• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Hockey Sticks: Paleoclimatology of Central Asia

LowDown said:
Tree ring analysis of the last 600 years in Central Asia shows no warming trend, no recent increase in temperature up to the year 2012. Temperature variations did not correlate with CO2 but did correlate with solar cycles.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6097
Click to expand...

I wish these climate scientists would do a straight up summary in plain, non overly academic language for the folks like me who don't write in scholarly jargon. But the gist of it does seem to support your summary. I don't know what the AGW religionists will find to discredit you and/or the Royal Meteorological Society but I'm popping my popcorn prepared to watch. :)
 
LowDown said:
Tree ring analysis of the last 600 years in Central Asia shows no warming trend...
Click to expand...
You do understand that "Central Asia" is not the same thing as "The Entire Planet," right? And that they did actually see warming, and theorized why there wasn't continuous warming in the 20th Century?

190295605049.jpg
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
I wish these climate scientists would do a straight up summary in plain, non overly academic language for the folks like me who don't write in scholarly jargon.
Click to expand...
They're writing technical papers for a technical audience. This paper was not written for the general public.


But the gist of it does seem to support your summary.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't.

The "gist" is in the abstract and the conclusion:

Accordingly, this region has become warmer since 1875 as the number of warm/moist and warm/dry years increased by 2 and 14%, respectively, while the number of cool/moist and cool/dry years both decreased by 8% compared to the Little Ice Age. Our findings also reveal a late 20th century cool and wet period, which has also been observed across other mountainous areas of China and Nepal. This period was most probably caused by volcanic‐induced cooling and coincided positive phases of the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation promoting an intensified subtropical westerly jet and a positive summer rainfall anomaly over the Altai‐Dzungarian region....

According to the reconstructed combined variability of temperature and precipitation over the past 433 years, the Altai‐Dzungarian region was cooler and wetter during the LIA and warmer throughout the 20th century. This is in line with findings for the neighbouring Tarim Basin. A continuous 20th century warming trend was, however, not observed. A short combined cool and wet period was detected in the late 20th century, which was likely a result of volcanic‐induced cooling and a positive phase of the AO promoting an intensified subtropical westerly jet and a positive summer rainfall anomaly over the Altai‐Dzungarian region.

The OP's implication "Look Ma, no warming!!!" does not accurately describe the paper's findings. And and as already mentioned: "the Altai‐Dzungarian region" ≠ "The Entire Planet."

As to how climate scientists will react? They'll check to make sure the methodology is accurate. If it is, they will put it in the context of all the other information we have about proxy temperatures.
 
Visbek said:
They're writing technical papers for a technical audience. This paper was not written for the general public.



It really doesn't.

The "gist" is in the abstract and the conclusion:

Accordingly, this region has become warmer since 1875 as the number of warm/moist and warm/dry years increased by 2 and 14%, respectively, while the number of cool/moist and cool/dry years both decreased by 8% compared to the Little Ice Age. Our findings also reveal a late 20th century cool and wet period, which has also been observed across other mountainous areas of China and Nepal. This period was most probably caused by volcanic‐induced cooling and coincided positive phases of the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation promoting an intensified subtropical westerly jet and a positive summer rainfall anomaly over the Altai‐Dzungarian region....

According to the reconstructed combined variability of temperature and precipitation over the past 433 years, the Altai‐Dzungarian region was cooler and wetter during the LIA and warmer throughout the 20th century. This is in line with findings for the neighbouring Tarim Basin. A continuous 20th century warming trend was, however, not observed. A short combined cool and wet period was detected in the late 20th century, which was likely a result of volcanic‐induced cooling and a positive phase of the AO promoting an intensified subtropical westerly jet and a positive summer rainfall anomaly over the Altai‐Dzungarian region.

The OP's implication "Look Ma, no warming!!!" does not accurately describe the paper's findings. And and as already mentioned: "the Altai‐Dzungarian region" ≠ "The Entire Planet."

As to how climate scientists will react? They'll check to make sure the methodology is accurate. If it is, they will put it in the context of all the other information we have about proxy temperatures.
Click to expand...

So where is the anthropological CO2 or any human activity as the primary culprit of observable warming in that? Which I believe is the point of the OP.

And I realize they were writing for the scientific community. I just wish they would summarize it in non-scientific jargon as well as the way they do it. It wasn't a demand or even a criticism. My wishes are what they are.
 
Visbek said:
You do understand that "Central Asia" is not the same thing as "The Entire Planet," right? And that they did actually see warming, and theorized why there wasn't continuous warming in the 20th Century?

190295605049.jpg
Click to expand...

Neither do tree rings from Siberia, for that matter. You AGW guys aren't big on consistency, I guess.
 
AlbqOwl said:
So where is the anthropological CO2 or any human activity as the primary culprit of observable warming in that?
Click to expand...
Human activity started to have an impact around 200 years ago, with most of the impacts happening in the 20th and 21st century.

The paper is looking at a 433 year period. It points out, again, that the region started warming in 1875, and that the observed cooling cycles were likely due to volcanic effects and Arctic Oscillation periods.

I.e. nothing about this paper in any way refutes the AGW hypothesis.
 
humbolt said:
Neither do tree rings from Siberia, for that matter. You AGW guys aren't big on consistency, I guess.
Click to expand...
Yaay, accusation and claims without evidence! Always fun.
 
Visbek said:
Yaay, accusation and claims without evidence! Always fun.
Click to expand...

Evidence? Ask Michael Mann. Otherwise, if you don't know where he got his notorious tree rings, maybe you should check.
 
Visbek said:
Human activity started to have an impact around 200 years ago, with most of the impacts happening in the 20th and 21st century.

The paper is looking at a 433 year period. It points out, again, that the region started warming in 1875, and that the observed cooling cycles were likely due to volcanic effects and Arctic Oscillation periods.

I.e. nothing about this paper in any way refutes the AGW hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Except that volcanic effects and arctic oscillation occur regardless of the AGW hypothesis. I concede that the AGW proponents will just say we are having unusual AO due to AGW, and the volcanoes don't matter all that much. But the scientific paper cited in the OP sure doesn't make any kind of case for that.
 
Yup, the hockey stick graph was infamous for being a complete sham.
 
From the OP source:

According to the reconstructed combined variability of temperature and precipitation over the past 433 years, the Altai‐Dzungarian region was cooler and wetter during the LIA and warmer throughout the 20th century. This is in line with findings for the neighbouring Tarim Basin. A continuous 20th century warming trend was, however, not observed. A short combined cool and wet period was detected in the late 20th century, which was likely a result of volcanic‐induced cooling and a positive phase of the AO promoting an intensified subtropical westerly jet and a positive summer rainfall anomaly over the Altai‐Dzungarian region.
Click to expand...

The North/South/Greenland ice shelves and glaciers aren't melting at record paces because nothing significant is happening.

The entire world can easily see this phenomenon (yes, even the US military is planning for climate change) except Trumpers. Our modern day flat-earthers.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Except that volcanic effects and arctic oscillation occur regardless of the AGW hypothesis. I concede that the AGW proponents will just say we are having unusual AO due to AGW, and the volcanoes don't matter all that much. But the scientific paper cited in the OP sure doesn't make any kind of case for that.
Click to expand...
You admitted a minute ago that you couldn't understand the paper. So....

Volcanic activity is not constant. I.e. they don't consistently lower temperatures by 0.2C per year. The authors correlated volcanic eruption dates to cooler periods in Figure 6.

AOs also are not constant. I.e. they don't consistently produce more or less precipitation every year. The authors explain that AO/NAOs are likely correlated to moisture/precipitation variability.

Nothing in this article refutes AGW.

We could also discuss lots and lots and lots of data from around the world which shows that yes, temperatures have risen significantly during the past 100-200 years. And we're not talking about proxy data either, we're talking about temperature measurement stations that use modern equipment. Any interest? If not, then why not?
 
Visbek said:
You do understand that "Central Asia" is not the same thing as "The Entire Planet," right? And that they did actually see warming, and theorized why there wasn't continuous warming in the 20th Century?

190295605049.jpg
Click to expand...

Jumping right in to deny the science, ans normal.
 
Visbek said:
You admitted a minute ago that you couldn't understand the paper. So....

Volcanic activity is not constant. I.e. they don't consistently lower temperatures by 0.2C per year. The authors correlated volcanic eruption dates to cooler periods in Figure 6.

AOs also are not constant. I.e. they don't consistently produce more or less precipitation every year. The authors explain that AO/NAOs are likely correlated to moisture/precipitation variability.

Nothing in this article refutes AGW.

We could also discuss lots and lots and lots of data from around the world which shows that yes, temperatures have risen significantly during the past 100-200 years. And we're not talking about proxy data either, we're talking about temperature measurement stations that use modern equipment. Any interest? If not, then why not?
Click to expand...

I did not say I did not understand the paper. You may be having trouble understanding what I posted.

I did not say that AOs and/or volcanic activity is constant or that the paper said that. Again you may be having trouble understanding what I posted.

I did not say it refuted AGW. Again you may be having trouble understanding what I posted.

If temperatures have risen during the last 100 years or 200 years, and since we are still technically coming off the last ice age that is to be expected in a general sense, the paper did suggest that there are entirely normal explanations for that. Which is the point of the OP.
 
Visbek said:
You do understand that "Central Asia" is not the same thing as "The Entire Planet," right? And that they did actually see warming, and theorized why there wasn't continuous warming in the 20th Century?

190295605049.jpg
Click to expand...

Mann's hockey stick graph was based on tree rings from one specific area, but they generalized it to the whole planet when it was taken to the public. This study shows that they were wrong to do so. The extent of the hockey stick phenomenon, if it exists at all, is very much a subject of controversy.
 
Visbek said:
Nothing in this article refutes AGW.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Chicoms are probably keeping the CO2 out of central Asia. They're so authoritarian.

We could also discuss lots and lots and lots of data from around the world which shows that yes, temperatures have risen significantly during the past 100-200 years. And we're not talking about proxy data either, we're talking about temperature measurement stations that use modern equipment. Any interest? If not, then why not?
Click to expand...

Of course there is other data, and it all should be taken in context. What does it mean that the hockey stick is seen in one place and not another? Probably not a global phenomenon.
 
humbolt said:
Neither do tree rings from Siberia, for that matter. You AGW guys aren't big on consistency, I guess.
Click to expand...

their only consistent on evidence that agrees with them not much else.
 
LowDown said:
Yeah, the Chicoms are probably keeping the CO2 out of central Asia. They're so authoritarian.



Of course there is other data, and it all should be taken in context. What does it mean that the hockey stick is seen in one place and not another? Probably not a global phenomenon.
Click to expand...

i bet if they use the hockey stick graph to do the same data they would see a hockey stick.
they obviously used a different method.
 
The malpractice that has characterized much of the work of the paleoclimate community is little by little exposed by new research such as this. Hockey sticks are created by skewed sample selection and statistical incompetence.
 
Jack Hays said:
The malpractice that has characterized much of the work of the paleoclimate community is little by little exposed by new research such as this. Hockey sticks are created by skewed sample selection and statistical incompetence.
Click to expand...

I expect climate change to continue to be studied and it should be. But it is reassuring to see some what appear to be entirely competent scientific studies concluding that the evidence just isn't there that we are facing a crisis situation anytime soon. That should be good news to those who say they have been worried about all this. But they just don't seem to want to believe any good news. Why?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I expect climate change to continue to be studied and it should be. But it is reassuring to see some what appear to be entirely competent scientific studies concluding that the evidence just isn't there that we are facing a crisis situation anytime soon. That should be good news to those who say they have been worried about all this. But they just don't seem to want to believe any good news. Why?
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]"Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]—Representative Barber Conable[/FONT]
 
AlbqOwl said:
:) Since those receiving lucrative government grants to study climate change could lose those grants should they conclude there is no crisis or even a problem, that is a pretty good incentive to keep the AGW theory alive and well.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think money is the biggest deal for most. Their professional reputations and standing are invested in the AGW narrative. They defend it to defend themselves.
 
Jack Hays said:
I actually don't think money is the biggest deal for most. Their professional reputations and standing are invested in the AGW narrative. They defend it to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Ah, I deleted the post you quoted hoping to clean it up but not to change the gist of what I was saying.

What I intended to say in response to your Post #23 was:
:) Since those receiving lucrative government grants to study climate change could lose those grants should they conclude there is no crisis or even a problem, that is a pretty good incentive to keep the AGW theory alive and well. And since that is the politically correct stance these days, I suppose that means that the marching orders to the left are to help it along with public opinion.

I do think that it is the money though. I simply don't believe professional pride would make an ethical and competent scientist doggedly promote a narrative once it has been scientifically brought into question. Competent scientists by nature are open to new information and concepts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom