Global Warming

[Augustine2004]

There may be an explanation for the unusual hot weather around the globe. Low solar activity leads to what are called blocking events. When they occur, temperatures soar and rainfall increases. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-Pakistan.html
You don’t have to point out that scientists are not sure the explanation is correct, but the point is, you can’t claim victory yet, far from it.

[Tiggy]

My my my, isn't this interesting?

Remember when the AGW deniers were all up in arms over Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph that clearly showed significant global warming in the last few hundred years? They were screaming FRAUD! LIAR! MANIPULATED DATA! and every other excuse to attack Mann and discredit his work. Work that withstood the most severe scrutiny I should note.

Now a new paper has appeared in AGU doing a temperature proxy study in South America and what did they find? Why it's the same rapid temperature rise hockey stick!

Attachment 86635

Ammonium concentration in ice cores: A new proxy for regional temperature reconstruction?
T. Kellerhals, S. Brütsch, M. Sigl, S. Knüsel, H. W. Gäggeler, M. Schwikowski
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D16123, 8 PP., 2010

Abstract: We present a reconstruction of tropical South American temperature anomalies over the last ∼1600 years. The reconstruction is based on a highly resolved and carefully dated ammonium record from an ice core that was drilled in 1999 on Nevado Illimani in the eastern Bolivian Andes. Concerning the relevant processes governing the observed correlation between ammonium concentrations and temperature anomalies, we discuss anthropogenic emissions, biomass burning, and precipitation changes but clearly favor a temperature-dependent source strength of the vegetation in the Amazon Basin. That given, the reconstruction reveals that Medieval Warm Period– and Little Ice Age–type episodes are distinguishable in tropical South America, a region for which until now only very limited temperature proxy data have been available. For the time period from about 1050 to 1300 AD, our reconstruction shows relatively warm conditions that are followed by cooler conditions from the 15th to the 18th century, when temperatures dropped by up to 0.6°C below the 1961–1990 average. The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.

link

Of course this correlates nicely with another recent study done by Moberg et al in 2005 and published in Nature.

Attachment 86636

Read more about the new findings at SkepticalScience:

A South American hockey stick

Wow, those "lying climatologists and their air conditioners next to temperature sensors" must have gone everywhere.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Have the effects of the Amazon deforestation been ruled out? If so, how?

The last graph presented by Tiggy above seems to be an old one.

I remain skeptical.

[Tiggy]

Have the effects of the Amazon deforestation been ruled out? If so, how?

Do something different and try reading the article for once Augs. The first chart is data from ice core samples taken in the Andes.

The last graph presented by Tiggy above seems to be an old one.

It was from a paper published in 2005. What specifically do you think is wrong with it?

I remain skeptical.

You misspelled "clueless".

- T

[Augustine2004]

Do something different and try reading the article for once Augs. The first chart is data from ice core samples taken in the Andes.

I did get that the first time. So, you're sure that the deforestation had nothing to do with the temperature rise. How do you know? Show us, please.

It was from a paper published in 2005. What specifically do you think is wrong with it?

I thought that was refuted. Anyway, what I said it seems to be old. Is 2005 not old?

[Tiggy]

I did get that the first time. So, you're sure that the deforestation had nothing to do with the temperature rise. How do you know? Show us, please.

Augs, do you ever stop to think, even for a second? The rapid temperature rise is present over the last 200 years. How much and when was the forest cut down in that time frame? Even if the deforestation did affect the temperature (and it did probably have some small effect in the last 50 years by removing a portion of the local C02 sink), who cut down the forest? What does the "A" in AGW stand for?

I thought that was refuted.

You thought wrong.

Anyway, what I said it seems to be old. Is 2005 not old?

(shakes head sadly) Scientific data doesn't get 'old' or 'stale' with time Augs. If you have some specific objection to the data, present it. Otherwise keep being your normal clueless self.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Scientific data doesn't get 'old' or 'stale' with time Augs.

I meant, something we've seen before. Must you endlessly present the same stuff over and over? Glenn has the same bad habit.

[Tiggy]

I meant, something we've seen before. Must you endlessly present the same stuff over and over? Glenn has the same bad habit.

Sadly, I must. The proper response to the cherry-picked data and anti-science woo that certain politically driven tin foil hat wearing fools keep slinging is to present and post links to the actual scientific research that rebuts the woo.

You forgot to tell me who cut down the rain-forests, and what the "A" in AGW stands for.

- T

[Augustine2004]

Tiggy remains icorrigible yet.

[FLovell]

Tiggy remains icorrigible yet.

Seems so, Aug. And like you, I presently remain skeptical of the alarmist claims of AGW as "settled science" (though I also continue to presently accept that we are in a plain ol' GW trend, and that humans likely do exert an in-the-Fourier-mix influence of some degree of significance or other). Don't feed the contrarian troll.

-- Frank