The northern hemisphere had warming in the MWP, for the sake of argument say 1 degree. If the southern hemisphere had no warming or cooling at that period then the average global warming was (1+0)/2 =
0.5 degrees.
To deny the MWP you have to demonstrate commensurate cooling in the southern hemisphere.
Your point about the north Atlantic is misleading. For example China has the same MWP. For example:
formatting link
/quote
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.
You are trotting out that the climate models as evidence? You mean there is none.
A model is a model and will demonstrate what the modeller programmes it to demonstrate.
Increased CO2 in itself causes negligable warming. The models are based on taking that negligable warming and use positive feedback to produce the scary numbers.
I note that at least one contributor to this group has looked at one of the models and found it wanting.
The evidence I need is that there have always been warming and cooling cycles. I've yet to see anything in the current measurements that is out of the ordinary. You seem to see something but it is based on denying the historic data for the little ice age, the medieval warm period, the Holecene climate optimum etc.
formatting link
/quote
The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia)
/end quote
4C warming at the north pole? And the ice didn't melt and cause massive sea level rise and loss of albedo and thermal runaway?
And the Siberian tundra didn't release all its methane?
There is an obvious reason or two. People generally need simple pictures to "get the idea," lacking much science training. If you are trying to make a political sea-change, you don't have the luxury of being scrupulous about details. You need to paint a picture; paint it fast; and make it hit the gut. Sadly, this means becoming exactly what you otherwise want to avoid -- being a propagandist.
The only way out is to educate the public on all the various details and relationships and to then engage the issues in an informed way, making a strong case that each person can examine on their own. But the public isn't going to spend the time, frankly. Not today, not tomorrow, not quickly. Education costs time and money. Politics is now, and if you want to engage the political body you are forced into letting go of the one, truly strong argument there is (science knowledge) and succumb instead to fighting on a turf where you are no better than your opposition -- propaganda approaches to getting a message across.
For example, upon seeing Al Gore's movie my wife commented that it was pretty badly framed. I said, "Why?" She said, "No one here in the US cares about anything unless it is about them. Al Gore went on about different places around the world and the effects it might have there. No one here cares about anyone else but themselves. So Al Gore failed to reach them, if that's who he wanted to reach. Al Gore needs to focus on what will happen HERE in the US, not elsewhere." That was her own gut reaction to the movie's impact on the US. She felt that Al Gore had terribly failed, mostly because he didn't make the movie hit the people in the US in their own backyards.
Which makes the point that on the political landscape this is a war of propaganda and there is no room for educating the public. They won't respond to abstract ideas about some abstract future and abstract peoples, even if those people are their own grandchildren. And they won't inform themselves well, either -- not unless it makes a difference in their personal lives on a time frame that is immediate.
If a politician tries to elevate the argument to a well-informed and educated one as a matter of science, they've already lost the political war. They know this in their bones, if they are any good. So instead they must do what they do well, which is communicate at a more visceral level.
The only saving advantage is that _if_ someone wants to take the time and study a bit, they will find that one political side has far better evidence than the other political side of the question. So for those few, they will find out which propaganda program is based on fact and which isn't.
In simpler, and shorter, terms: Al Gore is the charlatan behind the curtain.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their
behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut-
cases, they should be culled out and disposed of.
I hang my hat on this peg because it is the point that made me sceptical. I have been well aware of the MWP and LIA for about 35 years going back to when the climate scare was the next ice age.
When I saw Mann's notorious hockey stick for the first time I had no interest in climate change. But I instantly recognized a con job. The graph did not show historical facts as I knew them. No one yet has undermined my beleif in these facts.
You wish to curtail the debate to a short period which is the final part of the rising curve from the little ice age. I appreciate historical fact is embarressing the AGW argument.
I believe we are in for an extended period of cooling. We have just come through a grand solar maximum. We are entering a grand minimum. The extended solar minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24 is just one of the indications.
Well, the LIA first made it into the science literature around the mid
1930's. So it appears folks in science predate you just a little.
Isn't it nice that you can just take a quick glance at something and suddenly know that the science is all wrong? Geez, if we could just have you guiding the enterprises of science, there'd hardly be much work left for scientists to actually waste their precious time doing!
No, I just don't think you've addressed yourself to the abundantly clearer scientific situation we find for the last half century. You _choose_ to over-emphasize what we know little about and completely fail to properly deal with what we know a LOT about, first. Put the horse in front of the cart.
You haven't given any reason to care about your beliefs. Your assurances that you can recognize bad science "instantly" are just more assurances piled upon more and don't help, either.
minimum.
A month ago I went through the various web sites talking about the extended lapse of sunspots and various theories. One of the "mostly talked about" theories had predicted that cycle 25, not cycle 24, would be low. This, because prior ideas had it that it takes some 20 years or so for current observations of changes in the "conveyor belt" rate to become observations of sunspots. The same individual has revised their predictions quite a few times since 2005/2006. Which still leaves us without more than a deck of Tarot cards to play with.
formatting link
So far as I'm aware, most folks are watching and waiting right now for the data to sort through various theories and select some and reject others.
In any case, this is also much-to-do about nothing. The solar cycle is indeed unusual. But the difference between the peak forcing (during high sun spot periods) and valley forcing (no sunspots to speak of) is 0.2W/m^2 (peak to peak) and the current "dip" below the bottoms of earlier valley points is about 1/10th of that difference or merely 0.02W/m^2. Compared to what is already known to be the forcing of just anthropogenic modifications to our atmosphere, which is about
2.5W/m^2 or so, it's a very small flea on the back of the dog.
I've been diddling with simulations of super-regenerative receivers in LTspice. Built them too. They squeg just fine. If you're interested, I can dig up the file.
Or elsewhere in the northern hemisphere. and I don't have to demonstrate it, merely show that it was possible.
If you check through the papers that cited this paper, you will find that it didn't. There was a warmer period at around the right time, but while it started at much the same time, it went on longer.
formatting link
which means that different places in the northern hemisphere had different temperatures.
The models that illustrate greenhouse warming aren't actually that flexible.
You are begging the question. The increase in CO2 level from the pre- industrial 280ppm to the current 386ppm on its own would produce significant warming. This warming raises the water vapour level in the lower atmosphere - not nearly as much - which produces additional greenhouse warming. Neither contribution is negligible. While water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, a 38% rise in CO2 is a lot bigger than the concommitent 6.5% rise in water vapour.
Who? James Arthur claims to know a modeller socially and has told us the modeller isn't too happy with their model, but this isn't exactly persuasive evidence about the field as a whole.
C
It does seem to have been localised
"Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to
9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent."
The Holocene Climate Optimum warmth did peak a little later 9,000 to
5,000 years B.P. but it still wasn't equally warm everywhere at the same time - which is a simplifying assumption you seem rather too willing to make.
"While there do not appear to have been significant temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported."
There's no charlatan. Al Gore is out there in front of the curtain, there's real science going on behind the curtain, and he's presenting it remarkably well.
You can't be bothered to try to understand the science, so you make the convenient - but false - assumption that he is lying to you, as pretty much every Republican politician does, as a matter of routine.
In this particular case, we have real magic - a politician telling the truth. It is a pity you aren't equipped to appreciate a miracle when you see one.
No, shorter terms would be that Al Gore accepts reality and is dealing with it as well as possible under the circumstances.
When talking to people who aren't informed on the subject one is inevitably driven to express things in simplifying characatures. You can either make them mentally struggle to understand, and lose them as an audience, or provide a nice cartoon and keep them watching. There is something of substance behind the cartoons. Just as there was fuller substance behind the cartoons that Disney presented to get across some ideas in science, back in the 1950's. The fact is, you address your audience, or else fail in your mission.
The nonsense (non-science) side also presents cartoons. The problem is that there really is nothing of substance behind them.
From the point of view of someone sufficiently ignorant to not know the difference, there is no difference. It's cartoons all the way down for ignorant folks. Of course. But informed people know better.
I am _so_ sorry that I am "uninformed" by your (and Gore's) propaganda. However you are uninformed of any history. You can't see past your nose. You aren't worthy of the designation "engineer".
Think over the content of my SIG. Though I doubt it will impress you in the slightest.
Please go away. Sit in the corner. Suck your thumb. Your _end_ is in sight... good riddance ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their
behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut-
cases, they should be culled from the fraternity and dispatched.
Actually, on the subject of IC design I definitely read what you write. I do so less for your conclusions than how you parse problems. Even better informed minds shouldn't be taken on mere authority. In the case of global warming, you haven't shown the least propensity of inform yourself, sniping wry comments rather than studying, so you are still in the shallow end of the pool there. Do you honestly imagine that your word is all there is to be had on climate science?
Eh? Seems that's the/your whole argument for AGW... we "smart" folks say it's so... if you don't go along with us we'll designate you "uninformed".
Add a little ad hominem, "And you know better. Or should." And then you go away and pat yourself on the back.
Such a level of ignorance posing as Chutzpah!
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their
behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut-
cases, they should be culled from the fraternity and dispatched.
I'm old enough to remember quite a bit of history... actually I've read quite a bit as well. So I'm not easily taken in by _unsubstantiated_ arguments.
And your word? You're just a parrot. Doesn't that make you a little bit afraid? You should be.
But then, maybe you're right, when you are incompetent to make your own argument, it _is_ safer if you cuddle up to the NAZI propaganda line.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question
unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their
behavior is of a religious nature. Thus, like all religious nut-
cases, they should be culled from the fraternity and dispatched.
I haven't seen you post any of your source references or understanding on the subject. Perhaps I missed something.
I'm not a climate science researcher. I'm a hobbyist on the subject. If you expect more from me than trying to understand what scientists write, then you are expecting too much. No fear there. Just work.
That's the pot calling the kettle black if I've seen it.
You haven't noted my harping about past climatologic events that are ignored in formulating the present climate "model"?
And my harping that using that "model" for prediction of the future is a crock?
But that does fit with your model methodology... ignore anything that contradicts.
Go join the Slowman crowd, you'll fit right in.
(It would amuse me to see if you could model some electronic device entirely on your own... that ought to be good for a monumental laugh ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
More harping to pile upon more that I've seen. No, I missed your other comments probably because I wasn't reading much here for a while
-- busy with autism issues and hospice care for a time. Of course, if all I had seen was ignorance from a lack of reading and understanding ISI JCR papers, I probably wouldn't have cared. I like informed challenges. But uninformed ones aren't that interesting.
Actually, that small amount I can do some of. I can even tell you some set ups required in order to ferret out perhaps a few dozen model parameters of BJTs. But I'm a hobbyist here, too. I'm sure you can do better. (And I can am reasonably okay with Laplace, integrating factors, and the like so diff-eq doesn't worry me any. (I've read some of your back-of-the-envelope calculations on BJT circuits without difficulty, for example.)
Of course, since you prefer to just laugh at people, you are free to do so; instead of informing yourself about a subject you want people to imagine you are an expect beyond reproach about. That's your choice and it's none of my affair.
This isn't really an interesting discussion, either. So unless you do better than the above, I probably won't respond unless you find some way to make me feel the need (a barrier that will need more than the above to achieve.)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.