After the NAS report, don't you think this is a bit misleading/over-reaching?

While the NAS report did discuss some general aspects of all proxy studies (like they get more uncertain the further back in time they go) don't forget it was primarily about the "Hockey Stick" (aka MBH89) which is a single 8 year old work.  Time and science have moved on even if Michaels and Lindzen haven't!


"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

A useful chart can be found:
http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/lecture.htm
which summarizes the meticulous historical detail of the book itself, showing the ebb and flow of wineries over the last 2000 years.

• From this, it looks like we're now "about as hot" as during the Medieval Warm period.
  
• The line is moving North.
  
• He expects, that after 2100, there will be some fine Scots wineries, especially near Loch Ness.

[www.amazon.co.uk has it].

-John Mashey

Well of course there's"no good evidence" of global warming during the Midevil warm period. Humans didn't have a thermometer at every port, or satelites. In fact world wide surface temperatures have only been recorded with the MOST accuracy since ~2001.
I got this off the NASA web site
 "Analyses of global temperature change by different groups, particularly, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and the combination of the British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia (BMO/UEA), are generally in close agreement. The ranking of individual years, however, often depends upon differences of only several hundredths of a degree, which is finer than the accuracy that any method can claim given observational limitations.
 Additional Sea Surface Temperature Data. Fig. 3 shows an absence of warming of 2001-2005 relative to 1870-1900 in the equatorial region of upwelling off the coast of South America. Fig. 7 shows that the same conclusion holds for linear trends of SSTs. Alternative choices for the beginning date, e.g., 1880 or 1900, do not alter this conclusion qualitatively. Maps of the temperature change for arbitrary choices of the beginning and ending dates are available at www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp.

Fig. 8 shows annual mean SSTs in the WEP and EEP based on ship and buoy data (6) for 1870-1981 and satellite data (5) for subsequent years. The satellite data are adjusted by a small constant, as shown in Fig. 8A, such that the mean 1982-1992 temperature matches the in situ data (6) for that 11-year period. The 1983 and 1998 El Niños stand out in these annual mean plots as well as in the 12-month running means shown in Fig. 3B.

Fig. 5, using the same data source as Fig. 4A, extends the paleoclimate data for the WEP back to 1.35 million years before present. At least several interglacials in this longer period were warmer than the Holocene. As discussed in the text, alignment of the paleo temperatures and the modern instrumental data are uncertain by up to 1°C. If the paleo temperatures are shifted upward (by about one-half degree Celsius) such that the temperature in the late 1800s is near the lowest value in the Holocene, the current temperature is still within »1°C of the warmest interglacials."

1. Hansen J, Lebedeff S (1987) J Geophys Res 92:13345-13372.

2. Hansen J, Ruedy R, Glascoe J, Sato M (1999) J Geophys Res 104:30997-31022.

3. Peterson TC, Vose R, Schmoyer R, Razuvev V (1998) Int J Climatol 18:1169-1179.

4. Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Imhoff M, Lawrence W, Easterling D, Peterson T, Karl T (2001) J Geophys Res 106:23947-23963.

5. Reynolds RW, Smith TM (1994) J Clim 7: 929-948.

6. Rayner N, Parker D, Horton E, Folland C, Alexander L, Rowell D, Kent E, Kaplan A (2003) J Geophys Res 108:10.1029/2002JD002670.

7. Medina-Elizade M, Lea DW (2005) Science 310:1009-1012.

"Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made more precise."

"The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data."

Whether or not we are now warmer than the MWP is the wrong question, and in fact, as interesting as it might be, arguing it gives a perfect opportunity for anyone who wants to create clouds of confusion to do so.

The argument "it's warmer than the MWP, and therefore we should do something about AGW" invites the response "but we really don't know", and then lots of confusing side-tracks.

The stronger argument to me is: "Whether we are warmer or not already, we're going up fast, and the physics says we're going to keep going up, we have 10X more people on the planet, and 50% of the world's population lives within 120 miles of the ocean, and anything we can do to slow down the inevitable temperature rise will give more time for ecosystems adaptation, will likely cost less, and maybe will save some wars (over water, if nothing else)."

Suppose someone could magically duplicate our current temperature sensors 10,000 years back, and have a current-technology record from then.  Climatologists would be ecstatic, and models might improve, but otherwise, what would you do differently if it turned out the MWP were global, and a little warmer than now? or global and a little cooler? or not global?  

-John Mashey

HOWEVER,
If you check the 2005 Moberg study chances are it's not.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempera ...

Especially when you compare it to the ones that say otherwise, which use near fraud to make their case.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hockey.png
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_Mythsv ...

If you're a glutton for detail, I refer to a posting I did in Google Groups sci.environment July 3, 2003 [1], basically expressing concerns about the unnecessarily over-prominent role of the "Hockey-Stick" chart in the IPCC TAR.  This came to unfortunate emphasis with McIntyre/McKitrick and then the Wegman Report.  Via Joe Barton, it yielded the denialist-dream result of getting climatologists into public battles with (serious world-class) statisticians (over the wrong things, IMHO), and generating great chances for selective quoting, again.  Sigh.

When paleolimatologists perform temperature reconstruction, they must extract a signal from noisy data.  This is hard work, they only have one Earth, and it's not like working in a lab where you can rerun experiments ... and hence, there are heroic efforts to extract signals.  Published primary research papers normally try hard to quantify uncertainty with proper error bars ... but later, for simplicity of presentation, these things tend to get deemphasized or disappear.

As cited Wikipedia entry correctly says:
"It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure."
THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE GRAPHS, which is why I usually go back to the original research articles.

When I see any kind of average, I also want:

• standard deviation (or equivalently variance), to show the dispersion of the data.
  
• confidence intervals/error bars[which include effects from both variance and sample size].
  
• some idea of the randomness of the sample
  
• some idea of the independence of the data

For example, in that Wikipedia example:

-Various studies had their own error bars, and without careful work, it's hard to tell what they mean.  I've seen studies in which the size of the error bars remained constant going back from 1600AD to 1000AD, despite having fewer and fewer data series.  That seems counter-intuitive, unless most of the data series did't matter, or if the earlier data was somehow more reliable, not usually the case with tree-rings.  The original Mann-Bradley-Hughes papers was carefully caveated, but caveats get lost, and error bars get lost or deemphasized, because they make graphs very busy.

- One must be very careful to understand the commonality of underlying datasets.  In many cases, various reconstructions share the use of a lot of data (which is fine), but it makes those studies less independent than is obvious when looking at such a chart.

I recommend [2], from 1999:
"However, many more data and much work are necessary before we can reduce the large uncertainties associated with reconstructions of medieval and earlier temperatures on large spatial scales."  and

"Unfortunately, very few of the series are truly independent: There is a degree of common input to virtually every one, because there are still only a small number of long, well-dated, high-resolution proxy records."

Now, data has improved since then, but it's a good warning that one must be very, very careful from drawing overly-strong conclusions by eyeballing graphs in which possibly-common data has already been summarized.  Although I sympathize, the wish to emphasize certainty may give determined opponents an easier target.

Anyway, one more time: reconstruction uncertainties show up in primary papers, but they often disappear in graphs ... but fortunately, they don't really matter to any substantive decisions that we need to make.

I think Wegman [3] got it right (although denialists never quote this part):

'As we said in our report, "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change.  The instrumented temperature record clearly indicates an increase in temperature." We certainly agree that modern global warming is real.  We have never disputed this point.  We think it is time to put the "hockey stick" controversy behind us and move on.'

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm ...

[2] K. R. Briffa, T. J. Osborn, "Seeing the Wood from the Trees," Science 284 (5416): 926.

[3] energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Wegman.pdf


-John Mashey

For a comprehensive summary of evidence for a global Medieval Warm Period check:

Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., "Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, Vol 23: 89-110 (2003)

Regards,

Max Anacker

I've been following the blogs on this subject and here are my thoughts:

Is the Medieval Warming Period Irrelevant?

A commonly heard argument among IPCC supporters is that it is irrelevant to the current reality of global warming whether or not the Medieval Warm Period was global, with temperatures higher than today (a fairly-well documented historical fact), because the climate models show in any case that our current higher CO2 concentrations will lead to DISASTROUS warming (a computer-generated virtual reality).

If it is REALLY irrelevant whether or not the MWP was global and that temperatures then were warmer than today, why does the IPCC have to rely on a discredited "hockey stick" curve to make the alarmist claim that "the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years"?

Wegman is quoted as saying "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 (the "hockey stick") are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change", but as he summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in testimony: "Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis," and "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."

Why not just delete this bit of BAD SCIENCE from the report if it is so IRRELEVANT?

Any good answers?

I think we know the answer. The MWP is an embarrassment for "disaster scenario" claims, for example that polar bears, etc. are facing extinction due to the climate changes today, despite the fact that they have survived for a very long time, including some longer periods of even warmer climates.

The "hockey stick" is used to substantiate the IPCC disaster claims, even though it has been shown to be a fraud.

Let's face it: slight warming over the past century (and possibly the next one), for whatever reasons, is real, as the record shows; impending DISASTER due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is an imagined, computer-generated scare scenario, that does not pass the "sanity check" of common sense or the historical record, regardless of what the models, the media and the politicians may say.

I challenge anyone to prove that this is wrong.

Max Anacker

Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., "Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, Vol 23: 89-110 (2003)

Except thats wrong.
http://greyfalcon.net/hockey.png

So wrong, that not only were Soon and Baliunas discredited.
But 5 of the editors involved in the Journal resigned.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ ...

http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png

The MWP is clearly expressed, but it's not even hotter than the 1940s.

Much less todays temperatures.

Thanks for your comment.

I fail to see in the references you cited that Soon and Baliunas were "discredited" (as Mann was earlier for his "hockey stick"), just that some editors disagreed and a couple resigned.

The "more" correct hockey stick, which you cite may be "more" correct than Mann's first one, but maybe "less" correct than some other curve showing a warmer MWP.

So far you have not been able to convince me that we are living in an unprecedented warm period today.

Regards,

Max

_

S Fred Singer's study,
And the Soon & Baliunas study did not even measure temperature.  They measured moisture, and said if a period was wet OR dry. Then it was automatically "warm". A completely non-scientific way to measure temperature.
http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/84/0/feed

Then they used historically incorrect information about Greenland Vikings, and British Wine.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mw ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/med ...

Even though every person associated with the non-credible studies is highly attached to Oil.
http://greyfalcon.net/lobbyists.png

(S Fred Singer, in particular, he goes all the way back to Phillip Morris, and has personally taken no less than $100,000 direct from Exxon mobil)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52278449904586781 ...

Even though McKitrick, the original guy who claimed that the hockeystick was wrong, couldn't prove any of his claims other than he didn't like one of the data sources, the bristlecone pine.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Even though McKitrick is continuously wrong about climate science.  Mainly because he keeps making intentional "accidents" in his math that skew it in his favor.
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/

And even though McKitrick isn't even a climate scientist by training.  He's an economist.

And even though the National Academy of Sciences AGREES with the original hockeystick that temperatures are warmer today than they are now.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html ...

However the findings of this NAS/NRC report continuously get distorted by people like Richard Lindzen, and Senator James Inhofe.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/lindzen.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM8llDzesGU
http://www.desmogblog.com/denier-specialist-solomon-offer ...

Wow! Looks like I hit your hot button.  Don't get excited.  And don't try to discredit IPCC critics by tying them to Phillip Morris or Exxon, or just claiming they are "consistently wrong about climate science".

I am just questioning the validity of the claims in the IPCC report regarding  "unprecedented 20th Century warmth".

Arguments used to support IPCC this claim include:

·    There was no Medieval Warm Period, also no Little Ice Age (Mann "hockey stick").
·    Greenland really wasn't "green" in 1000AD; it was just a "PR ploy by Eric the Red, to make the colony sound attractive".
·    There was a MWP and a LIA, but these were only local to some parts of Europe.
·    There was a MWP and a LIA, but temperatures today are even higher than in the MWP.

The first two of these arguments do not need to be refuted.  They have already been shown to be false.

The next two should be taken more seriously.

The "only in parts of Europe" hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect by many studies that have been reported, covering not only Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, England, etc.), but also:
·    Russia
·    Greenland
·    North America
·    Sargasso Sea
·    China
·    India
·    New Zealand
·    South America

These are all available to the public.

The "not as warm as today" hypothesis is often backed up by statements such as (NOAA) "we don't have enough good data" for the MWP and therefore the current warmth is very likely unprecedented. The "not as warm as today" hypothesis has also been shown to be incorrect by many of the studies referred to above, which point to temperatures between 1 and 4°C warmer than today. These also show that today's temperatures, while clearly rising, are still closer to those in the LIA than they are to those during the MWP.

Not too many people deny that temperatures are rising today.

Not too many people deny that CO2 levels are rising today.

Why not just leave it at that?  Why do "scare scenarios" have to be built up using false or questionable data?

There is no doubt that we should conserve energy where possible and reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels plus end pollution, deforestation, and other environmental carelessness; but we should not use lies or distort science to scare the people.

And that is what the IPCC is doing.

So relax, we are just trying to find out what the real truth is.

Regards,

Max

Why is it everone accepts the fact except the cultists who want to impose a Global Tax on the lower 97% of humanity so they can keep their 3% lifestyles intact?

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Local temperatures and Global temperatures are not the same thing.

The "not as warm as today" hypothesis has also been shown to be incorrect by many of the studies referred to above, which point to temperatures between 1 and 4°C warmer than today.

Please do name one.

With one detail, that it's not just a LOCAL temperature reading, and rather a global temperature reconstruction.

Singer
Soon and Baluinas
McIntyre and McKitrick

Those are the only ones I know of, and those have all shown to be invalid.

Here are the facts:

Global temperatures are going up very slightly  (for some time now).

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is going up (at least for the past 50 years, since we have measurements).

That's it, folks.

Global temperatures have been higher than today in the past (with lower carbon dioxide levels).

Disaster has not happened in the past.

Use your common sense, guys, and don't blindly believe the virtual reality of computer models that predict disaster.

Computers are great, but they cannot replace common sense, no matter how sophisticated they are.

We are not facing a disaster.

So you can relax.

Regards,

Max

Here are the facts:

Global temperatures are going up very slightly  (for some time now).

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is going up (at least for the past 50 years, since we have measurements).

That's it, folks.

Global temperatures have been higher than today in the past (with lower carbon dioxide levels).

Disaster has not happened in the past.

Use your common sense, guys, and don't blindly believe the virtual reality of computer models that predict disaster.

Computers are great, but they cannot replace common sense, no matter how sophisticated they are.

We are not facing a disaster.

So you can relax.

Regards,

Max

Hey, I think jabailo has got it right.

CALCULATED "Global" temperatures are just a computer-generated composite of ACTUAL "local" temperatures.

If I am sitting in Hong Kong, I feel the "local" temperature there.  If I am sitting in Antarctica, I feel another "local" temperature.

The "global" temperature (day or night, summer or winter) does not mean very much to anyone, does it?

The fact that many LOCAL temperatures were shown to be higher during the MWP than today (as jabailo points out for China) is very relevant to the question of whether GLOBAL temperatures were higher then than now.  Don't you agree?

Regards,

Max

Global temperatures have been higher than today in the past (with lower carbon dioxide levels).

Disaster has not happened in the past.

Except that you can't prove anything about global temperatures.

All you have is some local temperatures.

And you won't even cite any of your sources.

"Except that you can't prove anything about global temperatures."

Nor can you.

So I guess we are even.

Regards,

Max

We cannot make any exact judgement on exactly the severity of the fallout.
Yet.

And even if we could, we couldn't be certain we made the right assumptions until it already happened.

We can however prove that we are causing significant manmade warming on a global scale.

And much change from the status quo means adaptation.  And adaptation costs money.

Fighting global warming, on the other hand is relatively cheap.
And would create millions of domestic jobs.
http://greyfalcon.net/gdp

Let's see where you and I agree on things.

1. Energy conservation  

Believe we both agree it makes good economic and environmental sense to reduce energy waste at the personal level (low energy light bulbs, more efficient automobiles, better home insulation, installing solar panels to reduce power requirement, etc.).

At the industrial level most energy is used in manufacturing processes. Cutting manufacturing costs through more efficient use of energy also makes sense, and most companies have programs underway to do this.

Anything we can economically do to reduce our dependence on imported oil is good.  If it makes us feel better because it also reduces our "carbon footprint" (which I am personally not worried about, but you are), so much the better.

Do we agree so far?

2. New non-fossil based automotive fuels

The automotive industry has a lot of R+D work going on for developing and improving electric or hybrid cars, cars driven with hydrogen, etc.

This is all great, but these technologies still require a basic source of energy to produce the electrical power or hydrogen.  The only way to solve this is to install new power generation plants, and near-term the only economically acceptable non-fossil fuel solution is nuclear generation.

I can live with that.  Unfortunately many people in Europe and North America have been frightened by the anti-nuclear "scare" stories generated by environmental lobby groups (much like the CO2 "scare" stories that are now being promulgated by IPCC and spread via the media and politicians).

So it looks like we first have to undo the damage from these "scare" stories, before we could convince people to go nuclear. It's a real toughie for outfits like Greenpeace, that now have to choose between a nuclear and a carbon footprint.

Longer-term new economically viable non-fossil fuel generation methods could be developed. Fusion reactors (converting deuterium into helium) are still a long way off.  

I don't give solar or wind power much chance to ever become economically viable or feasible on a scale large enough to make a major impact, unless basically new technologies can be developed.  Do you?

Following Brazil's apparent success in converting to sugar cane derived ethanol (from corn, biomass or whatever) could be another way to get away from imported oil.  As I understand it, the economics are still dicey for corn-based ethanol, but maybe these can be improved with new technologies or genetically modified high sugar yield corn. I could sure live with this, as well, but we might have trouble with the green groups who are opposed in pricipal to genetically modified crops and with people who have been influenced by "scare" stories spread by these groups.

Bio-mass as an economically viable source of energy at a large scale is still a thing of the future, but I am all for developing new technologies that make economic and environmental sense.

Are we still on the same track?

3. Carbon capture and injection

One proposed solution for CO2 emissions is "carbon capture" of the stack gases from large power stations and injection back into permeable underground layers of the earth.  This does nothing to conserve energy.  In fact the energy required to compress and inject the CO2 would be substantial so it is a solution that wastes energy rather than conserving it.

The long-term environmental unknowns of injecting massive quantities of CO2 into the earth seem to me to be a much greater risk than letting the CO2 go into the atmosphere, where it is already a minor natural component.

In addition, the technology for doing all this efficiently does not exist and, even if and when it is developed, it would do nothing for smaller energy users, such as automobiles.

So this is one "solution" that I would oppose. How about you?

4. Carbon taxes

IPCC promotes the "Kyoto solution" of establishing carbon taxes to "force" the price of fossil fuels upward.  This opens a can of worms, such as bureaucratic "carbon footprint offset schemes", trading mechanisms, etc. NONE OF WHICH do anything to either conserve energy or reduce CO2 emissions.

IPCC estimates that we currently emit 26 Gt of CO2 per year, which is equal to 7 Gt of carbon.  At a "carbon tax" of  $30 per ton this represents an additional tax on mankind of $210 billion per year, a large part of which will go to paying the bureaucrats that will have to enforce and administer the schemes.

Sure, the money-shufflers will all make a buck on these schemes (International Herald Tribune reported on May 3 that it is a $30 billion business in Europe today, with hedge funds and other new entrants tripling the European trading volumes).

So I see this as an expensive, bureaucratic "non-solution" to what I consider to be a "non-problem".

I know you do not agree the CO2 emissions are a "non-problem".

But can you agree with me that this is a "non-solution", because it does nothing to solve CO2 emissions?

5. Using "scare" tactics to force people to think and act differently

This is where I have the greatest problem with the IPCC.  They are spreading disaster stories under the guise of "science".  The media love "scare" stories, as do the politicians and the environmental activist groups, so everyone hops on the wagon.

Then there are the guys that "scared" us out of nuclear power generation, and now we have to undo the damage in order to get non-fossil fuel power generation plants built.

The same "scare" tactics that got DDT outlawed worldwide, causing millions of new malaria cases and deaths, until the WHO finally lifted its ban on DDT recently.

Throughout the years, politicians have used "scare" tactics to increase their own power and justify all sorts of bad things. This is no different today, but it is hidden under the mantle of "saving the planet from man".

Teachers get our children all anxious by spreading these "scare" stories in school. Ask a 10-year old what his/her greatest fear is, and you are likely to get the answer "floods and storms caused by global warming". It is irresponsible for teachers to scare their pupils, no matter what imagined "good cause" is behind it.

The "scare" stories do not achieve any positive environmental result.

Can you agree with me that spreading environmental "scare" stories is not a solution to the problem?

Let's see on how many of the above we agree.

Then we can concentrate our discussion or debate on those where we disagree.

Regards,

Max

Greesburg Kansas
Flooding in Bangledesh
Enough of that. I could spend all day searching out weather and climate impacts for deniers who NEVER reference their claims.

The so-called MWP wasn't all that warm, didn't last that long and had a much more gradual rise and decline than the current warming. All of this is detailed in the several thousand peer-reviewed journals detailing the IPCC's views on climate change.

Do any of you deniers have anything but pseudo-science and obfuscation? Anything with a link to a scientific paper? Not likely.


Put the Carbon Back

Back in 1900 the USA's deadliest hurricane ever hit Galveston, killing over 8,000 people.  There were not many pictures sent around and no TV or even radio broadcasts.  

Nine of the ten deadliest hurricanes in the USA occurred before 1960, with Katrina (#3 in deaths) the only one since then.

Of the 25 deadliest US tornados, none occurred after 1955. Of the 30 deadliest US tornados, only 2 occurred after 1980.

I am certainly not a "climate denier".

I just find it hard to accept that these storms were caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Sounds like you may be a "MWP denier", though, as are the writers of the "several thousand peer-reviewed journals" you mention.

"Do any of you deniers have anything but pseudo-science and obfuscation? Anything with a link to a scientific paper? Not likely."

Tsk, tsk.  Sounds like you are losing your temper and starting to call names.  For shame.

For the MWP check out: Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., "Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, Vol 23: 89-110 (2003)

For the hurricane and tornado records, check out the NOAA websites.  If you want these references, I can provide them.

In the meantime, cool off.

Max

Enough of that. I could spend all day searching out weather and climate impacts for deniers who NEVER reference their claims.

Yes, you could use the weather pages at ask.com and find anything that varies from the norm and cite "global warming" as the cause.

But how about this (and I know you Crypto-Malthusians hate to be reminded of your past) -- what happened in the Gulf of Mexico?

I mean, where's the bigger Katrina?  It's really quiet there isn't it?   Since every year is the "hottest on record" we should have seen some Cat sixes, maybe even sevens?

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

"Since every year is the 'hottest on record' we should have seen some Cat sixes, maybe even sevens?"

Do you have a proved connection between 'hottest on record' and 'Cat sixes, maybe even sevens?'

You should be more sophisticated than to make a naked assertion and then expect someone here to pick it up as their own:

I guess I responding to Crypto-Malthusianastic articles such as:

Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00 ...

Which were all the rage 2 years ago -- but suddenly as the Modern Warming ( what I call the Goldilocks Optimum ) settles into calm stable warm weather, there doesn't seem to be these big disasters that the CM's can pin on the myth of GW.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes--or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn't include 1992's horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it's hard not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms occur all over the world, and in some places--including the North Indian ocean and the region near Australia--the number has actually fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew.</blockquote.<p> You're worried because they say "superficially, the numbers say yes?"

(The do go on to say that "more-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models" but that doesn't strike me as a strong claim either.

They certainly did not say that global warming impact would be strong enough to override every other aspect of the system (inc. random year to year variation).

For the MWP check out: Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., "Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, Vol 23: 89-110 (2003)

Make sure to check your sources to see if they are actually valid.

That paper was HEAVILY discredited.

They didn't even measure temperature, they measured moisture, counting both high moisture and low moisture as "warm"
and then took a leap of faith that that lined up with temperature.

Completely unscientific.

http://www.greyfalcon.net/hockey.png
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=952

But back to:

"Make sure to check your sources to see if they are actually valid.

That paper was HEAVILY discredited."

So was Mann's hockeystick. Right?

http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/0714 ...

plus many others

Regards,

Max

That paper was HEAVILY discredited.
So was Mann's hockeystick. Right?

In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice age' around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html ...

Nope.

Only thing that stuck with with the Wegman / McKitrick comments was that they didn't like that he used bristlecone pines.
http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf

Furthermore, the error bars in the Mann chart line up well enough with the Moberg 2005 study.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png

But this year, it's been cloudy and cold all up until May.

Guess the Modern Cooling is happening faster than they thought.

Sorry Global Warmers, crisis over.  Go back to looking for asteroids.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/ ...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/19/australia.dro ...

"In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries."

Duh! That was the LITTLE ICE AGE.

"But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain."

Duh, again!  That was the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD.

He also said, "Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis".

Is there anything unclear in this statement?

Regards,

Max

"Only thing that stuck with with the Wegman / McKitrick comments was that they didn't like that he used bristlecone pines."

We've covered Wegman's statement and committee report conclusion above. What "stuck" was that the conclusions of unprecedented warmth in the 1990s and the year 1998 were not supported.

M+M also showed that Mann's hockey stick reconstruction was flawed.  Other statements that "stuck":

"The MBH98 [hockey stick] methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century values."

They showed that "results adverse to their [Mann's] claims were not reported" and that in some cases there were "actual misrepresentations"

Then they criticized the "lack of due diligence involved in peer review" and criticized the IPCC for using the flawed hockey stick in climate policy reports.

Regards,

Max

And with McKitrick, isn't that credible as far as understanding mathematics goes.
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/

It's almost like he intentionally botches the math to make it agree with him....

The conversation is starting to get repetitive.

Anyone can write a paper or article to defend a pet theory or put down a scientific report that disagrees with it.

Mann's hockey stick was DISCREDITED and with it the IPCC claim of unprecedented warmth in the 1990s.

Let's talk about something else.  OK?

Regards,

Max

90% certain for here through the LIA
And 60% certain for the MWP

That isn't bad odds in science stats.

Trick being stats always helps to have more and more reconstructions.
Which is what Moberg is all about.

If you're showing temperature, then show temperature -- don't stick a gas concentration in the series!

It pains a much different (and the only accurate) picture.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

"Trick being stats always helps to have more and more reconstructions.
Which is what Moberg is all about."

Reconstructions, manipulations, justifications.

Whatever.

Bye,

Max

Let's consider Switzerland [from which my ancestors emigrated ~1830, i.e., LIA], which is of course rich, has no coast, and gets lots of rain.

With the exception of the ski business, Switzerland might mostly like warming, although it seems the Swiss government doesn't, and is doing carbon taxes, which must be irksome.

I believe Max is located in/near Maienfeld, Switzerland, [SouthEast of Zurich], and perhaps he can answer a few factual questions about nearby conditions:

1. From Maienfeld, can one actually see the Pizol glacier (which is shrinking, like most Swiss glaciers), or must one go up the hill to see that? I couldn't quite tell the viewing angle from GoogleEarth.

2. Apparently Swiss banks are refusing to lend to some ski resorts below 1500meters.  Bad Ragaz and Wangs are at 510m, but of course the mountain goes much higher, and many European ski resorts have bases much lower than where one actually skis ... some not exactly sure what 1500m means.  Max: do you know?

== Many Swiss live where they can see glaciers, and since ski tourism is major business in Switzerland, Max must know all this, but for others: =

Switzerland keeps good glacier records, and ETHZ (an excellent institution, for those who've never visited) offers a fine website: (good graphs, easy access to raw data, typical careful Swiss:

http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/

Pizol (across the road from Maienfeld, by eyeball, looks like glacier is gone in ~100 yers):
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glaciers/pizol.html

But then, almost all are retreating:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html

Of the 85 measured in 2006, 1 was advancing and 84 were retreating.  But that might be a fluke, so here are the Swiss totals for last 10 years, showing A(dvancing), R(etreating), S(tationary), and % R vs (A+S):
Year A  R S  %R
2006 1 84 0  99%
2005 0 86 7  92%
2004 8 77 7  84%
2003 0 96 0 100%
2002 3 76 6  89%
2001 9 77 6  86%
2000 5 81 4  90%
1999 9 79 6  84%
1998 1 79 2  95%
1997 6 84 9  85%
==
Tot 42 819 47 90%

SKIING
SwissInfo says:
Climate change threatens ski resorts in Europe
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Climate_change_ ...
and in more detail:
http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,2340,en_2649_34361_3781 ...

Swiss resorts ponder snow decline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6420825.stm

Global warming melting magic of Swiss Alps
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=298027& ...

The first URL says: "Banks in Switzerland are refusing to lend money to ski outfits below an altitude of 1,500 metres.

Fortunately, Switzerland mountains are deemed better off than lower ones nearby.

-John Mashey

Thanks for interesting blog.

You are 100% right; it is sad, but true, that the alpine glaciers in Switzerland are retreating today.  They actually have been since the late 19th century.

I can see the Pizol out of my window.  This year there was not much winter snow (in contrast to last year), and we had a warm, sunny month of April (again, in contrast to last year when it snowed well into April). So there is not much snow to see now, just on the very top.

The region where I live has an interesting history, which is tied closely to earlier climate changes, such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which had major impact on the alpine glaciers of this region at the time.

As a descendant from emigrants from Switzerland, some of this history made be of interest to you.

In the late 10th century, a Germanic tribe settled in what is now the upper Valais (or Wallis, as it is called in German).  The climate then was milder than today, and the settlements high in the mountains flourished, resulting in a rapid growth of population.

According to the tradition then, only the eldest son inherited the entire land from his parents (in the case of feudal land it was actually the "right to farm" the land), so that soon there was a growing need for new land.

This trend resulted in an emigration of many families, already starting in the 11th century (much in the same way, I guess, that your ancestors emigrated from Switzerland due to economic pressures several hundred years later).

These German-speaking emigrants were called the "Valser" (after the Valais); they emigrated over the alpine passes into parts of Austria (Voralberg) and Graubünden in Switzerland, with some ending up in northern Italy.

This emigration continued over several hundred years, until the mid 14th century.

In the "Valser" regions of Graubünden, the new arrivals were welcomed by the feudal lords, who were looking for "able-bodied" mountain men to settle the lands and increase their wealth.  Most of the feudal lords were also German-speaking, even though most of the local peasants at the time spoke a Latin language, called Rumantsch (or Rhätoromanisch in German).  With this new immigration, the language border gradually shifted and German became the local language here, as the dwindling Rumantsch-speaking community was replaced by the new arrivals.

All during this period of milder climate, these settlements thrived and expanded. The alpine glaciers were then much smaller than today (it is estimated by around 15%).

With the 16th century came a change in climate.  The glaciers again started growing into what had previously been forestland.  The alpine passes, which the Valser had used in their emigration, again became closed in due to the glacial growth and the advancing glaciers destroyed alpine meadows and villages. This was the end of the expansion of the Valser into high alpine valleys

The settlers were forced to move further down into lower valleys.  Some found new pastures there where they could continue, but many others were forced to take work in newly developing occupations, such as mining, handicraft or transportation.

It was a hard time and many starved. The fast growth of the Valser population slowed down dramatically, due to the consequences of the harsher weather.

The glaciers advanced, off and on, for several centuries and reached their maximum size around 1850 (at an estimated 20% greater size than today).  Then they started to recede again, which they have been doing ever since.

Today you can't get "able-bodied" Valser to move back up into the newly greener valleys to herd cows and goats (they are all working in the Swiss "service" industries, such as tourism and banks).  

While there still are cowherds on the alpine pastures, most of the people in the old Valser high valleys are now making their living in the tourist industry serving winter (and summer) resorts.  Those that are relying on winter snowfall complain when it is mild (like this year) and make a better living when it snows a lot (like last year).  The farmers and cowherds complain in either case that they have a hard life (which they do).

A glacier retreats (or loses net mass) when there is more summer melting than there is winter snowing.  This is certainly the trend here in our region since around 1850.

So you see that glaciers receding, then growing, then receding again is part of our life here.  As skiers, we are sorry that they are receding now, but who knows what they will do long term?

Regards,

Max

This is not right.

They were 15% lower than the MAXIMUM length reached during the LIA, around 1850.

For example, Switzerland's largest glacier, the Aletsch, has a length of 23.6 km today, compared with the LIA maximum of 26.1 km in 1850, so it has shrunk by around 10% in length.  Around 900 years ago it reached a minimum length of around 22 km.  This is around 15% below the LIA maximum, and not 15% below today's length, as I said.

The calculated glacier surface or total volume in Gt of ice, have, of course, fluctuated even more that just the measured length. I believe the total volume loss of the Aletsch since 1850 has been estimated to be around one-third, or 13 Gt.  It has been calculated to be around 27 Gt today.

Regards,

Max

Your message got me to thinking.  So I did some checking on the current status and the history of the Alpine glaciers in Switzerland.

The glaciers in the Swiss Alps are currently receding.  They have been receding since they reached their highest extension around 1850.  Records show that some of the larger glaciers have lost as much as one-third of their maximum volume over these 150+ years, while some smaller ones have lost an even higher percentage of their 1850 volume and a few others have lost less volume.  Some smaller, lower-lying glaciers have disappeared entirely [1,2,3].

As the glaciers recede, they provide evidence of periods when they were smaller than they are today.  This evidence is in the form of remains of trees, other vegetation and insects, which lived at an earlier time, as well as, more rarely, of evidence of early medieval civilization (remnants of huts, mine shafts, etc.) before they were covered by the advancing ice.

In a recent interview, Reid Bryson, the now-retired climate professor from the University of Wisconsin, makes mention of one of these finds from a few years ago, where in addition to remains of a mature forest the remnants of an old silver mine were found [4].  

Such physical evidence is rare but old local records of alpine gold and silver mines shutting down due to advancing ice can be found.

A study was made in 2004 by Christian Schlüchter and Ueli Jöri of the Institut für Geologie, at the University of Bern to determine the historical extent of the expansion and retraction of Swiss alpine glaciers, using the evidence provided by remains of trees, etc. [5].

The two most recent time periods that were identified by these remains were the Medieval Warm Period and the climatic period called the "Roman Optimum". In both periods the glaciers were smaller than they are today, as shown by this evidence. Similar evidence of other more distant periods of glacial retreat and smaller glaciers than today were also found.

The study found that during the "Roman Optimum" the glacier "tongues" were actually 300 meters higher than today, which may help to explain why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps with elephants.

The lowest level of glaciation in the Alps apparently occurred during a period around 7,000 years ago, according to the study.  At that time the glaciers had apparently disappeared almost completely

The study showed that the maximum extension of the Swiss alpine glaciers in the past 10,000 years was around the year 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age.

The study concluded that the expansion and retraction of glaciers is a far more dynamic process than had been assumed to date, with a concluding comment that glacial retreat is not necessarily a result of warming, since periods of dry, colder weather can contribute to glacial retreat just as much as a general warming can.

As you know, a glacier is a river of ice that is constantly flowing.  If there is less winter snow than there is summer run-off, the glacier recedes. That is what is happening in Switzerland.

Based on the measurements made for the largest Swiss glacier, the Aletsch, it is true that the most recent rate of retreat (since 1980) is higher than it was earlier this century and around 50% higher than the overall average rate from 1886 to today. The year of fastest retreat was 2005/2006. Twelve (12) of the twenty-five (25) years of fastest retreat occurred in the 26-year period after 1980, with the other thirteen (13) occurring in the 94-year period prior to 1980. So we can say that the rate of retreat has increased [3].

I could not find any scientific evidence that the current rate of retreat of the glaciers is "unusual" compared to other periods in the paleoclimate record that preceded the Little Ice Age. Since records were not taken then, these data probably do not exist.

Since 1850, when the Swiss alpine glaciers reached their highest stand in 10,000 years, the Swiss glaciers have been retreating, as they have many times in the past. It looks like this will be the case at least for the near future, as long as the milder climate with fewer harsh, snowy winters continues here.

Regards and thanks for getting me interested in checking this all out,

Max

[1] http://www.pronatura.ch/aletsch/de/natur/aletschgletscher ...
[2] http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2006_Steiner ...
[3] http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html
[4] http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
[5] http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004 ...  

Since 1850, when the Swiss alpine glaciers reached their highest stand in 10,000 years, the Swiss glaciers have been retreating,

So part of what your saying in this (great) post, is that why we may seem to be seeing heighten effects of "warming" is that the previous "cooling" was the extreme.

So we're merely pulling out in normal fashion from what was a 10,000 cold minimum!

I would say we should be dancing in the streets for this Modern (what I term the Goldilocks Optimum) Warming -- after centuries of extreme misery!!


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Regards,

Max

In order to make an evaluation, we have to look at.

1. What was the minimum and maximum temperature of the last 10,000 years, T-sub-0, T-sub-1.

2. At what rate is it changing, TV (temperature velocity).

3. What is the rate of the rate of change TA (temperature acceleration).

However, it's pointless to look at TA or TV unless you know what T-sub-0 is and T-sub-1 is.

In other words, if temperature has been higher in the last 10,000 years than the current TV and its TA make it, then who cares?

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Today we're facing a possible rate and magnitude of climate change that we have not seen since the rise of modern society in the last few hundred years ... which is why the experts judge a significant risk of serious impacts.

since the rise of modern society in the last few hundred years ... which is why the experts judge a significant risk of serious impacts.

Ok, so you're admitting it was hotter in 1300 than now...because you've restricted yourself to the "last few hundred years".

At this point, the whole Global Warming thing has completely collapsed.

All you can safely say is that it's hotter now than in 1850.

And you make the crazy argument that after 150 years of technological progress, we are more (not less) prone to disaster and less likely to adapt!

So, it would be better if we were still making buggies and living in wooden cottages?


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Actually, it doesn't.

There was not a gradual, slow warming over the past 10,000 years.

Believe it is general knowledge that there were many periods of warming as well as cooling over the 10,000-year period, as the record shows there were periods of glacial advance and retreat.

I cannot tell you what the warming or cooling rate was in each of these periods, but a rate of 1 deg C per century could certainly have been possible. I have not seen any scientific evidence refuting this possibility.  

Regards,

Max

the record shows there were periods of glacial advance and retreat.

The Crypto-Malthusians have a few millimeters of wax in their ears, but let's try.

The evidence shows the glaciers are far from their highest point.    You must read The Chilling Stars by Svensmark and Calder.

I just got this book from King County Library's Central Kent branch yesterday, and I'm devouring it.

Examples galore:

p. 11

A less public-spirited finder might have put the oddity up for sale on eBay, so the archaeologists of Bern Canton were grateful when Ursula Leuenberger presented them with an archer's quiver made of birch bark.   They were amazed when radiocarbon dating showed the quiver to be 4,700 years old.   Frau Leuenberger had picked it up while walking with her husband in the mountains above Thun.   There, the perennial ice in the Schnidejoch had retreated in the unusually hot summer of 2003, revealing the relic hidden beneath it.

The hiking couple had unwittingly rediscovered a long forgotten short-cut for travelers and traders across the Swiss Alps....By the end of 2005 they [archaeologists] had some 300 items - from the Neolithic Era, the Bronze Age, the Roman period and medieval times.

[...]

Here is a tale of natural variation in climate having a practical influenence on the lives and travels of Europeans over 5,000 years.   The climate was particularly cold in two periods around 800 BC and 1700 AD.  Effects of the latter episode, the Little Ice Age, persisted in the Schnidejoch for so long that even the locals forgot that  a useful pass was ever there.

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were an embarrassment for those who, in recent years, wished to play down the natural variations in climate that occurred before the Industrial Revolution.

1. I agree that the Earth has warmed and cooled over the last 20,000 years, but at a rate slow compared to today.  

2. Over the next 100 years, the Earth might warm at a rate that is unprecedented over the last 20,000 years.  This is documented in the IPCC report.  If you disagree with that, please tell me your data source so I can fact-check it.

3. In the past, climate change has destroyed civilizations.  See Linden's book, Winds of change for a good description of this.

4. The rapid warming of the next century poses a substantial risk of serious climate impacts.  This is described in the recent IPCC report.  For small warmings, rich countries will do OK, but for big warmings, even the richest countries will suffer extensive declines in standard of living and virtually any other metric you can think of.

The discovery of an ancient quiver near a receding glacier is fascinating.

I'm no expert on this, and don't claim to be, but it looks like there are a lot of people out there, like yourself, working on "keeping them honest" (as CNN would say).

Regards,

Max

I believe the key work here is "MIGHT".

Show me the EVIDENCE (not an IPCC report) that this is a realistic assessment.

Regards,

Max

Over the next 100 years, the Earth might warm at a rate that is unprecedented over the last 20,000 years.  This is documented in the IPCC report.  If you disagree with that, please tell me your data source so I can fact-check it.

You glossed over the arguments presented.

AGW shuffle, shuffle.   Deal of the bottom of the deck, that's the con of Global Warmers...

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))