2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.

[Roy]

Which part of the link that you clicked to find the actual sources actually concealed the actual sources?

There is no such link.

[tabibito]

Encyclopaedia of Quaternary Science ... Paleoclimate History of the Arctic . University of Alberta

Warmth during Medieval times was initially recognized from evidence in Western Europe (Lamb, 1977), but the term
is commonly applied to other regions over a wide temporal range. We restrict our consideration of Medieval warmth to the
period between AD 950 and 1250. The strongest evidence for Medieval warmth comes from the northern North Atlantic
region, where there is growing evidence for an episode of relatively cold summers between !AD 600 and 950, followed
by three centuries of relatively warmer summers during Medieval times.
~~~
Historical evidence from the Arctic is relatively sparse, but it generally agrees with historical records from northwest
Europe. Arctic proxy climate records from glacial and nonglacial sources show that the coldest interval of the Holocene occurred
between !AD 1450 and !AD 1850, and during this interval most glaciers reached their Neoglacial maximum. Recent evidence
from the Canadian Arctic indicates that, following substantial ice recession in Medieval times, glaciers and ice caps
began to expand abruptly in the second half of the thirteenth century, and that ice expansion was further amplified !AD
1450, after which ice caps receded to their pre-LIA margins only in recent decades (Miller et al., 2011).
The average summer temperature of the Northern Hemisphere during the LIA was no more than 1 "C lower than the
twentieth century average (Mann et al., 2008), but was substantially greater in some regions. LIA cooling appears to have
been stronger in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic than in the Pacific (Kaufman et al., 2004),

[tabibito]

@ TheLurch - Does this lot satisfy, or do I need to continue?

[tabibito]

There is no such link.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/at...5&d=1439642029

Do you mean this one?

[seer]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/at...5&d=1439642029

Do you mean this one?

Keep up the good work tabibito...

[Roy]

Which part of the link that you clicked to find the actual sources actually concealed the actual sources?

There is no such link.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/at...5&d=1439642029

Do you mean this one?

That is neither the right graph nor a link to a source.

[TheLurch]

@ TheLurch - Does this lot satisfy, or do I need to continue?

Briefly, no.

More elaborately:

You've not at all addressed the evidence I provided regarding the holocene reconstructions of global and ocean temperatures, both of which show the recent warming is exceptional.

Sea levels rise is accelerating due to recent warming:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...faster-thought

The Little Ice Age of the 1700s or so was caused by elevated volcanic activity:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...50168/abstract

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, as you'd know if you'd read the National Academies report we'd discussed earlier.

And the source you're quoting on temperature basically reiterates my point: the best available evidence indicates that we're seeing unprecedented warming in recent decades.

So, we have a mixture of ignoring evidence, not being aware of the scientific understanding, and making my point for me. Must try harder.

[tabibito]

Briefly, no.

More elaborately:

You've not at all addressed the evidence I provided regarding the holocene reconstructions of global and ocean temperatures, both of which show the recent warming is exceptional.

Sea levels rise is accelerating due to recent warming:
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2...faster-thought

The Little Ice Age of the 1700s or so was caused by elevated volcanic activity:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...50168/abstract

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, as you'd know if you'd read the National Academies report we'd discussed earlier.

And the source you're quoting on temperature basically reiterates my point: the best available evidence indicates that we're seeing unprecedented warming in recent decades.

So, we have a mixture of ignoring evidence, not being aware of the scientific understanding, and making my point for me. Must try harder.

Which part of "I do not deny that the climate is changing" is so hard to understand. Not only in this thread, but in other threads - dating back to July last year. The only part of the Global Warming that I dispute (or rather, question) is the extent of the role human activity plays in climate change.

I'll check the National Academy's report - but I was already aware of the role that volcanoes played in the little Ice Age - it is in the same report that I cited in post 152 above. A more extensive citation:

The trend toward colder summers after !AD 1250 coincides
with the onset of the LIA, which persisted until !AD
1850, although the timing and magnitude of specific cold intervals
exhibit regional variability. The climate history of the LIA
has been extensively studied in natural and historical archives,
and it is well documented in Europe and North America (Grove,
1988). Historical evidence from the Arctic is relatively sparse,
but it generally agrees with historical records from northwest
Europe. Arctic proxy climate records from glacial and nonglacial
sources show that the coldest interval of the Holocene occurred
between !AD 1450 and !AD 1850, and during this interval
most glaciers reached their Neoglacial maximum. Recent evidence
from the Canadian Arctic indicates that, following substantial
ice recession in Medieval times, glaciers and ice caps
began to expand abruptly in the second half of the thirteenth
century, and that ice expansion was further amplified !AD
1450, after which ice caps receded to their pre-LIA margins
only in recent decades (Miller et al., 2011).
The average summer temperature of the Northern Hemisphere
during the LIA was no more than 1 "C lower than the
twentieth century average (Mann et al., 2008), but was substantially
greater in some regions. LIA cooling appears to have
been stronger in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic than in the
Pacific (Kaufman et al., 2004), perhaps because explosive volcanism
promoted the development or transport of sea ice into
the North Atlantic, leading to a reduction in the Atlantic meridional
overturning circulation, which further amplified LIA
cooling there (Miller et al., 2011). Although the initiation of
the LIA and the structure of climate fluctuations during this
multicentennial interval vary around the Arctic, most records
show warming beginning in the late nineteenth century
(Kaufman et al., 2009; Overpeck et al., 1997). The end of the
LIA was apparently more uniform both spatially and temporally
than its initiation.
Summer cooling that marks the transition into the LIA was
in part a consequence of the Holocene-long decrease in Northern
Hemisphere summer insolation due to the orbital changes
described earlier, and triggered by increased explosive volcanism
in the late thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. This transition
was likely aided by decreased solar irradiance at these
times, and amplified by strong positive feedbacks, especially
expanded Arctic Ocean sea ice and terrestrial snow cover, possibly
enhanced by a weakening of the meridional circulation in
the northern North Atlantic.
Placing Twentieth Century Arctic Warming in a
Millennial Perspective
Much scientific effort has been devoted to learning how twentieth
and early twenty-first century warmth compares with
warmth during earlier times (e.g., Jansen et al., 2007). A datamodel
comparison indicates that the long-term cooling trend
that dominated in the Arctic during the past nineteen centuries
was linked to decreasing summer insolation from orbital factors,
and that this trend was reversed during the twentieth
century, despite continued reduction of summer insolation
across the Arctic (Kaufman et al., 2009). Owing to the orbital
changes affecting midsummer insolation (a drop in June
insolation of about 1 W m$2 at 75"N and 2 W m$2 at 90"N
during the last millennium; Berger and Loutre, 1991), additional
forcing is required to explain why summer temperatures
in recent decades have been similar to, and in most regions
warmer than, summer temperatures achieved in Medieval
times.

[TheLurch]

The only part of the Global Warming that I dispute (or rather, question) is the extent of the role human activity plays in climate change.

Then please explain what you base that questioning in. Because all you've been doing is questioning things like proxy temperature reconstructions, which are somewhat irrelevant to it.

[Jichard]

Which part of "I do not deny that the climate is changing" is so hard to understand. Not only in this thread, but in other threads - dating back to July last year. The only part of the Global Warming that I dispute (or rather, question) is the extent of the role human activity plays in climate change.

I'm going to address that. But I'm going to address it on a new thread, as opposed to this thread. I'm doing that since this thread is getting a bit long, and this topic deserves it's own thread.

Here's that thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...228#post232228

[Jichard]

What does c3headlines have to do with the (US) National Academies of Science?

I don't get what you're saying here.

In any event, you took the graph from c3headlines. But c3headlines' graph is just a modified version of a graph from the paper I linked you to. So I linked you to that paper so that you could read the original scientific source, instead of getting your information from a disreputable place like c3headlines.

I've taken the data from that report (dated 2015) because it shows the least bias for either side of the debate.

I hesitate to use the term "report" to dignify the nonsense posted at c3headlines. It's a non-scientific source and an embarrassment at that. The only people I've seen cite it as a source, tend to be conservatives who are AGW denialists and oppose the scientific evidence on AGW for political reason.

To get an idea of how bad c3headlines is, take the following story from them:

"NASA Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Low Sensitivity To CO2 Doubling: The UN's IPCC Global Warming Science Is Imploding"

Turns out the story is a massive distortion (maybe bordering on an outright lie), likely written by someone who hadn't even read the research in question. Details here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc

It's pretty clear that the person writing the c3headlines piece, didn't even bother to read the scientific research they were discussing, before misrepresenting the research.

So you're incorrect if you think that c3headlines would show "the least bias for either side of the debate". Instead, c3headlines is heavily biased towards misrepresenting the scientific evidence in order to defend an AGW denialist position that many American conservatives find palatable.

[Jichard]

Click on the word "reports" to access the full report.
There is no denying that there has been and continues to be continual global warming, and at an accelerating rate. However, that warming has been in progress since the mini-ice age of the 1700s. So - global warming is real, but the role played by human activity is over-stated.

The black line on the graph below (between the 1400s and 1700s) is a mirror image taken from the 1700s to present section of the graph, flipped horizontally, and superimposed on the 1400s to 1700s section - for the purposes of comparison. The intersection of the curved red lines extending below the temperature readings marks the point where that section of the graph was flipped.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]8835[/ATTACH]

ETA

The recent "hiatus" in global warming proved, as was only to be expected, .... incorrect.

What is your source for this graph? For example, does it come from a peer-reviewed scientific paper? If so, then what is the title of the paper?

[tabibito]

I don't get what you're saying here.

In any event, you took the graph from c3headlines. But c3headlines' graph is just a modified version of a graph from the paper I linked you to. So I linked you to that paper so that you could read the original scientific source, instead of getting your information from a disreputable place like c3headlines.



I hesitate to use the term "report" to dignify the nonsense posted at c3headlines. It's a non-scientific source and an embarrassment at that. The only people I've seen cite it as a source, tend to be conservatives who are AGW denialists and oppose the scientific evidence on AGW for political reason.

To get an idea of how bad c3headlines is, take the following story from them:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/12/n...science-i.html

Turns out the story is a massive distortion (maybe bordering on an outright lie), likely written by someone who hadn't even read the research in question. Details here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3vIWD4tAHc

So you're incorrect if you think that c3headlines would show "the least bias for either side of the debate". Instead, c3headlines is heavily biased towards misrepresenting the scientific evidence in order to defense an AGW denialist position that many American conservatives would find palatable.

I can't even work out why I was looking at C3 - CSIRO, Various National Academies of Science and the like abound. OK - 36 hours no sleep might account for it in part - but it was still rank carelessness.

[Jichard]

Oh, so you don't bother keeping up with the news. Fair enough. In that case, you're apparently not aware that in 2014, NASA "adjusted" historical temperature data in order eliminate 1934 as the warmest year on record and turn a clear cooling trend over the past several decades into an artificial "warming" trend.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7827[/ATTACH]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ming-data.html
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014...nasa-and-noaa/

Of course this isn't their first time getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar since they pulled same stunt in 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ord-this-year/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

And we know from internal IPCC emails released in 2001 that they've been routinely manipulating data for decades in order to fan the flames of global warming hysteria.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-...-warming-hoax/

It's a bit like shooting an arrow, painting a target around it, and claiming you got a bullseye. It's not science, it's propaganda.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...year-on-record

"1934 is the Hottest Year on Record

Incorrect. The claim is based on the temperatures in the United States, not the global mean temperature.

It is a given that the temperature in your backyard, in your region, or in your state or country does not represent the global mean temperature. The 1934 temperature myth continues because people simply are not looking at the relevant facts in context.

US temperatures are not global temperatures. This is similar to saying the temperature in the Sahara desert does not represent the temperature in Iceland, or, the temperatures in Austrailia do not represent the temperatures in Canada.

Global is global, not local, not regional."

[Jichard]

I can't even work out why I was looking at C3 - CSIRO, Various National Academies of Science and the like abound. OK - 36 hours no sleep might account for it in part - but it was still rank carelessness.

It's OK. Everyone makes mistakes.