Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 Next
Comments 94901 to 94950:
-
steve anthoney at 09:56 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
If the minimum ice coverage occurs around September, then looking at the illustration of those globes around the sun, it seems that the ice melts just at the time when the sun is setting for the winter, and it is too late for the sun to have any warming effect on the ocean. -
Bibliovermis at 09:53 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist1, The strength of your conviction is not sufficient to validate your claims. Please provide supporting references. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:50 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... Out of curiosity, can I ask where you get most of your information on climate science? -
Bibliovermis at 09:48 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 (#176), Please read argument #2, Climate's changed before, in the top left corner and ask any questions you have on that thread. Solar irradiance changes have been the primary climate forcing agent over the past few thousand years. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:47 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1... There is far less conflicting evidence than you seem to think. To echo RickG, one piece of contradictory information does not put a hole in the theory. Contradictory information generally points to a place where more study is needed to understand what about it is contradictory and why. In order to put AGW in question you'd have to come up with a competing theory that explained all the empirical evidence better. You'd also have to explain why CO2 has less impact than we currently measure and physics predicts. That's a mighty tall order, literally on the level of overturning evolutionary theory. You say, "Can you give me all the details explaining each 100 year period for the last few thousand years?" A great deal of those changes in climate are very well understood. You just don't read about them on skeptic blogs. It's all in the peer reviewed literature. And there is a lot of it. -
Chemist1 at 09:47 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Dana, my disagreements are well supported in peer review literature and textbooks. Are you familiar with GIA?Moderator Response: [muoncounter] For those who might not be familiar, Chemist1 is most likely referring to glacial isostatic adjustment, the process of restoring gravitational equilibrium to land surfaces formerly buried by kilometers-thick ice sheets. The history of this idea goes back to Celsius in 18th century Sweden; it is extremely well-documented. -
steve anthoney at 09:37 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Its not arrogant and nihilistic to look at all the evidence, including evidence which may not support man made climate change, and including for example the strong scientific evidence that multi decadal ocean current oscillations have a large influence on the climate. Also the fact that greenhouse radiation can only warm a few millimetres of the ocean surface. It seems ridiculous to react to slight changes in atmospheric temperature when the oceans have a hundred times the heat capacity. Perhaps its easier for some to draw cartoons of drowning pet dogs than to study the science without political bias. And has anyone answered my question on population growth ? If population doubles in the next 50 years then my efforts to walk to work to save the polar bears will have been in vain !Response: "...including for example the strong scientific evidence that multi decadal ocean current oscillations have a large influence on the climate"
Climate scientists are well aware that ocean cycles affect climate. You make a good point - it's a very good idea to examine what's happening to the oceans as they have a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere (in fact, over 90% of global warming is going into the oceans). So when we take a close look at the ocean, what do we see?
Firstly, we find globally, the oceans are building up heat. This cannot be explained by ocean cycles - it can only be explained by the planet being in energy imbalance. Our climate is accumulating heat:
The pattern of ocean warming provides much information also - we see heat penetrating from the surface into the deep waters in all the oceans of the world. Peer-reviewed research into this warming pattern found "the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system." (Barnett 2007).
-
DonaldB at 09:17 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Arrogance and nihilism seem to be common attributes of many "sceptics"- the ones for whom scepticism means a choice not believe the evidence- "If AGW is real, then I should able to see it, and its consequences should affect me!" -
Jim at 09:07 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Measuring current sea level doesn’t seem to be all that difficult for NASA/JPL: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ Actually this is a quite spectacular site for all the most recent measured data: ice extent, CO2 percent, global temperature, etc., presented on one screen. -
John Hartz at 08:41 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I believe that your exclusive focus on the single measure of Annual Global Mean Temperature of the lower atmosphere understates the impacts that the increased greenhouse effect driven by mankind's activities has had since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. As we all know, the world's oceans have absorbed most of the additional energy generated. The Earth's climate systems have been "charged" in ways that we are just beginning to observe, measure, and comprehend. -
John Hartz at 08:30 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
The user friendliness of this article would be improved by adding tabs for "Related Articles (posted on SkS) and "Recommended Reading." -
Doug Mackie at 08:24 AM on 21 February 2011CO2 has a short residence time
The short urls post has reminded me I have been remiss in not responding here. Some responses: @16 CBDunkerson re oceans soaking up the rest if we stop emitting today. The oceans only absorb because of the difference (disequilibrium) between atmosphere and surface ocean. Crudely simplifying the greater the difference the greater the absolute uptake by the oceans. Problem 1: Climate ‘inertia’. e.g. realclimate Problem 2: Ocean acidification (a focus of my own research group). e.g. the other problem various from drrocket: Incoherent runny bum dribble. Not even sure what you are trying to say. @22 koyaanisqatsi Other commenters are correct; it is not the best idea to get hung up on a single paragraph written for a mass audience compared to the actual data set. When I write a cheque then if there is a difference between the words and the figures then they trust the words because it is easier to make a mistake with figures. Plainly the 1% comes from someone else interpreting the data. I suspect that paragraph is the victim of rounding or that your +oceans interpretation is correct. The paragraph reads as if it has been written by a technical writer as opposed to a mission scientist. I recall a similar discussion years ago with someone who had a dodgy claim and would not accept any rebuttals from peer reviewed journals because they were not authoritative sources like “New Scientist”. Yes, perhaps the paragraph lends itself to misuse by deniers but I take it your friend is similarly critical of denialist writings? -
RickG at 08:24 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1: It only takes one piece of conflicting evidence to disprove a hypothesis, but that aside the key is understanding the energy balance in detail and the role of evaporation, clouds and precipitation that drive the feedback mechanism. You would have to overturn a lot of well understood physics to do that. Anthropogenic climate change is not a hypothesis, its a theory. As for the energy balance it is well documented with satellite data. Remember, you said yourself that you only believe in satellite data. There is a paper about Earth's energy imbalance (Murphy 2009) and a discussion about it on this site as well here. Again, just saying you don't believe something doesn't make it so, especially in the face of all the empirical evidence that exists and been shown to you. -
dana1981 at 08:23 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
Chemist, you are of course free to disagree, but the statements in the article are supported. Yours are not. -
Chemist1 at 07:58 AM on 21 February 2011Prudent Path Week
I must disagree with two points: first on sea level rise. There exists no reliable way to detect it and the best available methods show little to no rise Second, GCM hindcasts and projections, have in peer review to be shown to be unreliable. -
RW1 at 07:43 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RickG, "I don't doubt you believe that due to your past posting history completely ignoring all evidence presented to you in favor or incredible cherry picking and conflicting statements. How about presenting the "way too much conflicting evidence" you for anthropogenic climate change. And while doing that, please present it in the proper thread here." It only takes one piece of conflicting evidence to disprove a hypothesis, but that aside the key is understanding the energy balance in detail and the role of evaporation, clouds and precipitation that drive the feedback mechanism. -
RW1 at 07:36 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
pbjamm (RE: 172), "Yes, climate changes, but when it does so it is not random. There are measurable forces that make it happen. If you disagree with the evidence that is presented supporting the anthropogenic cause then please provide an alternative explanation. What do you propose is causing the current change in the climate?" What do you propose caused all the climate change in the past? Can you give me all the details explaining each 100 year period for the last few thousand years? What do you propose changed the climate over the past few thousand years? -
dorlomin at 07:33 AM on 21 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
For any Monckton fans http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/1/fbW-aHvjOgM Potholer54 has a go. -
les at 07:20 AM on 21 February 2011It's cooling
140 Mr Anderson Also read http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm Your welcome. -
les at 07:13 AM on 21 February 2011It's cooling
140 Mr Anderson. I think you will find that you are completely wrong. Next you should read this and if you have anynew, and interesting data or comments, add them in the comment section. HTH. -
Marcus at 07:05 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 "No, it's pretty meaningless. The point is it shows how much the temps can fluctuate from year to year. That's all. " Nope, you shot yourself in the foot, by doing exactly what I said *all* denialists do-tell us x amount of years is insufficient, then try to prove a trend on the basis of a single year or month-as you just did. Of course month to month & year to year data is variable (though not as much as you try to claim), as heat is being exchanged between the air & the oceans, but over several decades a statistically significant, discernible can be seen-& that trend says the planet is warming. Also, if you look at *all* temperature readings-air, sea surface & deep sea-you see a definite build-up in heat that just can't be made to disappear with denialist hand waving! -
Charlie A at 07:02 AM on 21 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
zinfan94 at 15:52 PM on 19 February, 2011: "It might be worth pinging Roger Pielke Sr. on the subject of this post. RPSr made a series of comments on this site last summer, where he claimed that ocean heat content measurements weren't supporting the planetary heating rate expected by AGW. He hinted revisions to OHC and SLR measurements would support his view." See the links in my comment above. The main problem most readers of this blog will have with his comments is that it only uses the most recent instrumentation systems .... Argo and satellites, so the analysis only goes back to around 2004. If we ignore satellites and only use tide gauges and XBT temp measurements, the analysis is quite different. -
RickG at 06:50 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#171 RW1: I don't doubt the change that's occurring - just the alleged primary anthropogenic cause, which from energy budget/balance standpoint is an incredibly small perturbation. There is just way too much conflicting evidence. I don't doubt you believe that due to your past posting history completely ignoring all evidence presented to you in favor or incredible cherry picking and conflicting statements. How about presenting the "way too much conflicting evidence" you for anthropogenic climate change. And while doing that, please present it in the proper thread here. -
Michael H Anderson at 06:44 AM on 21 February 2011It's cooling
Climategate U-turn No warming in 15 years, from the mouth of Phil Jones himself - NEXT! -
muoncounter at 06:44 AM on 21 February 2011It's cosmic rays
The 'its cosmic rays' crowd should be poised for a big couple of weeks. The recent solar flares (coronal mass ejections or CMEs) have arrived on earth, bringing "waves of ionization." More are coming, as the active far side of the sun rotates our way in the next week or two. See 19 Feb and 20 Feb spaceweather.com for a recap. The WUWT crowd is excited by this news, responding with such gems as "Global Temps should go up? (as middle height tropical clouds do not form droplets see svensmark). Interesting to record the time it takes…" So far, some very nice auroral displays.
-- spaceweather's Aurora gallery
Surface neutron monitors are unimpressed, example here, (approx a -4% change), which is not much compared to this 3x larger event from September 2005. Note these are links to dynamically generated images from the online neutron monitor at Oulu, Finland. These are known as Forbush decreases, as ionizing radiation shields the earth's surface from the normal CR flux. Yes, in another of nature's apparent paradoxes, a solar flare can decrease ground level cosmic ray counts.
And the effect on clouds is ...
-
Charlie A at 06:41 AM on 21 February 2011Deep ocean warming solves the sea level puzzle
#16 Ken Lambert: "How does this paper fit with NOAA chart which shows flat OHC from ARGO 2003-2010 since the step jump of the 2002-2003 period? See here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ " The Argo graph you show is for the top 700 meters. Preliminary updated information is discussed by Josh Willis in e-mails to Pielke Sr at http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/update-of-preliminary-upper-ocean-heat-data-analysis-by-josh-willis-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Can-unpublished-update%E2%80%9D/ and http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/where-is-the-missing-argo-upper-ocean-heat-data/ ---------------- The very brief summary is: Argo measures about 0.16 watts/meter-squared (referenced to total earth surface, using the same units as top-of-atmosphere imbalance figures) in the upper 700 meters of ocean. Pukey says 0.095+/-0.062 w/m^2 in the deep ocean. (roughly 0.1w/m^2). 0.16 + 0.1 is much less than the 0.6w/m^2 expected by models for top-of-atmosphere imbalance. (0.6w/m^2 is the old Hansen number). In post #12 above, Zinfan uses the 0.9w/m^2 number of later, improved models, which only increases the gap in closure of the energy budget. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - As pbjamm correctly notes, the climate changes; and we know why. It's changing now; and we know why. There are ranges of uncertainties, there are short term (<10-11 year ENSO and the like) variability, but we know what's going on, and the major driver right now is our excess CO2 raising the temperature of the climate. We have good records of the forcings for the last million years or so that have caused long term changes in climate, and aside from CO2 just about all of them are declining right now. It's us, and there's really no reasonable question about it. Denying that we are having a major effect on our climate (which seems to be the gist of your posts) is simply wishful thinking. I'm not dumbfounded by your position - just saddened. -
pbjamm at 06:19 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1@171 "I'm sorry, the planet is very dynamic - it doesn't do anything but change." Yes, climate changes, but when it does so it is not random. There are measurable forces that make it happen. If you disagree with the evidence that is presented supporting the anthropogenic cause then please provide an alternative explanation. What do you propose is causing the current change in the climate? -
RW1 at 06:12 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "You have to step back from the data for a minute and look at all the lines of evidence. It's not just Arctic sea ice. It's not just the satellite data. It's not just ice mass loss in Greenland. It's not just the measured Arctic amplification. It's not just the measured increase in atmospheric water vapor. It's not just... I could go on and on here. There are thousands of lines of empirical evidence that show quite clearly that what we believe is happening is actually happening. And yet, you still cling to the few anomalies to the massive amount of evidence we do have." I'm sorry, the planet is very dynamic - it doesn't do anything but change. I don't doubt the change that's occurring - just the alleged primary anthropogenic cause, which from energy budget/balance standpoint is an incredibly small perturbation. There is just way too much conflicting evidence. "Honestly, I'm just trying to understand why this is. I'm completely dumbfounded." I can see that. -
muoncounter at 05:38 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob, That's exactly where I was heading when I recalled this is an ice thread, not a temperature thread. Some months ago I posted a graph comparing UAH to GISS temperatures; they do not have the same values (no surprise there), but over the life of the satellite data, their trends are indistinguishable. To use the language of high school algebra: If satellite = good and surface duplicates satellite, then surface = good. As far as 30 years being insufficient to determine natural variability, that's one man's opinion. To misquote, "the trend's the thing." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:33 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 said... "What exactly is so blatantly obvious? That there's clear downward trend in Artic sea ice since the start of the satellite record, or that anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the decline? The former is not in dispute." You have to step back from the data for a minute and look at all the lines of evidence. It's not just Arctic sea ice. It's not just the satellite data. It's not just ice mass loss in Greenland. It's not just the measured Arctic amplification. It's not just the measured increase in atmospheric water vapor. It's not just... I could go on and on here. There are thousands of lines of empirical evidence that show quite clearly that what we believe is happening is actually happening. And yet, you still cling to the few anomalies to the massive amount of evidence we do have. Honestly, I'm just trying to understand why this is. I'm completely dumbfounded. -
Stephen Leahy at 05:23 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#167 Absolutely Agree. Huge waste of time w RW1. Can't believe the thread lasted this long. -
Albatross at 04:57 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
In repsonse to anther poster who said (correctly) that "The trend of summer minima is down and accelerating." RW1 responded with, "How can it be accelerating when the past 3 years have seen a larger summer minimum than the record low of 2007?" I and others have pointed out that the loss of summer Arctic sea ice loss (and volume) is accelerating, when called on this RW1 then says: "I'm not disputing that the documented period we have shows a downward trend, but 30 years is hardly enough data to show whether this is anything significant or just random noise of natural variability." Wow, quite the contradiction and shift of the goal posts. Given that the trend over 32-years is statistically significant, that shows that we do have sufficient data to extract a signal from the 32 years of data. Regarding natural variability, RW1 needs to familiarize himself/herself witht he latest research. For example Polyak et al. (2010) conducted a meta analysis of Arctic paleo records and concluded that: “The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.” I have lost cout of how many times RW1 has been shown to be wrong or guilty of misleading or parroting misinformation on this thread. I do not see any interest by RW1 to learn or accept the facts presented to him/her-- I think we all know what such behaviour is called..... I hope that people following this thread see for themselves the contempt that so-called "skeptics" hold for the science and for facts, and how uninterested they are in learning. -
Bernhard at 04:50 AM on 21 February 2011I want to earn my future, not inherit it
Caroza You said: (I frequently find myself feeling grateful for being 49 and not having children, because I won't have to see the worst of it, which is an awful way to think). With GW and all the "Peaks" coming so clearly to my understanding, I keep asking myself why I did not stick to what I thought when I was 15/ 16: I do not want to have children in a world like this". Now, I recently turned 50. But I do have young grown up children I love dearly and I will (and them and all the rest of us) have to see the worst of it. I truly understand your "awful" way to think. -
RW1 at 04:49 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
muoncounter (RE: 162), All I'm saying is that 30 years is not nearly enough time to establish an accurate range of variability. -
RW1 at 04:41 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Rob Honeycutt, "what is so blatantly obvious" What exactly is so blatantly obvious? That there's clear downward trend in Artic sea ice since the start of the satellite record, or that anthropogenic global warming is the cause of the decline? The former is not in dispute. -
RW1 at 04:33 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
johnkg (RE: 160), "Does this upward trend mean anything to you?" Not much. It's ant crumbs - barely outside the margin of error.Moderator Response: [DB] Handwaving and denialism is a poor substitute for facts. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:26 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Muoncounter... "Sure, satellite data may be 'better' than prior data..." And... the mere fact that the satellite data very closely mirrors the other data sets should give one confidence in all the other data. That's just how it works! It seems far too convenient to dismiss data that you don't want to accept when the data is obviously corroborated via multiple sources. -
Mike G at 04:25 AM on 21 February 2011Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
Here's a good link illustrating "the tobacco strategy" as used by AGW deniers. -
muoncounter at 04:20 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
Sadly, RW1 has is doing little more than pulling a page from the same tired old denial playbook. Worse still, it's a game that's gone on here before. With 'I don't think its nearly enough' RW1 rejects 30 years of data as an insufficient sample. With 'I'm looking at UAH and RSS,' and 'I tend to only trust satellite on this', RW1 restricts his world to a 30 year dataset, thereby setting up the inevitable infinite loop: Thirty years is all we have; thirty years isn't enough to tell what's happening. We saw this earlier in this thread with ice extent data. Sure, satellite data may be 'better' than prior data (whatever 'better' means here), but that does not mean that prior data are all wrong. I was in the oil business way back in the pencil and paper days; when computer-aided mapping came out, there was a rush to replace anything hand drawn because the computer maps were 'better'. Trouble was, we'd found a heck of a lot of oil and gas with those hand drawn maps. They weren't wrong. In this case, standards exist: "Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations." You don't get to simply declare 'I don't think 30 years is long enough'; that may be your opinion, but if you base your scientific conclusions on opinions, you do so at the risk of all credibility. But this is an ice thread, not a temperature thread. There are plenty of those. Detailed temperature analysis comments should go to the appropriate thread. -
A Swift Kick in the Ice
RW1 - 30 years is plenty of time for statistical significance, as has been well established by looking at the year to year variability. In particular, look at the first figure here, where sea ice minimum extent is multiple standard deviations below previous values and trending steeply downward. I will point out that your repeated "I don't trust anything but the satellite data" statements, joined with your claims that a 1922 article establishes high variability, are rather contradictory. That said, all data is worth something, whether it's Viking reports on sea ice levels from a 1000 years ago or current satellite data - you just have to consider coverage, accuracy, and consistency. The Walsh data drops in accuracy pre-1953, but that's still >50 years of accurate data and best estimates for before that. Now: your initial queries were regarding albedos. That was covered more than extensively on the Lindzen and Choi and the Chemistry of CO2 Absorption threads, not to mention here, where multiple people demonstrated that a simple albedo and gain calculation was insufficient and incorrect for calculating climate response. Exactly what objection to the observed Arctic icecap retreat are you trying to raise? This discussion would benefit greatly from some clarity on that question. -
johnkg at 04:16 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#159. Thanks Rob #157. RW1, Does this upward trend mean anything to you? -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
If I take Roy's 13 month running average and put a trend line across the top of it this is what I get. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:10 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
re: 153... I have to say, I always find it interesting that Roy Spencer never adds a trend line to his data. -
RW1 at 04:09 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
johnkg (RE: 155), "I see a pretty clear upward trend in that graph." No, you are absolutely correct, there is an upward trend of about 3-4 tenths of a degree over the period. Other data sets show a little more, about 4-5 tenths of a degree. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:04 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
I have to say, I am continually fascinated as to how and why people such as RW1 (who is obviously no dummy) can look at the preponderance of evidence pointing to one clear answer, but still look at small pieces of superficially anomalous information (slightly increasing Antarctic sea ice extent) and believe it somehow cast doubt on all the other evidence. I don't mean this to be an indictment of his capacity to comprehend this stuff. That's obviously not the case. But I just don't understand why it's such a challenge to accept what is so blatantly obvious, while at the same time grasping so fearlessly at the smaller contradictions. -
johnkg at 03:43 AM on 21 February 2011A Swift Kick in the Ice
#153. I see a pretty clear upward trend in that graph. Source data for that graph taken from here: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt. Its the global column (3). Maybe a chartist can bung a line on it and prove me wrong :) -
jimalakirti at 03:35 AM on 21 February 2011Link to skeptic rebuttals with short URLs
Great tool for the tweeting world. -
Utahn at 03:28 AM on 21 February 2011Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?
Another analogy is "everyone knows co2 causes warming, but it's not enough to warrant alarm or government regulation"~"everyone knows smoking causes cancer, but 2nd hand smoke is not nearly strong enough to cause problems or warrant government regulation". -
angusmac at 03:19 AM on 21 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Moderator, please note that I stated that the proxies were for the NH, at no time have I stated otherwise. Furthermore, we should compare proxy temperatures with proxy temperatures not instrumental records. Personally, I do not care if the temperature in 1010 was slightly hotter or colder than 2010 but we should compare like with like. It is statistically and physically incorrect to compare recent instrumental temperatures with 1000-year old proxies. Marcus, from Figure 6.10c, the rate of rise in proxy temperatures from approximately 950 to 1000 looks very similar to the rate of rise in proxy temperatures from 1940+ but I do not have the original data to make a more accurate comparison. I disagree that my comparison is odius. You have stated other factors appear to have caused the MWP and I do not disagree with these other factors but the fact remains that the MWP was relatively warm (in the NH at least). Why haven't the proxies been updated so that we can compare recent proxies with the 1000-year old proxies? This would also allow comparison between recent proxies and recent instrumental records. I reiterate that Figure 6.10c of AR4 shows similar proxy temperatures 1000 years ago to the most-recent present-day proxies. If anyone has a problem with that then please contact the IPCC; they produced the diagram not me.
Prev 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 Next
