Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[Kieran00001]

13 minutes ago, Catoni said:

  All loaded "investigations"....  kind of like the accused bank robber having a jury consisting of all his pals.

I've read a lot of the emails......   WOW ! !    Sure covered some of their tracks with email deleting....  

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> 
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]> 
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004 
Mike, 
... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]> 
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]> 
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004 

Mike, 
... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann in 2008: 
Mike, 
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise... 
Cheers 
Phil 

 

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)     “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

 

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

 

 

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

 

         Just a taste....  there's lots more of course.  It's all online....   no way to hide it now...  

 

  Nice ....huh ? ? ?   LOL       

 

You think any of that means that the investigations were illegitimate?  Really?  You do realise that it was those emails that were the reason for the investigation?  They were rightfully criticised for their selective publishing, but that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about the validity of their own data.  You think three countries conspired and successfully corrupted not only their government agencies but also independent agencies and universities into producing similar fake data to them?  How many people do you think they would have to have paid off to achieve that?

[Catoni]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, that's the thing, it didn't as a whole, it wasn't a global event, it happened sporadically in different parts of the world at different times, the sea ice as a whole was not massively effected, in fact it shrank in overall size for the first half of it. 

 

Another degree or two wouldn't be that big a deal, we would survive.  The worry is that normally co2 concentrations correlate to temperatures, which at the moment they do not, should the co2 continue to rise and the temperature increase until it again correlates, then we would not be talking a degree or two,  we would be talking over 10 degrees, which would be catastrophic.  It can be assumed that they will correlate again in the future, what is not known is whether that will take 100 years or 100,000, and the reason we don't know is because we have never seen them so far from correlating in the past 65 million years, we simply have nothing to base that on other than the fact that the last time they got this far apart the dinosaurs died out.

You write:  (referring to the Little Ice Age)...  "No, that's the thing, it didn't as a whole, it wasn't a global event, it happened sporadically in different parts of the world at different times, the sea ice as a whole was not massively effected, in fact it shrank in overall size for the first half of it. "

 

     Did the report from Alexander VI in 1500 just fly way over your head?   I guess you skipped it...  

 

   So you think that it wasn't global huh  ? ?  That for about 600 years Europe got colder and somehow it was blocked off by some invisible wall from the rest of the world ? ? 

 

South America:

Tree-ring data from Patagonia show cold episodes between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670, contemporary with the events in the Northern Hemisphere.  Eight sediment cores taken from Puyehue Lake have been interpreted as showing a humid period from 1470 to 1700, which the authors describe as a regional marker of the onset of the Little Ice Age.  A 2009 paper details cooler and wetter conditions in southeastern South America between 1550 and 1800, citing evidence obtained via several proxies and models.         Records from three Andean ice cores show a cool period from 1600–1800.

- Grove, J.M., Little Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern, Routledge, London (2 volumes) 2004

- Sébastien Bertranda; Xavier Boësa; Julie Castiauxa; François Charletb; Roberto Urrutiac; Cristian Espinozac; Gilles Lepointd; Bernard Charliere; Nathalie Fage (2005). "Temporal evolution of sediment supply in Lago Puyehue (Southern Chile) during the last 600 yr and its climatic significance" (PDF). Quaternary Research. 64 (2): 163. Bibcode:2005QuRes..64..163B. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2005.06.005

- Meyer, I.; Wagner, S. (2009). "The Little Ice Age in Southern South America: Proxy and Model Based Evidence". Past Climate Variability in South America and Surrounding Regions. Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research. 14. p. 395. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2672-9_16. ISBN 978-90-481-2671-2.

 

 

Asia:

In China, warm-weather crops such as oranges were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries. Also, the two periods of most frequent typhoonstrikes in Guangdong coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China (1660–1680, 1850–1880).    Scholars have argued that the fall of the Ming dynasty may have been partially caused by the droughts and famines caused by the Little Ice Age.

In Pakistan, the Balochistan province became colder and the native Baloch people started mass migration and settled along the Indus River in Sindh and Punjab provinces.

- Kam-biu Liu; Caiming Shen; Kin-sheun Louie (2001). "A 1,000-Year History of Typhoon Landfalls in Guangdong, Southern China, Reconstructed from Chinese Historical Documentary Records". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 91 (3): 453–464. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00253.

- Fan, Ka-wai (2009). "Climatic change and dynastic cycles in Chinese history: A review essay". Climatic Change. 101 (3–4): 565–573. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9702-3

 From Zardaris to Makranis: How the Baloch came to Sindh

 

Australia and New Zealand:

      Limited evidence describes conditions in Australia. Lake records in Victoria suggest that conditions, at least in the south of the state, were wet and/or unusually cool. In the north, evidence suggests fairly dry conditions, but coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef show similar rainfall as today but with less variability. A study that analyzed isotopes in Great Barrier Reef corals suggested that increased water vapor transport from southern tropical oceans to the poles contributed to the Little Ice Age. Borehole reconstructions from Australia suggest that over the last 500 years, the 17th century was the coldest on the continent, but the borehole temperature reconstruction method does not show good agreement between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

On the west coast of the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Franz Josef glacier advanced rapidly during the Little Ice Age and reached its maximum extent in the early 18th century, in one of the few cases of a glacier thrusting into a rain forest.^[31] Based on dating of a yellow-green lichen of the Rhizocarpon subgenus, the Mueller Glacier, on the eastern flank of the Southern Alps within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, is considered to have been at its maximum extent between 1725 and 1730.

-  Erica J. Hendy; Michael K. Gagan; Chantal A. Alibert; Malcolm T. McCulloch; Janice M. Lough; Peter J. Isdale (22 February 2002). "Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age". Science. 295 (5559): 1511–4. Bibcode:2002Sci...295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693. PMID 11859191

-  Pollack, H. N., Huang, S., Smerdon, J. E. (2006). "Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground". J. Quaternary Sci. 21 (7): 701–6. Bibcode:2006JQS....21..701P. doi:10.1002/jqs.1060

-  Winkler, Stefan (2000). "The 'Little Ice Age' maximum in the Southern Alps, New Zealand: preliminary results at Mueller Glacier". The Holocene. 10 (5): 643–647. Bibcode:2000Holoc..10..643W. doi:10.1191/095968300666087656

 

Antarctica:

Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two GISP2 and suggested a synchronous global cooling.   An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. The authors note "other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear."

The Siple Dome (SD) had a climate event with an onset time that is coincident with that of the Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic based on a correlation with the GISP2 record. The event is the most dramatic climate event in the SD Holocene glaciochemical record.^[61] The Siple Dome ice core also contained its highest rate of melt layers (up to 8%) between 1550 and 1700, most likely because of warm summers.^[62]Law Dome ice cores show lower levels of CO₂ mixing ratios from 1550 to 1800, which Etheridge and Steele conjecture are "probably as a result of colder global climate."^[63]

Sediment cores in Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, have neoglacial indicators by diatom and sea-ice taxa variations during the Little Ice Age.^[64] Stable isotope records from the Mount Erebus Saddle ice core site suggests that the Ross Sea region experienced 1.6 ± 1.4 °C cooler average temperatures during the Little Ice Age, compared to the last 150 years.

- Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow, S.I., Pittalwala, I.I. (1997). "Bipolar changes in atmospheric circulation during the Little Ice Age". Science. 277 (5330): 1294–96. doi:10.1126/science.277.5330.1294

-  Khim, B.-K.; Yoon H. I.; Kang C. Y.; Bahk J. J. (November 2002). "Unstable Climate Oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula". Quaternary Research. 58 (3): 234–245. Bibcode:2002QuRes..58..234K. doi:10.1006/qres.2002.2371

-  "Siple Dome Glaciochemistry"

-  Sarah B. Das; Richard B. Alley. "Clues to changing WAIS Holocene summer temperatures from variations in melt-layer frequency in the Siple Dome ice core"

-   D.M. Etheridge; L.P. Steele; R.L. Langenfelds; R.J. Francey; J.-M. Barnola; V.I. Morgan. "Historical CO₂ Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

-   M. Angeles Bárcena; Rainer Gersonde; Santiago Ledesma; Joan Fabrés; Antonio M. Calafat; Miquel Canals; F. Javier Sierro; Jose A. Flores (1998). "Record of Holocene glacial oscillations in Bransfield Basin as revealed by siliceous microfossil assemblages". Antarctic Science. 10 (3): 269–85. Bibcode:1998AntSc..10..269B. doi:10.1017/S0954102098000364

 

 

Science Daily

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming

Date:

November 19, 2014

Source:

University of Gloucestershire

Summary:

Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

University of Gloucestershire. "Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming."

 

ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 19 November 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm>.

[mogandave]

 
Well, you are not basing anything on any kind of science and instead just guessing, aren't you?

My comment was based on science. In any event, if you do not have a legitimate response, just don’t respond. No point in resorting to insults.

[Catoni]

36 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

You think any of that means that the investigations were illegitimate?  Really?  You think three countries conspired and successfully corrupted not only their government agencies but also independent agencies and universities?  How many people do you think they would have to have paid off to achieve that?

    Yep !! 

 

     Lots of info online about the "investigtions".....

 

Here's one..... from Larry Bell.  

   Larry Bell:       I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". 

   

Scientific scandals revealed by leaked e-mail exchanges among prominent climate researchers within the U.K.'s University of East Anglia-Climate Research Unit network prompted three inquiries with transparent damage-control overtones. Two were "independent" internal self-investigations that were launched by UEA. The third was a cursory, narrowly-focused inquiry conducted by the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee.

The scientific misconduct charges against key Climate Research Unit (CRU) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change participants are serious. They include: failures to provide a full and fair view to policymakers and all available evidence to the U.N.'s IPCC; deliberately obstructing access to data and methods to those with opposing viewpoints; failures to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements; and coordinated efforts to influence review panels of prestigious journals to block papers presenting rival scientific findings from being published.

 

The "Parliamentary Inquiry" undertaken by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee was conducted by eight Labour, three Conservative and two Liberal Democrat MPs, plus one independent under the chairmanship of Liberal Democrat Phil Willis (now Lord Willis). An in-depth investigation was out of the question because of severely constrained time due to an upcoming election. The committee recognized that it would not "be able to cover all of the issues raised by the events at UEA."  Questioning of witnesses was limited to a single day.

 

           Soon after the inquiry was announced, Phil Willis made an announcement that raised questions about his objectivity regarding the merits of CRU criticism: "There are a significant number of climate deniers who are using the UEA e-mails to support the case that this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy, and therefore we want to call in UEA so that the public can see what they are saying." The term "denier" is broadly seen as an analogous and pejorative reference to those who deny the historical fact of the Holocaust, implying that UEA/CRU scientific methods and integrity should be beyond question.

The inquiry scope was limited to three key areas: freedom of information issues; accuracy and availability of CRU data and programs; and the independent reviews. Written evidence collected from 57 different groups was limited to 3,000 words per submission, allowing little opportunity to make full cases or to provide details.

While the committee took no direct testimony from those who challenged CRU activities, methods or errors, they nevertheless determined that there was essentially nothing wrong with the organization's basic science. They mistakenly assumed that important investigations they had no time or expertise to conduct would be fully covered by the other "independent" reviews which never occurred. And they concluded that global warming is human-caused, endorsing IPCC representations as facts.

The first UEA-sponsored investigation called the "Scientific Assessment Panel Inquiry" was headed by Lord Ronald Oxburgh, an ardent global warming believer with strong green energy business ties. He served as chairman of U.K. Shell (a major biofuel player), chairman of the wind company Falk Renewables, and a board member of Climate Change Capital, a major investor in carbon credits. In a 2005 interview with the Guardian, Oxburgh advocated that all possible government incentives be used to promote alternatives to carbon-based energy, stating that "what we don't want to see is in two years' time the government becoming bored with climate change after we've invested a lot of our shareholders' money."

The Oxburgh panel did not assess the reliability of CRU's science. Its scope of inquiry was limited to reviewing papers provided to it only for evidence of deliberate misconduct. Many of those papers selected for examination by UEA were obscure, never having been challenged by critics---while others that had been criticized were not presented for review at all.  Lord Oxburgh's final report stated that the papers were chosen "on the advice of the Royal Society", however this was apparently untrue. In fact many or all of those papers were reportedly selected and cleared by CRU's director, Phil Jones, a central figure in the ClimateGate controversy.

Although at least one committee member voiced serious concerns about how the CRU science had been conducted and incorporated into IPCC documents, no word of this was reported in the proceedings. And contrary to strong recommendations from committee members, no public interviews were conducted, no formal notes were taken, and no recordings or transcripts of interviews were made available to the public.

The remarkably short five-page Oxburgh report generously concluded that it found CRU scientists to be merely an innocent "small group of dedicated, if slightly confused, researchers." It also mildly criticized IPCC for failing to cite reservations those dedicated and confused researchers attached to their work describing scientific uncertainties.

Another CRU-sponsored inquiry called the "Climate Change Emails Review" headed by Sir Robert Muir-Russell hurriedly looked at more than 1,000 selected communications within a period of two and one-half weeks. Two evidence-collecting interviews were conducted with CRU staff, which the majority, including the chairman, didn't attend. No CRU critics were interviewed.

Muir-Russell emphasized the independent selection of his five panelists, stating: "None have any links to the Climate Research Unit, or the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and "They were selected on the basis that they had no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at."

Yet one of the panelists, Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Boulton from the University of Edinburgh, had previously signed a petition in the wake of the ClimateGate scandal expressing confidence that global warming was caused by humans. He was also a former University of East Anglia employee, having worked in its School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years … therefore also a previous colleague of Phil Jones and other important ClimateGate figures.

The panel failed to question Jones about an email entitled "IPCC & FOIA" he sent to Michael Mann requesting "Can you delete any emails you have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? [the IPCC's 2007 Summary for Policymaker's Report]. Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment-minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. Will be getting Casper [Ammann] to do likewise."

Muir-Russell's report concluded that the "rigour and honesty" of the CRU scientists were not in doubt, that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism, and that key data was freely available and could be used by any "competent" researcher. Yet the panelists admitted that the scientists' responses to "reasonable requests for information" had been "unhelpful and defensive", that "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them", and that there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display a proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."

Did the Climate Change Emails Review accomplish the goal Muir-Russell called  for :  "a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds" to restore confidence in the [CRU] team's work" ?  The Lancent scientific journal's  editor, Richard Horton, doesn't think so. Testifying before the inquiry, he said: "The Muir-Russell review has rejected all claims of serious scientific misconduct. But he does identify failures, evasions, misleading actions, unjustifiable delays [in releasing information], and pervasive unhelpfulness- all of which amounts to severely sub-optimal academic practice. Climate science will never be the same again."

Hans von Storch, a professor at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GHSS Research Centre in Geestacht, Germany believes Dr. Horton's appraisal applies this assessment to all three inquiries: "Nothing ought to be swept under the carpet. Some of the inquiries -- like in the U.K. did exactly the latter. They blew an opportunity to restore trust."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/07/05/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-ii/#6109182220e0

[kannot]

On 9/22/2018 at 8:40 AM, mauGR1 said:

But, but..If you know the past, you can foresee the future. History repeats.

Whats  the  lotto  numbers for next week ta?

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We have been studyied the link between tree growth and average temps in modern times, we know the accuracy rates, below is the correlation between temp and growth made using modern data which I am sure you don't dispute.

 

We have also studied the link between sea ice levels and average temperatures in modern times, we also know those accuracy rates, below is a graph plotting the correlation between temp change and sea ice levels using modern data which I am sure you also don't dispute.

 

There is nothing to suggest that tree growth did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past and there is also nothing to suggest that sea ice levels did not directly correlate to average temperatures in the past, thus by measuring the distance between tree rings that were growing 1500 years ago we can calculate the level of sea ice at the same time.

 

A similar process is possible to achieve from lake sediment and ice cores, the study used these three sets of data and produced the graph I posted before.

You are trying to say that sea ice extent was not effected by the lowered temperature of the little ice age while at the same time saying that the extent of sea ice at the time was determined by  examining the temperature record of the time (tree rings and so forth).You can't have it both ways.

If the sea ice extent reacted divergently to temperature during the LIA you need to show why they thinks so.

[mogandave]

34 22 01 07 23 86

[Kieran00001]

31 minutes ago, Catoni said:

You write:  (referring to the Little Ice Age)...  "No, that's the thing, it didn't as a whole, it wasn't a global event, it happened sporadically in different parts of the world at different times, the sea ice as a whole was not massively effected, in fact it shrank in overall size for the first half of it. "

 

     Did the report from Alexander VI in 1500 just fly way over your head?   I guess you skipped it...  

 

   So you think that it wasn't global huh  ? ?  That for about 600 years Europe got colder and somehow it was blocked off by some invisible wall from the rest of the world ? ? 

 

South America:

Tree-ring data from Patagonia show cold episodes between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670, contemporary with the events in the Northern Hemisphere.  Eight sediment cores taken from Puyehue Lake have been interpreted as showing a humid period from 1470 to 1700, which the authors describe as a regional marker of the onset of the Little Ice Age.  A 2009 paper details cooler and wetter conditions in southeastern South America between 1550 and 1800, citing evidence obtained via several proxies and models.         Records from three Andean ice cores show a cool period from 1600–1800.

- Grove, J.M., Little Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern, Routledge, London (2 volumes) 2004

- Sébastien Bertranda; Xavier Boësa; Julie Castiauxa; François Charletb; Roberto Urrutiac; Cristian Espinozac; Gilles Lepointd; Bernard Charliere; Nathalie Fage (2005). "Temporal evolution of sediment supply in Lago Puyehue (Southern Chile) during the last 600 yr and its climatic significance" (PDF). Quaternary Research. 64 (2): 163. Bibcode:2005QuRes..64..163B. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2005.06.005

- Meyer, I.; Wagner, S. (2009). "The Little Ice Age in Southern South America: Proxy and Model Based Evidence". Past Climate Variability in South America and Surrounding Regions. Developments in Paleoenvironmental Research. 14. p. 395. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2672-9_16. ISBN 978-90-481-2671-2.

 

 

Asia:

In China, warm-weather crops such as oranges were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries. Also, the two periods of most frequent typhoonstrikes in Guangdong coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China (1660–1680, 1850–1880).    Scholars have argued that the fall of the Ming dynasty may have been partially caused by the droughts and famines caused by the Little Ice Age.

In Pakistan, the Balochistan province became colder and the native Baloch people started mass migration and settled along the Indus River in Sindh and Punjab provinces.

- Kam-biu Liu; Caiming Shen; Kin-sheun Louie (2001). "A 1,000-Year History of Typhoon Landfalls in Guangdong, Southern China, Reconstructed from Chinese Historical Documentary Records". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 91 (3): 453–464. doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00253.

- Fan, Ka-wai (2009). "Climatic change and dynastic cycles in Chinese history: A review essay". Climatic Change. 101 (3–4): 565–573. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9702-3

 From Zardaris to Makranis: How the Baloch came to Sindh

 

Australia and New Zealand:

      Limited evidence describes conditions in Australia. Lake records in Victoria suggest that conditions, at least in the south of the state, were wet and/or unusually cool. In the north, evidence suggests fairly dry conditions, but coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef show similar rainfall as today but with less variability. A study that analyzed isotopes in Great Barrier Reef corals suggested that increased water vapor transport from southern tropical oceans to the poles contributed to the Little Ice Age. Borehole reconstructions from Australia suggest that over the last 500 years, the 17th century was the coldest on the continent, but the borehole temperature reconstruction method does not show good agreement between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

On the west coast of the Southern Alps of New Zealand, the Franz Josef glacier advanced rapidly during the Little Ice Age and reached its maximum extent in the early 18th century, in one of the few cases of a glacier thrusting into a rain forest.^[31] Based on dating of a yellow-green lichen of the Rhizocarpon subgenus, the Mueller Glacier, on the eastern flank of the Southern Alps within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park, is considered to have been at its maximum extent between 1725 and 1730.

-  Erica J. Hendy; Michael K. Gagan; Chantal A. Alibert; Malcolm T. McCulloch; Janice M. Lough; Peter J. Isdale (22 February 2002). "Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age". Science. 295 (5559): 1511–4. Bibcode:2002Sci...295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693. PMID 11859191

-  Pollack, H. N., Huang, S., Smerdon, J. E. (2006). "Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground". J. Quaternary Sci. 21 (7): 701–6. Bibcode:2006JQS....21..701P. doi:10.1002/jqs.1060

-  Winkler, Stefan (2000). "The 'Little Ice Age' maximum in the Southern Alps, New Zealand: preliminary results at Mueller Glacier". The Holocene. 10 (5): 643–647. Bibcode:2000Holoc..10..643W. doi:10.1191/095968300666087656

 

Antarctica:

Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two GISP2 and suggested a synchronous global cooling.   An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. The authors note "other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear."

The Siple Dome (SD) had a climate event with an onset time that is coincident with that of the Little Ice Age in the North Atlantic based on a correlation with the GISP2 record. The event is the most dramatic climate event in the SD Holocene glaciochemical record.^[61] The Siple Dome ice core also contained its highest rate of melt layers (up to 8%) between 1550 and 1700, most likely because of warm summers.^[62]Law Dome ice cores show lower levels of CO₂ mixing ratios from 1550 to 1800, which Etheridge and Steele conjecture are "probably as a result of colder global climate."^[63]

Sediment cores in Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, have neoglacial indicators by diatom and sea-ice taxa variations during the Little Ice Age.^[64] Stable isotope records from the Mount Erebus Saddle ice core site suggests that the Ross Sea region experienced 1.6 ± 1.4 °C cooler average temperatures during the Little Ice Age, compared to the last 150 years.

- Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow, S.I., Pittalwala, I.I. (1997). "Bipolar changes in atmospheric circulation during the Little Ice Age". Science. 277 (5330): 1294–96. doi:10.1126/science.277.5330.1294

-  Khim, B.-K.; Yoon H. I.; Kang C. Y.; Bahk J. J. (November 2002). "Unstable Climate Oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula". Quaternary Research. 58 (3): 234–245. Bibcode:2002QuRes..58..234K. doi:10.1006/qres.2002.2371

-  "Siple Dome Glaciochemistry"

-  Sarah B. Das; Richard B. Alley. "Clues to changing WAIS Holocene summer temperatures from variations in melt-layer frequency in the Siple Dome ice core"

-   D.M. Etheridge; L.P. Steele; R.L. Langenfelds; R.J. Francey; J.-M. Barnola; V.I. Morgan. "Historical CO₂ Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores". Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.

-   M. Angeles Bárcena; Rainer Gersonde; Santiago Ledesma; Joan Fabrés; Antonio M. Calafat; Miquel Canals; F. Javier Sierro; Jose A. Flores (1998). "Record of Holocene glacial oscillations in Bransfield Basin as revealed by siliceous microfossil assemblages". Antarctic Science. 10 (3): 269–85. Bibcode:1998AntSc..10..269B. doi:10.1017/S0954102098000364

 

 

Science Daily

Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming

Date:

November 19, 2014

Source:

University of Gloucestershire

Summary:

Researchers have shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over global warming.

University of Gloucestershire. "Little Ice Age was global: Implications for current global warming."

 

ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 19 November 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141119204521.htm>.

 

I meant to say it was not a 'single' global event, it happened around the world, but not all at the same time and there were little warming periods around the world as well, it was only Northern Europe and the North Sea that had both waves of the cooling and for the full duration both times, and even in their case there was one substantial warming period, that is why there wasn't much enlargement of sea ice levels globally, as it was only Europe and the North Sea that were effected for very long and they had plenty of time to melt between the cool periods.

[HAKAPALITA]

Give future generations something to do sorting it out..stoping Animals farting will be a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Kieran00001]

30 minutes ago, Catoni said:

    Yep !! 

 

     Lots of info online about the "investigtions".....

 

Here's one..... from Larry Bell.  

   Larry Bell:

 

 

Take a read of this Larry Bell article, when he refers to his friend as an "expert reviewer" and states that he has reviewed all of the IPCC reports, he neglects to mention that anyone can review anything and his particular reviews being "expert" are just his personal opinion, but more strikingly he neglects to tell us is that his friend Vincent Gray is actually Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Industry and so has a clear bias, your beloved Larry Bell being has no credentials in climate study, however he does have links to the fossil fuel industry, hmmmm.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/13/ipcc-in-a-stew-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-books/#321412a12edd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

 

[Kieran00001]

52 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You are trying to say that sea ice extent was not effected by the lowered temperature of the little ice age while at the same time saying that the extent of sea ice at the time was determined by  examining the temperature record of the time (tree rings and so forth).You can't have it both ways.

If the sea ice extent reacted divergently to temperature during the LIA you need to show why they thinks so.

 

No, I'm not saying that at all, I am saying that the cooling seen was isolated and followed by warming periods and overall it had little effect on both global temperature and sea ice extent.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, kannot said:

Whats  the  lotto  numbers for next week ta?

Sorry, that's a secret

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, I'm not saying that at all, I am saying that the cooling seen was isolated and followed by warming periods and overall it had little effect on both global temperature and sea ice extent.

But they can't know the ancient sea ice extent because they have now decided that the global temperature record was full of hot and cold anomalies here and there. How can they know if there were anomalies effecting the arctic or not? The Greenland ice cores say the medieval warm period occurred in the arctic. How can they also say the sea ice extent was not effected?

Such a tangled web they weave?

[TonyClifton]

I wonder if any of those Thais can read their own signs.

[Kieran00001]

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

But they can't know the ancient sea ice extent because they have now decided that the global temperature record was full of hot and cold anomalies here and there. How can they know if there were anomalies effecting the arctic or not? The Greenland ice cores say the medieval warm period occurred in the arctic. How can they also say the sea ice extent was not effected?

Such a tangled web they weave?

 

The temperature anomalies average out, as does the sea ice levels, no one is disputing that ice froze during the Little Ice Age, just that in the longer term it had little bearing on global sea ice levels, and so that is probably not the same sea ice that we are seeing melting today.

[canuckamuck]

21 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The temperature anomalies average out, as does the sea ice levels, no one is disputing that ice froze during the Little Ice Age, just that in the longer term it had little bearing on global sea ice levels, and so that is probably not the same sea ice that we are seeing melting today.

So the ice that accumulated in the arctic during the LIA had little bearing on global sea ice levels. How is that? Was the Antarctic losing ice at the same time?

 

[Andrew108]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

Scientific consensus is at 99% that climate change at the moment is human driven. And why not when over the last two hundred years we have poured so much co2 into the atmosphere. The deniers are sponsored by big oil. Anyway - nothing can be done about it. We are 20 years too late. 

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

So the ice that accumulated in the arctic during the LIA had little bearing on global sea ice levels. How is that? Was the Antarctic losing ice at the same time?

 

 

Its as I said before, its because the Little Ice Age was not a single global event but actually happened sporadically, different places were cold for different whole decades.

https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/category/little-ice-age

 

 

[canuckamuck]

35 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Its as I said before, its because the Little Ice Age was not a single global event but actually happened sporadically, different places were cold for different whole decades.

https://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/category/little-ice-age

 

 

The Arctic is one of two places where there is sea ice. You get that right? You don't get sea ice in the Mediterranean for example. So if your not saying the sea ice accumulated in the north is offset by sea ice lost in the south pole, then the sea ice gained in the LIA is a net gain, as it would have been a net loss in the MWP. 

[kannot]

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

34 22 01 07 23 86

ive put a    million down, Ill let you know next week........... but wait??? you already know, so did i win?

[mogandave]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax
Scientific consensus is at 99% that climate change at the moment is human driven. And why not when over the last two hundred years we have poured so much co2 into the atmosphere. The deniers are sponsored by big oil. Anyway - nothing can be done about it. We are 20 years too late. 

Indeed

[mogandave]

ive put a    million down, Ill let you know next week........... but wait??? you already know, so did i win?

Which on did you play?

[Kieran00001]

10 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The Arctic is one of two places where there is sea ice. You get that right? You don't get sea ice in the Mediterranean for example. So if your not saying the sea ice accumulated in the north is offset by sea ice lost in the south pole, then the sea ice gained in the LIA is a net gain, as it would have been a net loss in the MWP. 

 

No, I am saying that there were little long term gains, that the Little Ice Age did not even effect the whole North at any one time, and so did not effect total sea ice levels very much.  Did you read the article I linked? It compares different places in the North at the same time, and there were many years between one area's cooling period and another's, combined they largely cancelled each other out.

[markusss]

.."The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit, Folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam.. The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet’s doin’? Ask those people at Pompeii, who were frozen into position from volcanic ash how the planet's doin’.. Wanna know if the planet’s alright, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who built their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cuz that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allows us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic, <deleted>.” George Carlin

 

[Catoni]

17 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Give future generations something to do sorting it out..stoping Animals farting will be a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Apparently California (where else?)...has had ideas of taxing cow flatulance (farts) somehow. Because of CO2 and Methane gas release from the cow’s ass. 

     Or maybe they are already taxing the cow farts..(cattle farms). 

  Only on the “left” coast  

555555 ????

[Catoni]

13 hours ago, Andrew108 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

Scientific consensus is at 99% that climate change at the moment is human driven. And why not when over the last two hundred years we have poured so much co2 into the atmosphere. The deniers are sponsored by big oil. Anyway - nothing can be done about it. We are 20 years too late. 

Love it 5555. “The Gaurdian” .... wonderful. Britain’s largest Socialist rag. 

    Like they are going to be objective ....ha, ha, ha. ????

    This just keeps getting better and better. ????

[Catoni]

13 hours ago, Andrew108 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

Scientific consensus is at 99% that climate change at the moment is human driven. And why not when over the last two hundred years we have poured so much co2 into the atmosphere. The deniers are sponsored by big oil. Anyway - nothing can be done about it. We are 20 years too late. 

When I was a child....scientific consensus was about 99% that the continents were fixed in place and did not move. 

   They laughed professor Wegener out of the lecture halls and put roadblocks so he had a damn hard time getting published. No “respectable” science journal wanted anything to do with him. 

      Long after he died, he was proven right. 

       What do you think happened to the first scientist that claimed the Earth was not the center of the universe or Solar System ? 

   So much for “scientific consensus”. 

     “Deniers” funded by big oil?

So it’s a conspiracy of big oil? How much you want to bet the warming alarmists are funded by big government, Heinz money, and the Tides Foundation, Soros money and other leftist foundation, leftist rich, and/or big government money?

    I’m willing to bet that the money the “deniers” side gets is a drop in the Ocean compared to the money the Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmist researchers and activists get. 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, I am saying that there were little long term gains, that the Little Ice Age did not even effect the whole North at any one time, and so did not effect total sea ice levels very much.  Did you read the article I linked? It compares different places in the North at the same time, and there were many years between one area's cooling period and another's, combined they largely cancelled each other out.

You got that Koolaid in your blood dude.

So half the arctic was unseasonably hot for a couple of centuries while the other half got colder to balance things out? The willingness of the weather to conform to the alarmist agenda is truly staggering.

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Love it 5555. “The Gaurdian” .... wonderful. Britain’s largest Socialist rag. 

    Like they are going to be objective ....ha, ha, ha. ????

    This just keeps getting better and better. ????

 

Wan't it you who was posting the "objective" stance of proven corporate shrills of the fossil fuel industry?  Me thinks its time you got a grip on that irony!

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, Catoni said:

When I was a child....scientific consensus was about 99% that the continents were fixed in place and did not move. 

   They laughed professor Wegener out of the lecture halls and put roadblocks so he had a damn hard time getting published. No “respectable” science journal wanted anything to do with him. 

      Long after he died, he was proven right. 

       What do you think happened to the first scientist that claimed the Earth was not the center of the universe or Solar System ? 

   So much for “scientific consensus”. 

     “Deniers” funded by big oil?

So it’s a conspiracy of big oil?How much you want to bet the warming alarmists are funded by big government, Heinz money, and the Tides Foundation, Soros money and other leftist of big government money?

    I’m willing to bet that the money the “deniers” side gets is a drop in the Ocean compared to the money the Gore Bull Warming/Climate Change Alarmist researchers and activists get. 

 

You think the money that fossil fuel producers get is a drop in the ocean compared to what researchers and activists get?  Are you out of your little mind?