Medieval Warm period due to NAO

[Funk]

Guam said:

nigelfr said:

Breaking news from Physics.org..."In the April 3rd edition of Science a collaborative group of scientists from Switzerland, California and the UK report that medieval climate over Europe was heated by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This oscillation pattern, defined as the pressure difference between the Icelandic Low and the Azores High, also influences modern-day weather conditions and has contributed to the recent droughts in North Africa and floods in North-Central Europe."

So I guess that makes a big hole in the "It's the Sun" theory of Global Warming.

Nigel from an otherwise intelligent guy that is the most hilarious own goal I have ever seen from an AGW Accolyte. Kind of dumps your credibility a tad

I was about to post the very same thing. In the same way they call us 'MMCC deniers' they are also 'anti-MMCC deniers'.

Nigel, the bottom line is this; the planet's been looking after itself for billions of years getting hotter and colder all the time. It's natural, it'll continue to happen and there's sod-all we can do to change it.

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

[nigelfr]

Funk said:

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

I'm not trying to force my views and opinions on you. You have the right to choose what you read. If it offends you don't read it.

[Funk]

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

I'm not trying to force my views and opinions on you. You have the right to choose what you read. If it offends you don't read it.

I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you from creating threads stating you do.

TIA.

Edited by Funk on Sunday 5th April 17:46

[mybrainhurts]

Funk said:

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

I'm not trying to force my views and opinions on you. You have the right to choose what you read. If it offends you don't read it.

I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you from creating threads stating you do.

I think we should keep our Nige...

He was fun before but it can only get better if he repeats that meticulously planned sting thread that blew up in his his face a while ago....

Go, Nigel, everything forward anf trust in the lord...

Zut alors, sacre bleu, fartez dans notre general direction, Nige....

[nigelfr]

mybrainhurts said:

I think we should keep our Nige...

He was fun before but it can only get better if he repeats that meticulously planned sting thread that blew up in his his face a while ago....

What the heck are you going on about?

[nigelfr]

Funk said:

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

I'm not trying to force my views and opinions on you. You have the right to choose what you read. If it offends you don't read it.

I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you from creating threads stating you do.

TIA.

Edited by Funk on Sunday 5th April 17:46

A) ?????

[mybrainhurts]

nigelfr said:

mybrainhurts said:

I think we should keep our Nige...

He was fun before but it can only get better if he repeats that meticulously planned sting thread that blew up in his his face a while ago....

What the heck are you going on about?

Don't be coy, I might go off you...

[Funk]

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

I'm not trying to force my views and opinions on you. You have the right to choose what you read. If it offends you don't read it.

I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you from creating threads stating you do.

TIA.

Edited by Funk on Sunday 5th April 17:46

A) ?????

Apologies, a rare typo from me.

"I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you to refrain from creating threads stating you do."

[tinman0]

nigelfr said:

Guam said:

I love that TB the line is that they overspecced the design in essence, rather than oh look Global warming is cobblers so we will be fine with what we have These guys have no shame

Cheers

You guys make me laugh... the Thames Barrier was designed in 1974 on the basis of data and predictions then.

The Dutch have had sea water defences for hundreds of years and they are currently considered adequate for a few more decades: so were they planning for AGW in the 1500's or did they just put a safety margin in the design?

erm, the concern in the 70s was global cooling. that's why we went to great expense of putting satellites up to measure temperatures. the temperatures that haven't actually changed in fact, so are largely discounted, because they don't prove the current fad.

[nigelfr]

Funk said:

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

nigelfr said:

Funk said:

You and your ilk only harden my resolve and pity that you've been sucked in. MMCC acolytes are parked firmly in the same pot as 'religionists' - I don't really care what you think, so stop trying to force your views and opinions on me.

I'm not trying to force my views and opinions on you. You have the right to choose what you read. If it offends you don't read it.

I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you from creating threads stating you do.

TIA.

Edited by Funk on Sunday 5th April 17:46

A) ?????

Apologies, a rare typo from me.

"I don't start threads saying I don't believe in MMCC. If we're going along those lines, I'll have to ask you to refrain from creating threads stating you do."

The typo wasn't a problem, I filled in the gap myself.

Rather the ???? meant
Why do you think that...
a) the threads say that I believe in AGW?
b) you have the right to determine which subjects are discussed in threads?

Although you can infer that I believe in AGW if you like I try to keep beliefs out of the discussion and just discuss the substantive issue.

[nigelfr]

tinman0 said:

nigelfr said:

Guam said:

I love that TB the line is that they overspecced the design in essence, rather than oh look Global warming is cobblers so we will be fine with what we have These guys have no shame

Cheers

You guys make me laugh... the Thames Barrier was designed in 1974 on the basis of data and predictions then.

The Dutch have had sea water defences for hundreds of years and they are currently considered adequate for a few more decades: so were they planning for AGW in the 1500's or did they just put a safety margin in the design?

erm, the concern in the 70s was global cooling. that's why we went to great expense of putting satellites up to measure temperatures. the temperatures that haven't actually changed in fact, so are largely discounted, because they don't prove the current fad.

Oh man that is soooo wrong.

[tinman0]

nigelfr] said:

Oh man that is soooo wrong.

Go look it up. First it was global cooling, now its global warming.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Edited by tinman0 on Sunday 5th April 18:37

[nigelfr]

mybrainhurts said:

nigelfr said:

mybrainhurts said:

I think we should keep our Nige...

He was fun before but it can only get better if he repeats that meticulously planned sting thread that blew up in his his face a while ago....

What the heck are you going on about?

Don't be coy, I might go off you...

No, still doesn't help. Your description of events doesn't match any thread that I know of. Now I'm intrigued: if you can't repeat it in public, e-mail me please.

[ludo]

tinman0 said:

nigelfr] said:

Oh man that is soooo wrong.

Go look it up. First it was global cooling, now its global warming.

That was the press that got excited about it, not the scientists. As the time the scientists didn't know whether aerosol drive cooling or greenhouse gas based warming would win out, with the majority (but not concensus) going with warming. There was a published study looking at the scientific litterature of the time that demonstrates this, I expect you can find it with a bit of googling. If you think the study is biased, there is nothing to stop you from performing a search of the litterature for yourself to debunk it. However, I wouldn't bother, the science is much more interesting than the social science, at least IMHO

[tinman0]

ludo said:

tinman0 said:

nigelfr] said:

Oh man that is soooo wrong.

Go look it up. First it was global cooling, now its global warming.

That was the press that got excited about it, not the scientists. As the time the scientists didn't know whether aerosol drive cooling or greenhouse gas based warming would win out, with the majority (but not concensus) going with warming. There was a published study looking at the scientific litterature of the time that demonstrates this, I expect you can find it with a bit of googling. If you think the study is biased, there is nothing to stop you from performing a search of the litterature for yourself to debunk it. However, I wouldn't bother, the science is much more interesting than the social science, at least IMHO

Who were the press listening to? DId they just make it up? Course there were scientists behind, and course there are studies supporting it and disputing it. Just like we have today with Global Warming, now renamed Climate Change to hedge the bets properly, because even the Global Warming people couldn't be sure, but to really fk up the human race they needed that extra bet.

Regardless of who is wrong and who is right, my point was that in the 70s, the "world" was considering global cooling rather than global warming. This apparently is new to Nige.

[ludo]

Having looked at the abstract (but not the paper - don't have access from home), I would say that it does cast doubt on sceptic arguments based on the medieval warm period and little ice age because it suggests that it was a regional rather than global change, invovling a re-distribution of heat, and thus says little or nothing about global climate.

However, like all conclusions based on proxy data (in this case a stalagmite in Scotland and tree ring data from moroccan altac cedar trees) there are always uncertainties and assumptions (bit like the models) and so shouldn't be treated as absolute certainties, more like a plausible possibility with observational evidence that supports it.

[ludo]

tinman0 said:

ludo said:

tinman0 said:

nigelfr] said:

Oh man that is soooo wrong.

Go look it up. First it was global cooling, now its global warming.

That was the press that got excited about it, not the scientists. As the time the scientists didn't know whether aerosol drive cooling or greenhouse gas based warming would win out, with the majority (but not concensus) going with warming. There was a published study looking at the scientific litterature of the time that demonstrates this, I expect you can find it with a bit of googling. If you think the study is biased, there is nothing to stop you from performing a search of the litterature for yourself to debunk it. However, I wouldn't bother, the science is much more interesting than the social science, at least IMHO

Who were the press listening to? DId they just make it up? Course there were scientists behind, and course there are studies supporting it and disputing it. Just like we have today with Global Warming, now renamed Climate Change to hedge the bets properly, because even the Global Warming people couldn't be sure, but to really fk up the human race they needed that extra bet.

Regardless of who is wrong and who is right, my point was that in the 70s, the "world" was considering global cooling rather than global warming. This apparently is new to Nige.

As I have frequently said, journalists like a story that they think will sell papers, which means they constantly focus on the extremes of any debate and present possibilities as probabilities or even certainties. In other words it is rather gullible to assume that the media presentation is a true reflection of scientific opinion. So what can the scientists do about this? Not much as far as I can see, apart from maybe producing extensive reports setting out the scientific basis from the mainstream perspective so that media stories can be verified. Oh yes, the IPCC did that didn't they, but hardly anyone reads it!

[Jasandjules]

Ludo, your comment on the fact that the research indicates the MWP was worldwide and not just European?!?!

[ludo]

Jasandjules said:

Ludo, your comment on the fact that the research indicates the MWP was worldwide and not just European?!?!

No, the sceptics claim that the MWP and LIA were global phenomenon, the article suggests that they were only regional events caused by a merely local redistribution of heat rather than any change in global average temperatures (ISTR that global tree ring data would support that, but also subject to the uncertainties and assumptions I mentioned regarding proxy data).

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

ETA: of course it doesn't rule out the possibility that both a redistribution of heat ocurred due to long term changes in NAO/ENSO and changes in external forcings (such as solar), however this still means that the sceptic argument if far from concrete (the New Scientist blog are being rather unscientific by saying it scuppers the argument - that is too strong a statement in my opinion).

Edited by ludo on Sunday 5th April 19:11

[nigelfr]

Globally warm and all at the same time i.e. the same year? This I've got to see.