My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

My link wasnt about tree growth data being used as a climate proxy. They confirmed the tree age (when possible) via C-14. The link was simply about the treelines having been much higher up, and for very long periods of time. This has been documented in N. America also. Whole forests types have come, gone, and come again via shifting climates long before H. Ford built the model t.

Nobody's arguing with this--these natural long-term trends. It's rapid (as with a meteor or volcano) changes that are the problem.
===

Those warm local temperatures were concurrent with a robust polar cap. Treelines tell us about summertime highs (not winter highs). Well, that's another story too. Mainly....

The temperature ranges indicated by that article match very closely with the global concensus on Holocene temperatures:
Yep, warmer from 7000-2000 years ago... just like the paper says.

This follows the typical shape for any interglacial period, except for the very recent past--suddenly we're off the scale (relatively)--certainly out of the regular pattern for an interglacial.
Of course, now we're even farther above that "2004" arrow on the left.
===

I am familiar with the Holocene temperatures, but I thought the rapidity with which the treeline was now climbing (since 1980) was the most dramatic gleaning from that paper.

If that rate keeps up for another ten years, the new treeline will have exceeded the highest Holocene treeline from the past 9000 years.

I got your point, and the literature backs it up too. Do you get my point?
...or any of my previous questions... or points not in parentheses?

~

[Flying Binghi]

Essay, has that temp variations graph been through a Climate Audit yet ? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

I have to admit, after all the false claims, i dont trust any thing put out by (some) climate scientists (?) until it has been audited.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Essay, has that temp variations graph been through a Climate Audit yet ? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

I'm sure they wouldn't pass up a chance to point out any flaws in such a widely published chart--a compilation of peer-reviewed research.

But I don't know if it's been vetted by the bloggers yet. Let me know what you find out.

Thanks,
~

p.s. This was not to make any "claim," but only included as it "backed up" the treeline research that Cedars had already presented.

[Flying Binghi]

a compilation of peer-reviewed research.

i dunno, to me, peer review dont seem to count for much when it comes to climate science

Perhaps we need a Climate Audit approved stamp for AGW related research

....any way, i've been trying to escape the forums for a few weeks/months, so will leave the AGW hampster wheel for now

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

I dunno....

Yes, it's sad....

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Perhaps we need a Climate Audit approved stamp for AGW related research

You're esentially calling for a peer-review process here; but just by your peers, it seems (though the folks at climateaudit might object to that characterization).

~

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Perhaps we need a Climate Audit approved stamp for AGW related research

Originally Posted by Essay

You're esentially calling for a peer-review process here; but just by your peers, it seems (though the folks at climateaudit might object to that characterization).

I’m not very familiar with climateaudit.com, but from what I’ve seen of it, and the general acclaim it won in 2007, I’m impressed that it’s a valuable science contributor, and a stand-out model of how both how to participate in science without being invited, and, on the part of NASA:GISS, how to welcome and respond to good uninvited input. As a result of Stephen McIntyre’s respectful and high quality work with GISS, a significant error in their analysis was corrected, and the GISS’s accepting McIntyre’s recommendation to make their code and documentation available online.

That said, I doubt that ClimateAudit has the resources to review all the climatology literature, or the skills to review any but raw temperature and possibly other instrument data. As best I can tell, when it comes to actual work, ClimateAudit is essentially a synonym for McIntyre, so its output is limited to that of a single person with the same academic background as me (a BS in Math), though 12 years earlier, and with more distinction, having won top national high school math honors (vs. my meager statewide college computer programming 1st place team win). That a single, independent worker can make such a contribution is, IMHO, inspiring.

That McIntyre’s worked in the mining industry leads many, I think, to suspect him of bias, but his work appears to me to stand on its own.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Essay

Those warm local temperatures were concurrent with a robust polar cap. Treelines tell us about summertime highs (not winter highs). Well, that's another story too. Mainly....

The temperature ranges indicated by that article match very closely with the global concensus on Holocene temperatures:
Yep, warmer from 7000-2000 years ago... just like the paper says.
This follows the typical shape for any interglacial period, except for the very recent past--suddenly we're off the scale (relatively)--certainly out of the regular pattern for an interglacial.
==
If that rate keeps up for another ten years, the new treeline will have exceeded the highest Holocene treeline from the past 9000 years.
~

One cannot look at the history of climate and confine it to the limited time offered in the above. One must look at the bigger picture. Like the last 5 million years:


Plenty of remarkable ups and downs.
65 million years:


500+million years:
Image:Phanerozoic Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Could you please point out to me what is "normal" (assuming the earth doesnt revolve around people)? What appears unprecedented is how cold its been (i mean the big picture, not the teeny piece of the last 30 years)

As far as your reference to saplings. If they make it to treeline status, we'll see. There is a reason the authors referred to them as saplings rather than the official tree line. That reason being many saplings sprout and few make it to actual tree (age wise) status. Additionally, it will still be only caught up to past treelines (since the end of the last ice age). Those trees lasted in that very high position for many, many years.

*note Pictures above from same source as Essays original picture. GlobalWarmingArt.com

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

One cannot look at the history of climate and confine it to the limited time offered in the above. One must look at the bigger picture.
Like the last 5 million years:
....
Plenty of remarkable ups and downs.
65 million years:
....
500+million years:
....
Could you please point out to me what is "normal" (assuming the earth doesnt revolve around people)? What appears unprecedented is how cold its been (i mean the big picture, not the teeny piece of the last 30 years)

As far as your reference to saplings. If they make it to treeline status, we'll see. There is a reason the authors referred to them as saplings rather than the official tree line. That reason being many saplings sprout and few make it to actual tree (age wise) status. Additionally, it will still be only caught up to past treelines (since the end of the last ice age). Those trees lasted in that very high position for many, many years.

Good reply! I knew I was stretching it when I referred to the "new" treeline (of saplings).
Good catch! Yes the Arctic may be on its way to recovery and the temperatures may decline before those saplings establish an official treeline, but....

You have to admit that the jump in elevation during the 20 years between 1980 and 2000 is dramatic--compared to the much smaller rise during the previous 100 years.

Maybe it's significant or maybe not--it's just one snapshot--and....
...it was also just one parenthetical aside, in a much larger picture.

~

p.s. Great charts! I'll get to the importance of scale and mode later. These charts are a good starting point for a conversation centering around questions such as what is a good time frame to establish a "normal" baseline, or what mode of atmospheric chemistry is driving the climate, or what modes of circulation are driving the climate, etc. [hint: continental drift, and the rise of... oxygen, certain mountain ranges, and the grasses].

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Essay

You have to admit that the jump in elevation during the 20 years between 1980 and 2000 is dramatic--compared to the much smaller rise during the previous 100 years.

Dramatic?

Not when considering the world is still crawling out of the effects of the little ice age.

Page 11 shows a graph of what is believed to be the established (old growth) forest above the 2000 sapling edge lasting over 1000 years. And that was 5,000 years ago. Not so long after the end of the last ice age. Some of the old trees sampled were estimated to be 350 years old at the time they died.

Ask me in 300 years if this is dramatic, or just another cycle.

Originally Posted by Essay

These charts are a good starting point for a conversation centering around questions such as what is a good time frame to establish a "normal" baseline, or what mode of atmospheric chemistry is driving the climate, or what modes of circulation are driving the climate, etc. [hint: continental drift, and the rise of... oxygen, certain mountain ranges, and the grasses].

The point was simply, there is no normal.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Dramatic?
Not when considering the world is still crawling out of the effects of the little ice age.
...the established (old growth) forest above the 2000 sapling edge lasting over 1000 years. And that was 5,000 years ago. Not so long after the end of the last ice age.

"Yes the Arctic may be on its way to recovery and the temperatures may decline before those saplings establish an official treeline, but...."
"If that rate keeps up for [just] another ten years, the new treeline will have exceeded the highest Holocene treeline from the past 9000 years."
...and yet all the long-term climate parameters indicate we should currently be well below those Holocene maximums. Something is changing the result for the cumulation of natural forcers.

Originally Posted by Cedars

...Ask me in 300 years if this is dramatic, or just another cycle.

The point was simply, there is no normal.

Either way, dramatic change or "another cycle," it'll be more than we want to try and "adapt" to....
===

Sorry I can't respond better now (or for a few days), but I do agree with the "what is normal" question.
It's clear that there are a lot of different climate modes that are "normal." Most of these would not be conducive to maintaining civilization as we know it.

I think we can now ask what climate we want to choose as normal; or maybe it'd be better to ask which climates we want to avoid--prevent from becoming normal.

It seems that we are currently (unintentionally) geoengineering our climate with our various pollutants....
...so am suggesting we choose intentionally (for a change) to biogeoengineer a more stable (less unstable) climate,
and adjust our strategies as natural forcers change.

Learning to control our environment is the adaptation that we excell at, as a species.
If we don't prevent a large change in the environment, we will adapt as a species eventually--but not quickly as a civilization--not as a collective humanity.

...and try to deacidify and reoxygenate the oceans too.
===

I don't worry about GW because of little shifts in treelines or sea level. I worry about unintentional forcing of the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry that will change the sustainability equations for our species.

I worry most about triggering another glaciation, as the climate snaps back--reacting to the forced instability.

~