Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[grmorton]

Yes it is. The stock market is not a physical system controlled solely by physical processes. The Climate of the Earth is such a physical system. What you have done by grabbing 1980 and comparing it to 2011 is called Cherry Picking. I can just as easily chose 1979 and 2010 and show a huge upward trend. Or I could pick 1998 and show its headed down fast! That is an 'instantaneous' change too. That kind of analysis on this system is inherently meaningless. There are quite a few other points on that graph that are the same as 2011, But as I pointed out, 1980 is a HIGH value, and 2011 is a LOW value. That right there should tell you what the trend is and that grabbing those two points and trying to say there has been no change is meaningless.

Really, ghosts control the stock market? No Jim, physical people, collectively control the market. And you are squirming around the point rather than addressing it. Let's take it out of the market. You have corn growing in a field. You count the cobs growing on the corn, The count goes up day by day and you have 8000 cobbs, but then a weird frost comes and you lose it all. Do you think you can sell that corn cob trend?

Really Jim, you know the point. Don't try to say that ghosts run the stock market in order to get away from a perfectly valid point.

You can't compare the Earth's climate to the stock market Glenn. They are completely different things.

They are both nonlinear. Mathematically they are the same thing. Tell me the average temperature for this year. Tell me the final price of the dow this year. The inability to predict means you are dealing with a nonlinear system. Tell me the speed of a rock that falls from 5 feet when it hits the ground. Anyone with a bit of physics can do that regardless of the year.

I agree with you there. We do not have enough data to make solid predictions. We do not fully understand the system. But that does not mean the trend has not been up! To this point we've been talking about the temperature data giving us a FALSE impression concerning a rise in average temperature. That last point (concerning 'regression voodoo on sinusoids') moves away from that and into predicting what the trend will be in the future based on the current historical data. Those are two completely different things Glenn. The rise is there in the data, Whether the rise will continue depends one what is causing the rise. If it is being caused by human introduced CO2, then the rise will continue. If it is related to sunspots and solar activity or is otherwise part of some natural cycle, who knows what it will do? It depends on what the characteristics of the true driver for the change is.

So, Jim, is the upward trend due to the fact that a 21st century city emits more waste heat than a 19th century city? The trend won't tell you and as long as we continue to put thermometers next to jet engines and air conditioners both of which increase in number and heat emission each year, we will never know what is really happening. You can't claim that the climatologists can correct for jet engine heat output at airports over the century because they don't make any measurements of that effect.

You'll get no argument from me there Glenn.

I get plenty of argument from you!!!

Is this trend human caused, natural, or both? I personally don't know. I tend to think at least part of it is CO2 induced, but I also think sunspots and other factors have more to do with this than many people think. We've been warming a long time, and indications are we were warmer 1000 years ago with no extra help from billions of automobiles. As you indicate above, without knowing more about the natural temperature cycles and their causes, it is hard to prove we are actually seeing a human induced excursion from normal, or precisely how much of this warming trend is human induced.

In 1900 we used very little oil around the thermometers. Today millions of hot automobiles, central heating, cement etc warm the air around the thermometers and then we all gasp collectively and blame CO2.

This was written back in the 1970s

Lowell Ponte, “Global Cooling, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976), p. 27

“By the year 2000, experts estimate, the urban megalopolis of Bosnywash—the continuous city covering 11,000 sq miles from Boston through New York to Washington, D. C.—will be pourint out manmade heat equal to 50 percent of the sun’s heat in winter, 15 percent in summer.”
“The climate will be warm, as anyone knows who lives in a big city—from 1 to 3 deg C warmer than if the city were not there.” Asphalt streets and concrete pavements soak up sunlight.”

© source where applicable

Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 154

"The urban heat island is a phenomenon well known to city dwellers, even if most haven't heard the name. Because of their intense energy consumption and unnatural physical characteristics, as pointed out earlier, cities are often hotter downtown (especially at night) than the surrounding countryside. The heat island is most noticeable at the center of cities, and the mean annual isotherms (lines of constant temperature) of Paris, for instance, are as much as 20 C (3.60 F) warmer at the city center than out of town (Figure 21). Very similar conditions can be shown for other cities, as summarized in an excellent article by Helmut Landsberg, a noted senior climatologist at the University of Maryland."

© source where applicable

We have known this for decades but we blame CO2. And the IPCC claims this isn't happening even as thermographs of every single major city shows what Schneider says is true. The IPCC simply ignores good science to keep the politics alive. For lots of pictures of urban heat islands go to http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2...es-part-4.html and the 3 previous posts to that. I intend a couple of other posts on the topic.

But to this point that hasn't been our discussion. To this point our discussion has been is the current measured trend real, is the data we are using that shows the warming trend trustworthy. Are the adjustments being made correct? And I tend to think they are, and the measured trend is real.


Jim

Ok, tell me why going from very low levels of waste heat from energy to the present levels equivalent to 15%+ of the sun's input won't cause a rising trend in the thermometer records of the urban thermometers?

Then tell me what part of that must be due to CO2.

Off to the ranch to make sure you all have a clean space to beat me up.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, What do you think the climatologists are doing with the trend???? They ARE using it to predict future catastrophe's based upon the idea that the trend will continue. That is really the only reason for even calculating a trend from sinusoidal data.

Glenn, from my point of view you are mixing things together that need to be kept separate.

(1) We've been discussing what the trend is, if there is a trend. Your contention has been the trend is apparent, caused by poorly sited thermometers which are picking up a localized heat phenoma (human activity) which does not reflect a REAL rise in global temperature. That is, as I see your point, (GLENN) if the thermometers were properly sited, the average global temperature would show a much smaller increase, or perhaps no increase at all. My point has been I think the trend is real: (JIM) if the thermometers were properly sited, the majority of the increase, if not all of it, would still be seen, and for the reasons I've given.

(2) There is another discussion that can take place, but which is not the one we've been having. And that is why is there a trend at all. Is it natural phenomena like just a natural long term climate cycle, a change in some characteristic of the sun or even galactic input into the system, is it human activity - CO2 induced forcing, human added waste heat, etc. etc.

Yes, there are five other downward excursions. So what? You say we have high frequency oscillations on top of a rising trend, true enough, but that doesn't mean one can predict the trend to continue ad infinitum.

Again, I really have not been trying to address the issue of prediction. The only place prediction comes into play in the current discussion is IF you can show that the trend is an illusion, then there is no point in trying to predict anything at all. But first you need to establish its not something measured, but an artifact of poor siting. The paper I reference is a good indication it is NOT an illusion. Heck, the satellite data you posted is a string indication it is NOT an illusion.

Thus the trend comes FROM the data, it isn't the CAUSE of the data. Like I said, when retirement comes just as your portfolio value collapses back to the starting point, you won't be able to buy food for your retirement table based upon the wonderful trend in the past performance.

But as I said, the Earth is not the Stock market. And though they are both non-linear, they have very different characteristics. You can't derive specific conclusions about how to understand the moon's orbit over the next 100 years from what you learn trying to predict the weather for 100 years, even though both are non-linear.

As I see it, you have agreed that thermometers next to heat sources affect the temperature except that without showing how, you say they can know how many degrees on that thermometer are due to heat and how many due to warming.

Not exactly. What I have said is that A) if the thermometers are in a fixed environment, trends can be extracted regardless of how poorly sited they are and B) the data analysis to the present shows that the effect of poor siting is well compensated for by the adjustments used. Specifically the USCRN data for the last 8 years matches the USHCN data AND the satellite data from 1979 to the present matches the USHCN data.

As I see it you have said that I can't ignore the trend, except that you now say the trend isn't useful to predict the future.

I have said NOTHING about its usefulness to predict the future. We have not gotten there yet. We are still trying to see if we can agree on if the trend is an illusion or not.

Isn't this two-sided argumentation?

No, its keeping the subject focused so we don't get sidetracked.

One other note of what you haven't addressed. I am serious about the inability of climatologists to know how to correct the contaminated temperature record. A few days ago I pointed out that we have ONE measurement of the high temperature for Flatonia TX on July 4, 2002. 2001's temperature and 2003's temperature means nothing for the statistics of how far from the true temperature the 2002 measurement is. thus one can't apply normal statistical measurements to know how much noise there is in the system. YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THIS.

I missed it - though I am not sure how. The answer is that the 'noise' in the system I am talking about are random variations in device performance and measurement taking accuracy across all the sites used for the global average. Further, in evaluating a trend, I am not concerned about random variations in site accuracy, I am concerned about a changing bias in the temperature readings from the site. If a single site has +- 2 deg C STD distrubuted evenly about a mean, then on average, over the course of a full year, those variations will average out to very close to 0 bias in the yearly average calculated for that site. IOW, if all I'm dealing with are random variations in temperature accuracy, the average temperature for the year at that site will be almost identical to what I would get from a thermometer/temp reading system that has a STD of .5 degree.

It's only if the thermometer is biased that there will be a difference. And even then, if my purpose is to extract a trend, I only care about a change in that bias.

There is a true temperature, and there is the measurement we make. We get one chance to capture that temperature. What is the standard deviation of that measurement Jim?

Unless the system is biased, it doesn't matter in terms of calculating the yearly average temperature Glenn. I've got 365 measurements. Some are 5 degrees high, some are 5 degrees low. Some are dead on. Some are 1 degree high, others are 1 degree low. If this is just random measurement bias, then the average affect of that variation on the yearly average will be much, much less than 1 degree.

How do you know Flatonia's July 4th's 2002 standard deviation of the measurement?

I don't need to know that. What I might need to know if Flatonia's measurements are biased and most importantly if that bias is changing. But more importantly Glenn, I have good reason to believe these issues are not nearly as critical as you think they are.

Also I asked you how you are going to use the brand new, approved in 2009, much needed Climate reference networks, which should give pristine temperatures, to calculate the change in global temperature back to 1911, when all the 1911 measurements are contaminated measurements? You didn't answer this either.

I never said, hinted at, alluded to, or otherwise implied I would try to use the USCRN to calculate the global change back to 1911. What I said was that the implications of the USCRN data when compared to the USHCN data is that the USHCN data is accurate, despite all the problems you mention.

And I did answer your question. I answered it per what I said above. I do not propose we use that data to calculate the 1911 measurement. I proposed that we can have greater confidence in the USHCN data because it matches Satellite data where it exists and it matches USCRN data where it exists. That despite the issue you have noted, the final answer seems to be correct.

I asked you at one point, if the current system is so good, why do they need the climate reference network. You had said, as I recall, that the climatologists could get a correct answer from the present data, that A/C units didn't really affect the answer. So I asked you why then they felt the need to have a new network? You didn't answer that either.

Yes I did. I said I think the reason they want this network is to address the criticisms of those, like you, that see problems with the current network. To find out if those criticisms are valid, and if there are issues with using the USHCN data that heretofore have not been addressed. So far the answer has been yes there are small heretofore unknown issues (the fact MMTS introduces a small cooling bias), but that in terms of the overall trend, the USHCN data is close enough to the USCRN result that we can trust that the indicated trend is real and not an illusion. Further, I would think they would want the network to further refine and characterize what the actual urban biases are, and to have sites that won't be affected by human activity for some time to come.

Basically the question you ask is kind of like asking why we spent all that money to fix Hubble when we could get pretty good pictures from the existing optics by computer processing the output. And the answer is obvious - you need to improved system to be sure you are doing the right thing and to get a more accurate picture of what is going on. It doesn't mean the old data is useless, it just means that better data is more useful.

If there is no problem with getting to the true temperature with the present network, as you claim, why do we need a new one? Please answer.

Please Glenn. We are not talking about 'true temperature'. We are talking about temperature anomaly based on some fixed average and the indicated positive growth trend in that anomaly.

And as I said above. It is not black and white. It's not that the USHCN must be perfect or its useless. It is that the USHCN is not as useful or accurate as the USCRN. The more accurate the measurements, the more sure we are of the results, the better we can model the system.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I'm just hitting these few points here due to time:

Really, ghosts control the stock market? No Jim, physical people, collectively control the market. And you are squirming around the point rather than addressing it.

No I'm not. The stock market is best predicted by Psychologists and Economists. The stock market is not a physical system driven by physical processes that can be modeled based on well tested physics, geology, astronomy etc. Comparing the Stock Market to the Climate is way out there from my perspective.

Let's take it out of the market. You have corn growing in a field. You count the cobs growing on the corn, The count goes up day by day and you have 8000 cobbs, but then a weird frost comes and you lose it all. Do you think you can sell that corn cob trend?

Well the corn cobb field is closer. But your weird frost is the equivalent of an asteroid hit as far as climate is concerned, so again, I don't think the analogy fits.

Really Jim, you know the point. Don't try to say that ghosts run the stock market in order to get away from a perfectly valid point.

It's not a valid point. The stock market is not a good analogy relative to climate prediction. Its a very, very poor analogy.

They are both nonlinear. Mathematically they are the same thing.

No Glenn. All nonlinear systems are not the same. You know that. You might be simply trying to say that there is inherant unpredictability in all non linear systems, and that would be true. But to illustrate my point:

The weather is non linear - we can't tell what the weather will be next week.

The climate is non linear, but I know with that it will be cold in the winter, warm in the fall and spring, and hot in the summer. And I can predict that with close to 100% accuracy.

The moon's orbit is non linear, but I can tell you what the phase of the moon was on Jan 1, 34 AD, and I can tell you what it will be on Jan 1 3000 AD.



Jim

[Augustine2004]

In addition to the 11 year sunspot cycle, the sun has 22 years: Hale cycle, the 70-100 year Gleissberg cycle, the 210 year long Suess cycle , the 2300 year long Hallstatt cycle and a recently discovered 6000 year cycle.

Where are we in the Hale cycle? The Gleissberg? the Suess? Hallstat? The 6000-year? Amplitudes? Oh, nah, I guess I could google and get the data, could I?

[Augustine2004]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-good-about-it.

We wouldn't want the poor to eat if it meant we emitted a wee bit of CO2. Maybe we can inject the poor with chloroplasts so that they will generate food from sunlight. That will reduce their external caloric needs and remove CO2 from the atmosphere at the same time. The only drawback is that they would look a bit like Kermit the Frog, but some sacrifices must be made if we are to save the planet.
.

But the FDA or whatever will demand safety and efficacy tests. Untold $$$ and decades of years.

[Augustine2004]

I was looking for information on solar cycles, e.g., the 6000-year cycle, when I saw this website. Undoubtedly someone has already linked to it before in this thread, but after exploring it a while, I decided it should be linked to again. For one thing, it has a section that addresses Glenn's objection to poorly-sited thermometers. Oximixy is more likely to agree with the section. I would like to see how Glenn reacts to this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surf...s-advanced.htm

[oxmixmudd]

I was looking for information on solar cycles, e.g., the 6000-year cycle, when I saw this website. Undoubtedly someone has already linked to it before in this thread, but after exploring it a while, I decided it should be linked to again. For one thing, it has a section that addresses Glenn's objection to poorly-sited thermometers. Oximixy is more likely to agree with the section. I would like to see how Glenn reacts to this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surf...s-advanced.htm

Good page Aug. And yes, it sums up very nicely what makes me think the issues Glenn raises simply do not produce a significant effect on the overall result. I'm not saying they aren't real issues, just that the evidence is they just don't have any significant impact on the global average or on the trend itself.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I was looking for information on solar cycles, e.g., the 6000-year cycle, when I saw this website. Undoubtedly someone has already linked to it before in this thread, but after exploring it a while, I decided it should be linked to again. For one thing, it has a section that addresses Glenn's objection to poorly-sited thermometers. Oximixy is more likely to agree with the section. I would like to see how Glenn reacts to this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/surf...s-advanced.htm

But here is something else that really makes me think the trend is real, not an illusion caused by bad data. Below is a chart of sea ice extent split by an annual average and by season:

seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

Notice the general trend down beginning around 1950. Notice also the increase in the rate of reduction of the extent (with a slight turn back up around the time of the extended solar minima 2008/2009). ESPECIALLY THE SUMMER VALUES.

Sea ice melts above a threshold temperature. So warming tends to be the most noticable in the summer graph, where the warming is most likely to increase the time the ice is above the threshold temperature where the ice begins to melt. With the winter graph only beginning a serious downturn long after the summer graph began to move down. This is absolutely consistent with a gradual overall warming of the arctic, which is what the land temperature anomaly would imply.

But, I am not interested in producing propaganda, and so I will note that in the antarctic an opposite trend is in play. The total amount of sea ice in the antarctic has been increasing at the same time the arctic ice has been retreating. However, there are a few caveats. The net balance is an overal loss of sea ice. The slope of the increase is shallower in the antarctic, and the amount of sea ice in the antarctic is about 1/3 that of the arctic. But there has been a certain amount of debate over whether Antarctica is experiencing cooling at the same time the arctic is experiencing warming. Nevertheless, on the balance it does seem the overall global trend is clearly up. And most certainly the Greenland Ice cap has and is experiencing significant melting at this time.

This coupled with the fact nearly all sources of surface temperature data show a warming trend (not just the USHCN data) makes me fairly certain the warming trend is real, whatever its actual cause may be. Of course, predicting if this trend will continue or cycle back to a cooling depends a very great deal on what the actual cause of the measured trend is, something I'm sure Glenn and I will eventually begin debating as well, though at this time I'm not particularly well versed in the science behind all the possible causes. A good debate/discussion with Glenn et al will likely remedy that over the coming months, though at this time I don't know if an examination of the data will convince me we know enough to determine the precise cause


Jim

[Augustine2004]

Challenge to Copenhagen. Science is not settled. The global catastrophe thesis is not convincingly proven.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

[Challenger Grim]

I share this for others to enjoy. Or not.
http://eadavison.com/?p=11

[Augustine2004]

I share this for others to enjoy. Or not.
http://eadavison.com/?p=11

It looks like a thorough demolition.

[grmorton]

But here is something else that really makes me think the trend is real, not an illusion caused by bad data.

I agree the trend is real, but the reality is that it is a natural cycle. When Antarctic ice gains, Arctic ice goes down. I have noted this several times and no one pays any attention to it. There is a bipolar phase difference geologically. Right now, Antarctican ice extent is at record highs, and given the geologic historical data, it is natural for Arctic ice to be lower.

Stephen Barker, et al, "Interhemispheric Atlantic Seasaw response during the last deglaciation," Nature, 457(2009), p. 1097

"The last glacial and deglacial periods were characterized by millennial-scale shifts in global climate. Records from Greenland ice cores! and North Atlantic sediments suggest that high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere were repeatedly subjected to large and abrupt fluctuations in temperature, commonly referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations. In contrast to the abrupt changes observed in the north, temperature fluctuations over Antarctica were more gradual (warming and cooling over hundreds to thousands of years) and approximately out of phase with their northern counterparts'. Recent ice-core evidence from the Atlantic sector of Antarctica reveals a direct relationship between the extent of warming across Antarctica and the duration of cold, stadial conditions over Greenlands. The contrasting behaviour of temperature variations over Greenland and the North Atlantic as compared with Southern Hemisphere records has led to the notion of a bipolar seesaw, whereby changes in the strength of the Atlantic's conveyor circulation or, more precisely, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) affect the distribution of heat between the South Atlantic and the North Atlantic and more widely'? Modelling results suggest that a reduction in the strength of the AMOC (for example as may be caused by an input of fresh water to the North Atlantic) would give rise to an immediate decrease in northward heat transport. As a result, surface air temperatures over the North Atlantic would cool and those over the South Atlantic would warm. The transmission of these anomalies between the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic may take on the order of a few decades."

© source where applicable

Jinho Ahn and Edward J. Brook, “Atmospheric CO2 and Climate on Millennial Time Scales During the Last Glacial Period, “Science, 322(2008), p. 83

“Age synchronization
between Greenland and Antarctic ice cores
through atmospheric CH4 variations reveals that
Antarctic and Greenlandic temperature are linked,
but not in phase (4, 5) (Fig. 1, A, B, and D).
Antarctic warming started before warming in
Greenland for most of the large millennial
events in the records, and Antarctic temperatures
began to decline when Greenland rapidly
warmed.”

© source where applicable

Here is the chart for Antarctica from http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....antarctic.png

I slightly modified it to show the rising max's and rising minimums over the time that global warming was supposed to be melting everything.

Notice that there is more ice in Antarctica. If CO2 were working all over the world, wouldn't you expect that it would melt Antarctica as well? The fact that it doesn't says that the bipolar out of phase response is still in tact today and that the melting of the Arctic is a natural cycle.

[Augustine2004]

Someone (Jones, I think) said the Medieval Warming Period may have been a Northern Hemisphere event only. The report of Anarctic cycles being out of phase with Arctic cycles could be evidence for that suggestion.

[grmorton]

Someone (Jones, I think) said the Medieval Warming Period may have been a Northern Hemisphere event only. The report of Anarctic cycles being out of phase with Arctic cycles could be evidence for that suggestion.

The Jones who encouraged people to delete emails? Oh yeah, that trustworthy guy.

Ian Plimer, "Heaven and Earth," (New York: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009), p. 80

"Because Australia had no snow cover in the Little Ice Age, its borehole data is far more accurate than borehole data from areas in the Northern Hemisphere. More importantly, the Australian and South Pacific data shows that the Little Ice Age was global. This is contrary to the suggestion that the Little Ice Age was restricted to the Northern Hemisphere and was caused by a weakening in the Gulf Stream. Stalagmites in a cave in the Makapansgat Valley of South Africa show that the region was 1 oC cooler from 1300 to 1800 AD. The lowest temperatures recorded in South Africa were in the Maunder and Sporer Minima. Again it is clear that the Little Ice Age was global and not regional."

© source where applicable

C. R. DE FREITAS
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous? BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327, p. 309-310

Wilson et al. (1979) provide data for far off New Zealand
which, being located in the Southern Hemisphere, is meteorologically
unrelated to Europe. Using 18O/16O dating profiles
through a stalagmite, they found “the temperature curve for
New Zealand to be broadly similar to England and such climatic
fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are
not just a local European phenomenon” (Wilson et al., 1979,
p. 316). Tyson et al. (2000) gathered similar data from a
stalagmite from Cold Air Cave, located 30 km southwest of
Pietersburg, South Africa. Broecker (2001) cites several highquality
data sets as evidence to prove that the Medieval Warm
Period and the Little Ice Age are a global phenomenon. Calkin
et al. (2001) reviewed detailed research of Holocene glaciation
along the northernmost Gulf of Alaska between the Kenai
Peninsula and Yakutat Bay. They found that there is clear evidence
of the existence of a Medieval Warm Period and a Little
Ice Age in Alaska. Glaciers there reached their maximum
Holocene extensions during the Little Ice Age. Given that
Alaskan temperatures reached their Holocene minimum during
Little Ice Age, from this time to the present, temperatures
have been rising in a natural recovery from the coldest period
of the Holocene.
A great deal of recent research has demonstrated that the
Little Ice Age was evident even in Australia and reaffirms that it
really did happen on a global scale. For example, work by
Hendy et al. (2002) and Linsley et al. (2000) shows largely synchronous
temperature trends of the South Pacific Ocean over
the past 400 years support the view that the Little Ice Age was
a truly global phenomenon and not a minor regional anomaly of
lands in the vicinity of the North Atlantic Ocean. In addition, the
data of Hendy et al. (2002) and Linsley et al. (2000) show temperatures
in the South Pacific during the mid-18th century as
being as warm as, or even warmer than, the present day. This is
in contrast to the ‘hockey stick’ temperature history of Mann et
al. (1999), which portrays the last two decades of the 20th century
as the warmest of the past millennium.

© source where applicable

Brian Fagan,
Floods, Famines, and Emperors: El Niño and the Fate of Civilizations (Basic Books, 1999)., Chapter 10

The colder conditions of the Little Ice Age were not confined to Europe and North America. The world was on average one or two degrees Celsius cooler than it is today (during the late Ice Age it was six-to-nine degrees cooler). Precisely dated stalagmites from Cold Air Cave as far away as northern South Africa provide evidence of cooler temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Glaciers advanced, tree lines fell, and seas cooled.

Source: http://williamcalvin.com/readings/Fa...20on%20LIA.htm

© source where applicable

Ricardo Villalba,"Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America, CLIMATIC CHANGE
Volume 26, Numbers 2-3,

In northern Patagonia, radiocarbon dates and tree-ring dates record two major glacial advances in the A.D. 1270–1380 and 1520–1670 intervals. In southern Patagonia, the initiation of theLittle Ice Age appears to have been around A.D. 1300, and the culmination of glacial advances between the late 17th to the early 19th centuries.

© source where applicable

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0214563n1n44731/


In Peru the glaciers had a maximum 600-300 years ago http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/c...tract/5/10/600

South Shetland Island glaciers had maximums during the 18th and 19th century

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2&searchtype=a


Anyone caring to understand the geologic literature will know that the little ice age was global. Jones et al, don't want, indeed tried to get rid of the Little Ice Age so that they can claim all the warming is due to man. It isn't.

[Augustine2004]

Looks like you demolished Jones et al.