances and retreats took millions of years.
This glacial retreat is happening over a few decades.

I am utterly sick of hearing dimwits say- "BUT THEM THAR GLACIERS HAVE MELTED BEFORE!"

Um yea.. and it took several million years the last time - and some species still got wiped out.

And if the dimwits continue to try to control policy- humans may be next.

reply to post by jdub297


You wanted the list of Scientific Organizations who agreed with AGW?
The 98%?

Alrighty- then you can get on the phone, call these guys starting at the top, and tell 'em your theory about Cosmic Rays. Get back to us in about a year when you have time.

Here ya go:

STATS, 2007 In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[108] [109]

Oreskes, 2004 A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."


Papers cited:

^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)

And if you want the list of signees that agree that Anthropogenic Warming (human caused) is occuring- here is your list:

Statements by concurring organizations
Academies of Science
Joint science academies' statements

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
The signatories of these statements have been the National Science Academies:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[12] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[13]

2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action,[14] and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[15] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[16] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.

2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[17] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

And here is the list of scientific organizations who unequivocably agree that climate change is man made-from burning fossil fuels- and is a great danger to all of us:



The InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[18][19] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future. Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.

Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[21] [edit] European Academy of Sciences and Arts In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

Network of African Science Academies In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany: A consensus, ba

reply to post by jdub297




And the rest of the list - as it goes on for about 4 more post boxes that I don't want to use up - as I am excited to hear your scintillating reply about how all of these thousands of scientists and scientific organizations are all in on a world-wide hoax designed to... what... make people put up windmills?

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Stratus9

I'll repeat:

In the ancient past, glacial advances and retreats took millions of years.
This glacial retreat is happening over a few decades.

I am utterly sick of hearing dimwits say- "BUT THEM THAR GLACIERS HAVE MELTED BEFORE!"

Um yea.. and it took several million years the last time - and some species still got wiped out.

And if the dimwits continue to try to control policy- humans may be next.

Pray tell us if glaciers are retreating now, what do you think would have happened during times when GLOBALLY TEMPERATURES WERE WARMER?... Such as during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods...

I find it ironic how some people TRY to insult others for their own lack of intelligence...

The Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods did NOT take millions of years to occur... But I guess your intelligence has to be way above "dimwit" to understand this...

Not to mention that we know for a FACT that there have been several more ABRUPT Climate Changes in the form of warming on Earth...

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Was? What did I miss; isn't he OK?

Muller and his team at Berkeley are trying to eliminate "selection bias" from surface temp data, among other things. Good for them. The more scrutiny, the better.

Here we are, almost 25 years after Hansen first "raised the flag" on AGW and the soon-to-be-flooded New York, and we are only just now finding a scientific team willing and able to apply true scientific protocols in the examination of the AGW hypothesis!

I am not certain that his proposed "Climate-ARPA," funded by a new government bureaucracy, is the optimal solution or even a good approach to funding climate studies, but it would have definite advantages over present-day ad hoc practices. (Maybe, an "X Prize" for climate modeling would be worth trying.)

In any case, Dr. Muller's research and testimony make it very clear that the "science" is anything but "settled;" no matter how greatly any "consensus" may protest otherwise.

jw

edit on 4-9-2011 by jdub297 because: sp

here's what you missed. muller was a hand picked skeptic and gore doubter who has essentially hired by the republican party to poke holes in the data and testify that humans were not causing global warming, and therefore a carbon tax was not needed

funny thing tho

after eliminating the lesser quality stations, and performing an enourmous random sampling of date to eliminate cherry picking, his testimony corroborated the prior findings that the earth is getting warmer, and that the warming dovetails with the the industrial age

man, I would have paid money to see the republicans faces that day

so my point is even if the cosmic and soalr rays are strengthening, the atmosphere they are interacting with has changed, and has been changed by humans, so the planet is warmer than it would have normally been, even with the differences in the radiation

to put it another way

move away from the coastlines

reply to post by Stratus9


Oh boy... I guess you didn't get the memo, but even the AGW IPCC scientists have been caught in their own lies...

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
.........

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.
..............

www.theage.com.au...

In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."

www.cbsnews.com...

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.
.....................

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
...
funny thing tho

after eliminating the lesser quality stations, and performing an enourmous random sampling of date to eliminate cherry picking, his testimony corroborated the prior findings that the earth is getting warmer, and that the warming dovetails with the the industrial age

man, I would have paid money to see the republicans faces that day

so my point is even if the cosmic and soalr rays are strengthening, the atmosphere they are interacting with has changed, and has been changed by humans, so the planet is warmer than it would have normally been, even with the differences in the radiation

to put it another way

move away from the coastlines

The funny thing is that obviously you don't know that the Earth has been warming BEFORE atmospheric CO2 levels began to increase... Which means the Earth has been warming not because of atmospheric CO2, but because of other factors...

I also find it ironic, and funny at the same time that liberals, and greens in general keep trying to claim the warming has been caused by pollution yet even NASA's research demonstrates that the warming was/is not being caused by pollution...

Where does pollution comes from mainly?... If your answer is large cities you would be right.

So if large cities are the source of pollution where do you think that the most warming would occur on Earth if pollution was the cause?... Large cities right?...

If you scroll down in the following link from NASA from 2005 you will find the following VERY INTERESTING FACT...

...Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Wait, what?... Let's read that again...

Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists

that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

Oh boy, AGWists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming and they CLAIM CO2 is a pollutant, but if pollution has not been the cause of the warming which has occurred LARGELY in areas which are remote from the mayor sources of polllution then something else must have been causing the warming, right?...

Originally posted by Stratus9

And the rest of the list - as it goes on for about 4 more post boxes that I don't want to use up - as I am excited to hear your scintillating reply about how all of these thousands of scientists and scientific organizations are all in on a world-wide hoax designed to... what... make people put up windmills?

en.wikipedia.org...

If ALL scientists from ALL scientific organizations were in it for the funding they can get then how is it possible that thousands of scientists, even several who have participated in the IPCC reports, have come forward to tell us AGW, and Climate Change have become politiziced, and that mayor groups like the IPCC are not interested in science anymore?...

It is also interesting that many scientists have come forward to tell us that the mayority of them have not been asked to give an opinion on AGW, but it has only been the directors of scientific groups, which are about 6-14 per scientific group, who have made the claims that all scientists agree...

Huge success!

Everyone should flag this, the world *NEEDS* to see this.

Thank you so much OP, the truth is FINALLY out.

Originally posted by mc_squared
....
I have explained this graph before in this post. If you factor in modern warming in Greenland since 1855 - it actually looks more like this:

Wow...YOU have explained this graph before by adding your own made up lies?...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a7cd5d053fb.jpg[/atsimg]

Even this graph is slightly off because when I made it I thought the original started 95 years from the present, but it turns out it's 95 before 1950 - meaning the current warming would be even more off the chart lol.
...

You know what is ACTUALLY funny?...

That your BS made up lies go against what REAL SCIENTISTS and their research have uncovered about the Medieval Warm, and Roman Warm Periods...

On-line Publication Documentation System for Stockholm University
Full DescriptionUpdate record

Publication type: Article in journal (Reviewed scientific)
Author: Grudd, H (Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology)
Title: Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
In: Climate Dynamics
Publisher: Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg
Volume: 31
Pages: 843-857
Year: 2008
Available: 2009-01-30
ISSN: 1432-0894
Department: Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
Language: English [en]
Subject: Physical geography, Climatology
Abstract: This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized.

www.diva-portal.org...

P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss (in press) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa


P. D. Tyson1, W. Karlén2, K. Holmgren2 and G. A. Heiss3.

1Climatology Research Group, University of the Witwatersrand
2Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University
3Geomar, Wischhofstr. 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany; present address: German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]


Abstract

The Little Ice Age, from around 1300 to 1800, and medieval warming, from before 1000 to around 1300 in South Africa, are shown to be distinctive features of the regional climate of the last millennium. The proxy climate record has been constituted from oxygen and carbon isotope and colour density data obtained from a well-dated stalagmite derived from Cold Air Cave in the Makapansgat Valley.
The climate of the interior of South Africa was around 1oC cooler in the Little Ice Age and may have been over 3°C higher than at present during the extremes of the medieval warm period. It was variable throughout the millennium, but considerably more so during the warming of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are shown to be coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance. The medieval warming is shown to have been coincided with the cosmogenic 10Be and 14C isotopic maxima recorded in tree rings elsewhere in the world during the Medieval Maximum in solar radiation.

www-user.uni-bremen.de...

Do you actually need me to AGAIN, and AGAIN post the research from REAL SCIENTISTS who have found that the MEdieval and Roman Warm Period were warmer than the present?....

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
Journal Climatic Change
Publisher Springer Netherlands
ISSN 0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online)
Issue Volume 26, Numbers 2-3 / March, 1994
DOI 10.1007/BF01092419
Pages 289-297
Subject Collection Earth and Environmental Science
SpringerLink Date Monday, February 07, 2005
Add to marked items
Add to shopping cart
Add to saved items
Permissions & Reprints
Recommend this article


PDF (509.6 KB)Free Preview

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
De'Er Zhang1

(1) Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Baishiqiaolu No. 46, 100081 Beijing, 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. A new set of data for the latest snowfall date in Hangzhou from A.D. 1131 to 1264 indicates that this cannot be considered a cold period, as previously believed.

www.springerlink.com...

Title:
Late Holocene Environmental and Hydrologic Conditions in Northwestern Florida Derived from Seasonally Resolved Profiles of δ18O and Sr/Ca of Fossil Bivalves.
Authors:
Elliot, M.; de Menocal, P. B.; Linsley, B. K.; Howe, S. S.; Guilderson, T.; Quitmyer, I. R.
Affiliation:
AA(Edinburgh University, Dept. Geology and Geophysics, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JW United Kingdom ; [email protected]), AB(Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 ; [email protected]), AC(University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222 ; [email protected]), AD(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; [email protected]), AE(Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA 94550 ; ), AF(Florida Museum of Natural History, Dickinson Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 ; )
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2002, abstract #PP72A-0429
Publication Date:
12/2002
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
3344 Paleoclimatology, 4215 Climate and interannual variability (3309), 4227 Diurnal, seasonal, and annual cycles, 4870 Stable isotopes, 4875 Trace elements
Bibliographic Code:
2002AGUFMPP72A0429E

Abstract
We reconstruct environmental conditions of coastal Northwestern Florida from combined measurements of δ18O and Sr/Ca of fossil marine bivalves deposited in an archeological site during the late Holocene period. We first investigated the environmental controls of seasonally resolved records of δ18O and Sr/Ca of modern Mercenaria mercenaria and Mercenaria campesiensis collected live from five coastal sites along the east coast of North America. Seasonal profiles were obtained by sub-sampling the incremental growth layers of aragonite and were compared with in situ historical records of temperature and salinity. We show that these bivalves precipitate their shell in isotopic equilibrium with the water in which they grew and that the δ18O records are not affected by variations in growth rate. Winter growth appears to be interrupted or strongly reduced below water temperatures ranging from 7 to 18° C, depending on latitude. The annual average δ18O decreases with latitude, reflecting both the parallel trend of freshwater δ18O with latitude over the North American continent and the reduced winter growth rate. The Sr/Ca records of the 5 modern bivalves also exhibit seasonal variations can be correlated to water temperature. However, contrary to corals, the Sr/Ca ratio is considerably lower than the average sea water Sr/Ca composition and is positively correlated to the water temperature. We dated and measured the δ18O and Sr/Ca of 30 fossil M. campesiensis from an archeological site close to Cedar Key, in the Gulf of Mexico. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry 14C dates obtained for each shell show ages which cluster between 1100 to 1400 and 2300 to 2600 14C years BP corresponding approximately to two historical warm periods known as the Medieval Warm Period (~ 1300-900AD) and the Roman Warm Period (~ 250AD-200BC). The average annual and summer Sr/Ca of 4 fossil shells are higher than that of modern bivalves from the same location suggesting that annual coastal water temperatures were 3 to 4° C warmer than today. The bulk δ18O values show a marked trend towards more positive values. 24 fossil shells have bulk δ18O values 0.2\permil to 0.7\permil more positive than modern bivalves from the same location. These results suggest that the coastal waters off northwest Florida were warmer and less saline compared to today and attest of considerable differences of the regional climate and hydrological balance during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

And what about Greenland?... What do REAL SCIENTISTS have to say about it?...

The Medieval Warm Period in Greenland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Vinther, B.M., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Clausen, H.B., Andersen, K.K., Dahl-Jensen, D. and Johnsen, S.J. 2010. Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 522-538.
Background
The authors introduce the report of their new study by writing that "during the past 10 years studies of seasonal ice core δ18O records from the Greenland ice sheet have indicated, that in order to gain a firm understanding of the relationships between Greenland δ18O and climatic conditions in the North Atlantic region, it is important to have not only annually resolved, but seasonally resolved ice core δ18O data."

What was done
Working with 20 ice core records from 14 different sites, all of which stretched at least 200 years back in time, as well as near-surface air temperature data from 13 locations along the southern and western coasts of Greenland that covered approximately the same time interval (1784-2005), plus a similar temperature data set from northwest Iceland (said by the authors to be employed "in order to have some data indicative of climate east of the Greenland ice sheet"), Vinther et al. proceeded to demonstrate that winter δ18O was "the best proxy for Greenland temperatures." Then, based on that determination and working with three longer ice core δ18O records (DYE-3, Crete and GRIP), they developed a temperature history that extended more than 1400 years back in time.

What was learned
In the words of the seven scientists, "temperatures during the warmest intervals of the Medieval Warm Period," which they defined as occurring "some 900 to 1300 years ago, "were as warm as or slightly warmer than present day Greenland temperatures [italics added]."

www.co2science.org...

Then again, in other parts of the world it was MUCH HOTTER than at any time in the 20th century, or what we have experienced so far in the 21st century...

How easy it is to catch liars...

Oh, and btw, like ALWAYS the AGW religious followers will claim that these research papers are only howing regionaldata, but I wonder what happens when you put together the research papers from all over the globe that say the regional climate ALL OVER THE PLANET was warmer during the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods than at any time in the 20th or 21st century?...

reply to post by Stratus9

In the ancient past, glacial advances and retreats took millions of years.
...
I'll repeat:
In the ancient past, glacial advances and retreats took millions of years.
This glacial retreat is happening over a few decades.

You presume that all glacial change is attributable to CO2 or AGW, which is not only "grasping at straws," but intentionally misleading.

Does repeating a lie make it true? Sudden and significant changes are common to Earth's climate history. Events as recent as "the Little Ice Age," the "Medieval Warm Period," and the "Year Without a Summer," are proof enough that change comes as Nature dictates, not on some imagined millennial timescale..

Applying your logic, there should be NO observable short-term changes in glaciation.

Moreover, it has been irrefutably established that some of the most pronounced changes in glaciation and precipitation have been attributable to causes other than AGW.

How easy it is for AGW advocates to ignore "black soot," which permeates the Asian environment; deforestation, which robs Kilimanjaro of moisture-laden air, and other influences that affect climate, and make Man and CO2 the default boogeymen of changes in climate or environment!

Pick your preferred cause, attribute everything you abhor to it, regardless of fact; make up a few more just for diversion. Talk about grasping at straws!

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by Stratus9

The eleven signatories [in support of the IPCC] were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

So, in 2005 their science academies signed off in anticipation of the proposed redistribution of $100,000,000,000 annually in support of AGW advocacy.

Funny thing, how when the funding didn't come through, Brazil, China, India, Russia, and a handful of others, constituting the biggest polluters and largest CO2 emitters, backed-away and opposed "global" efforts to enforce or reward CO2 limits and mitigation!
World's largest polluters unite against 'carbon' schemes

"Consesnsus" is often wrong. Sheep go along with the "conventional wisdom."

jw

reply to post by syrinx high priest

after eliminating the lesser quality stations, and performing an enourmous random sampling of date to eliminate cherry picking, his testimony corroborated the prior findings that the earth is getting warmer, and that the warming dovetails with the the industrial age

"To eliminate cherry-picking?" If the AGW priesthood hadn't engaged in it to begin with, why would he have to "eliminate" it?

Of course, it wouldn't help the AGW cause to point out that his testimony was based upon the most prelinimary of comparisons; he offered NO conclusions or recommendations; in fact, warning that much more work remained and that [i[]b]selection bias in the CRU/Ames data had to be eliminated before a "scientific" (as opposed to "political" or "foregone") could be made!


jw

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


"Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early and mid-20th century.[17] Crowley and Lowery (2000)[18] note that "there is no proof or documentation as to its existence in the Southern hemisphere."

It was not a global effect - it was confined to the Northern Hemisphere and It was extremely spotty - with some areas cooler and some areas warmer.

A 2009 study by Michael Mann et al. finds that the MWP shows "warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels overall globally".[21] Their reconstruction of MWP pattern is characterised by warmth over large part of North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America.

Certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and parts of South Atlantic, exhibited coolness.

In the case of current history you are looking at an overall - planet wide - global heating. Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Electric says "So if large cities are the source of pollution where do you think that the most warming would occur on Earth if pollution was the cause?... Large cities right?...

Man generated CO2 doesn't rise above the cities and sit there. It spreads with the Jet Stream and upper level winds world wide. Ask any fireman what happens to the smoke in a housefire- does it just sit in one room?

Mini Ice Ages and Mini Warming periods are distinctly marked by the fact that they were isolated- to the northern or southern hemisphere or even smaller areas.

GLOBAL warming is called just that because, as YOU said - it is GLOBAL and NOT isolated to either hemisphere or isolated areas (the natural causes of which are localized volcanic activity etc.)