• 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!

Foundation of a New Climate Paradigm

Jack Hays said:
[h=3]Lüning et al., 2019[/h][h=6]“The main MCA warming phase coincides with a higher SAM, more El Niño-dominated ENSO, more positive IPO and higher solar activity (Abram et al., 2014; Conroy et al., 2008; Steinhilber et al., 2012; Vance et al., 2015) (Fig. 5). Spectral analysis of the classical Mt Read tree rings series (site 5), yields characteristic cycle periods associated with the solar Gleissberg (80 years) and Suess-de Vries (210 years) cycles (Cook et al., 1995; Cook et al., 2000). … An alternation of well-defined multicentennial warm and cold phases has been reconstructed for Grotto of Oddities in SE Australia (site 3). Temperatures oscillated with an amplitude of more than 1°C during the past 1500 years (McGowan et al., 2018).”[/h]
Holocene-Cooling-SE-Australia-New-Zealand-Luning-2019.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting. Further evidence that the Medieval Climate Anomaly was not a globally synchronised phenomenon, like modern warming, but merely a regional climate oscillation.
 
Surface Detail said:
Interesting. Further evidence that the Medieval Climate Anomaly was not a globally synchronised phenomenon, like modern warming, but merely a regional climate oscillation.
Click to expand...
Modern warming is by no means synchronized, Northern and Southern Hemispheres show vastly different warming.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
For the pre 1900 average to 2018 the Norther hemisphere has warmed 1.23 C vs .73 C for the southern hemisphere, 68% faster!
For the polar regions the difference is much greater, with the North polar zone (64 to 90N) at 3.18 C and the South polar zone at .29 C,
over ten times faster warming in the north polar region!
Last time I checked, CO2 is well distributed everywhere, so the forcing warming should be very close, as nearly
everywhere emits 15 um photons.
 
longview said:
Modern warming is by no means synchronized, Northern and Southern Hemispheres show vastly different warming.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
For the pre 1900 average to 2018 the Norther hemisphere has warmed 1.23 C vs .73 C for the southern hemisphere, 68% faster!
For the polar regions the difference is much greater, with the North polar zone (64 to 90N) at 3.18 C and the South polar zone at .29 C,
over ten times faster warming in the north polar region!
Last time I checked, CO2 is well distributed everywhere, so the forcing warming should be very close, as nearly
everywhere emits 15 um photons.
Click to expand...

Right.

But it’s warming globally, unlike the (deliberately) poorly defined MWP.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right.

But it’s warming globally, unlike the (deliberately) poorly defined MWP.
Click to expand...
So how can it be global when the North polar zone has warmed more than 10 times
faster than the South polar zone, which both have the same CO2 level?
 
Surface Detail said:
Interesting. Further evidence that the Medieval Climate Anomaly was not a globally synchronised phenomenon, like modern warming, but merely a regional climate oscillation.
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk. You are apparently not familiar with Luning's body of work. This is a small sample.

New Study: Medieval Warm Period Not Limited To North Atlantic, But Occurred In South America As Well

By P Gosselin on 3. November 2018
Global warming alarmist scientists like claiming that the well documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was merely a regional phenomenon, and not global. However a new publication by Lüning et al adds yet another study that shows the warm period from 1000 years ago was indeed global. ================================ Image source: here. Preindustrial climate change in South […]

Posted in Paleo-climatology | 6 Responses

New Paleoclimate Findings Show Medieval Warm Period Across Africa And Arabia…Natural Climate Drivers

By P Gosselin on 10. February 2018
Paleoclimate data still spotty and incomplete, leaving climate models vague, uncalibrated and filled with uncertainty Paleo-climatological data, used for the reconstruction of past climate from proxy records such as ice cores, tree rings, sediment cores etc., have not had adequate geographical coverage. Lake Tanganyika, Tanzania, where a sediment core was extracted. Credit: Andreas31, CC BY-SA 3.0. For […]

Posted in Paleo-climatology | 13 Responses

New Study Confirms Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global, And As Warm As Today

By P Gosselin on 29. August 2017
Here’s another blow to the global warming alarmist scientists, who have been claiming that the Medieval Warm Period was a local, North Atlantic phenomenon, and did not really exist globally. What follows is a report on yet another paper contradicting this now worn out claim.

 
longview said:
Modern warming is by no means synchronized, Northern and Southern Hemispheres show vastly different warming.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
For the pre 1900 average to 2018 the Norther hemisphere has warmed 1.23 C vs .73 C for the southern hemisphere, 68% faster!
For the polar regions the difference is much greater, with the North polar zone (64 to 90N) at 3.18 C and the South polar zone at .29 C,
over ten times faster warming in the north polar region!
Last time I checked, CO2 is well distributed everywhere, so the forcing warming should be very close, as nearly
everywhere emits 15 um photons.
Click to expand...

So many indicators that CO2 isn't driving squat, but the true believers refuse to think about the other factors.
 
longview said:
So how can it be global when the North polar zone has warmed more than 10 times
faster than the South polar zone, which both have the same CO2 level?
Click to expand...

You will get silence from them on that fact. They refuse to consider soot.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You will get silence from them on that fact. They refuse to consider soot.
Click to expand...
One could say that since the South polar zone has minimal soot, but the same CO2,
that the warming observed there is the actual limit of CO2 capability, .29 C from 1900 to 2018, is minimal.
Of course it is questionable where the pre 1900 South polar zone temperatures came from.
 
longview said:
So how can it be global when the North polar zone has warmed more than 10 times
faster than the South polar zone, which both have the same CO2 level?
Click to expand...

The fact that you can’t figure this out makes me wonder why you think you know more than all the world experts on this combined.
 
Threegoofs said:
The fact that you can’t figure this out makes me wonder why you think you know more than all the world experts on this combined.
Click to expand...
Not even going to try, are you?
 
Threegoofs said:
The fact that you think CO2 has a regional effect is one of the reasons you’re routinely laughed at here.
Click to expand...
The fact that CO2 clearly does not have a global effect, is what should be of concern for the concept of AGW!
Why would the physics of CO2 forcing be so different between hemispheres?
 
longview said:
The fact that CO2 clearly does not have a global effect, is what should be of concern for the concept of AGW!
Why would the physics of CO2 forcing be so different between hemispheres?
Click to expand...

It’s all in the IPCC.

You really should read it someday.

It’s getting to be a joke.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s all in the IPCC.

You really should read it someday.

It’s getting to be a joke.
Click to expand...

I have, the IPCC basically says that CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas.
That said the forcing should also be equal almost everywhere, but greater in the polar areas
because of the lack of water vapor. but there should not be a difference between the polar regions.
This is reflected in Hansen 97 figure 4.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf
hansen_fig4.jpg
note the predicted warming is roughly equal at high latitudes.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
The fact that you think CO2 has a regional effect is one of the reasons you’re routinely laughed at here.
Click to expand...

LOL...

I am laughing at you because his point is that since we see regional diversity, CO2 is not the primary driver.

LOL...

How can you miss such a simple point?

LOL...
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s all in the IPCC.

You really should read it someday.

It’s getting to be a joke.
Click to expand...

Yes, your religious book.

We get it.

Anything disagreeing with it is heresy.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

I am laughing at you because his point is that since we see regional diversity, CO2 is not the primary driver.

LOL...

How can you miss such a simple point?

LOL...
Click to expand...

Expecting to see uniform results across diverse geography, land cover, biology, surface water, ground water, weather patterns, elevation, latitude and many other factors is absurd.
 
ecofarm said:
Expecting to see uniform results across diverse geography, land cover, biology, surface water, ground water, local weather patterns, elevation, latitude and many other factors is absurd.
Click to expand...

Well, address his point with understanding instead of ignorance.

Your post was of obvious ignorance.
 
ecofarm said:
Expecting to see uniform results across diverse geography, land cover, biology, surface water, ground water, weather patterns, elevation, latitude and many other factors is absurd.
Click to expand...
The modeled results, expect the forcing warming to be distributed by latitude, with roughly the same level of
warming for both polar zones, yet the observed data is very uneven.
 
longview said:
The modeled results, expect the forcing warming to be distributed by latitude, with roughly the same level of
warming for both polar zones, yet the observed data is very uneven.
Click to expand...

The factors I mentioned can produce wildly different results. We can predict, with certainty, greater extremes and sudden events prevalent in any given region or locale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom