An Interview with Dick Lindzen

These graphs were publicised to explain the scientific findings ofclimatology, and in addition to scientific debate over the reconstructions, they have been the topic of political dispute. The issue is part of the global warming controversy and has been one focus of political responses to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.[1]




A 2010 opinion piece by David Frank, Jan Esper, Eduardo Zorita and Rob Wilson (Frank et al. 2010) noted that by then over two dozen large-scale climate reconstructions had been published, showing a broad consensus that there had been exceptional 20th century warming after earlier climatic phases, notably the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. There were still issues of large-scale natural variability to be resolved, especially for the lowest frequency variations, and they called for further research to improve expert assessment of proxies and to develop reconstruction methods explicitly allowing for structural uncertainties in the process.[13]

New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions, and agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, as in the Ljungqvist 2010 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction. Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.[213] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. The hockey stick graph was further extended and confirmed by Marcott et al. 2013 which used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years.[214]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
 
1. baloney. I question the idea there has been a rapid increase in warming.

2. You obviously have no idea how to use the phrase. res ipsa.

3. more childish troll games.

you have never produced any science showing man made co2 causes warming.
if you had.. you would have a noble prize.

the fact you pretend you did shows you have zero integrity and proves your are a troll.


dbphoenix said:
Because you implied that the increase is not unprecedented. Don't play games. See your statement below.



It applies because res ipsa loquitur.



Proof, no. Science, yes. You choose to ignore it.
More...
 
Last edited:
fraudcurrents and his lying friends... implied that ljungquvist is consistent with Mann's hockeystick... because they said there was warming in the 20th century...

but here is a chart of a conglomeration of his work in 2012..

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N28/C2.php



What was learned
The final grand conglomerate result of Ljungqvist et al.'s work is depicted in the figure below.



ljungqvistetal2012b.gif

Figure 1. Mean whole-year centennial temperature proxy anomalies (standard deviations from the AD 1000-1899 mean) vs. year AD. Shaded area represents ± 2 standard errors. Adapted from Ljungqvist et al. (2012).


As can be seen from this figure, and with respect to the climatological community's burning question of "whether or not the current warmth has exceeded the level and geographic extent of the warmth in the last millennium," the four Swedish scientists report that "during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century," hopefully setting this question to rest once and for all. They do note, however, that their results indicate that "the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 1200 years." But such should not be surprising, in light of the fact that the Little Ice Age is universally recognized as having been the coldest multi-century period of the current interglacial (Barclay et al., 2009; Briner et al., 2009; Menounos et al., 2009), as well as its most extensively glaciatedperiod (Calkin et al., 2001; Clague et al., 2004; Joerin et al., 2006). And, therefore, recovery from such an extremely cold condition, once begun, would be expected to be quite dramatic.


here is the abstract...

http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/cp-8-227-2012.html

Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries
F. C. Ljungqvist1,2,3, P. J. Krusic3,4, G. Brattström3,5, and H. S. Sundqvist3,4
1Department of History, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
2Centre for Medieval Studies, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
3Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
4Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
5Department of Mathematics, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract. We analyse the spatio-temporal patterns of temperature variability over Northern Hemisphere land areas, on centennial time-scales, for the last 12 centuries using an unprecedentedly large network of temperature-sensitive proxy records. Geographically widespread positive temperature anomalies are observed from the 9th to 11th centuries, similar in extent and magnitude to the 20th century mean. A dominance of widespread negative anomalies is observed from the 16th to 18th centuries. Though we find the amplitude and spatial extent of the 20th century warming is within the range of natural variability over the last 12 centuries, we also find that the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is unprecedented in the context of the last 1200 yr. The positive Northern Hemisphere temperature change from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 12 centuries. These results remain robust even after removing a significant number of proxies in various tests of robustness showing that the choice of proxies has no particular influence on the overall conclusions of this study.

Citation: Ljungqvist, F. C., Krusic, P. J., Brattström, G., and Sundqvist, H. S.: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-249, doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012, 2012.
 
and further agw bullshit can be seen.

fradcurrents cited...

David Frank,1∗ Jan Esper,2 Eduardo Zorita3 and Rob Wilson4 as supporting mann and the hockey stick in the more recent IPCC reports...

here is a quote from his paper...


http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/14jun2011a3.html

Reference
Esper, J. and Frank, D. 2009. The IPCC on a heterogeneous Medieval Warm Period. Climatic Change 94: 267-273.
In an important paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change, Swiss scientists Jan Esper (of the Swiss Federal Research Institute) and David Frank (of the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research) take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to task for concluding in their fourth assessment report (AR4) that, relative to modern times, there was "an increased heterogeneity of climate during medieval times about 1000 years ago."
This finding, if true, would be of great significance to the ongoing debate over the cause of 20th-century global warming, because, in the words of Esper and Frank, "heterogeneity alone is often used as a distinguishing attribute to contrast with present anthropogenic warming." On the other hand, if the IPCC's contention is false, it would mean that the warmth of the Current Warm Period is not materially different from that of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), suggesting there is no need to invoke anything extraordinary (such as anthropogenic CO2 emissions) as the cause of earth's current warmth, which does not yet appear to have reached the level experienced a thousand years ago (when there was much less CO2 in the air than there is today). And, of course, this outcome would also be of great significance.

So what did the two Swiss scientists find? By means of various mathematical procedures and statistical tests, Esper and Frank were able to demonstrate that the records reproduced in the AR4 "do not exhibit systematic changes in coherence, and thus cannot be used as evidence for long-term homogeneity changes." And even if they could be thus used, they say "there is no increased spread of values during the MWP," and that the standard error of the component data sets "is actually largest during recent decades." Consequently, the researchers concluded that their "quantification of proxy data coherence suggests that it was erroneous [for the IPCC] to conclude that the records displayed in AR4 are indicative of a heterogeneous climate during the MWP."

Nevertheless, the homogeneity issue remains unresolved, for as Esper and Frank also note, "an estimation of long-term spatial homogeneity changes is premature based on the smattering of data currently available." And that is why we continue to post the results of new studies that provide additional data on the Medieval Warm Period.
 
The experimental evidence that proves the earth is flat is very easily reproducible and requires only access to a long body of standing water and a little trig to conclude that water is not convex, that the surface of the earth does not curve as Round Earth doctrine mathematically predicts. Other experiments require only a stick and a plumb line. Each of the experiments are described in full in the Flat Earth Literature.



http://theflatearthsociety.org.../history-and-mission



So there you have it! The earth is flat. Plus, this website looks very impressive with lots of charts and stuff and it has no connection to the US government so it must be an authority. Good enough for jem and piezoe.
 
After doing some extensive reading on that site about the subject I am now convinced that the earth is flat.

However, this poster comes up with some tough questions.

All flat earthers believe, as they must do for their theory to be true, that there is a vast world-wide conspiracy of organizations and individuals that know the earth is flat but that want all of the common people to believe it is round. But flat earthers don't seem to have a coherent explanation of the origin of the conspiracy. NASA is often cited, but the roundness of the earth was common knowledge hundreds of years before NASA came along. For instance, Nicolaus Copernicus published his model of a Sun-centered universe (with earth orbiting the sun) back in the 1500's. In the 1600's, Johannes Kepler did important work involving the mathematics of orbiting celestial bodies. And of course we could name many more famous astronomers from any century.

So the question is, did Copernicus or another early astronomer decide that common people couldn't handle the truth about the earth's shape? Did early scientists decide they could somehow make a lot more money if they lied to the world about the earth's shape? Did the monarchies of Europe have a secret meeting 500 years ago where they made a pact about never revealing the truth? And to this day, the British royal family and all other monarchies have kept the secret, enlisting the help of NASA and the Chinese space agency along the way?

What's your theory, flat earthers?
 
jem said:
1. baloney. I question the idea there has been a rapid increase in warming.

2. You obviously have no idea how to use the phrase. res ipsa.

3. more childish troll games.

you have never produced any science showing man made co2 causes warming.
if you had.. you would have a noble prize.

the fact you pretend you did shows you have zero integrity and proves your are a troll.
More...

If you don't want to hear the answers, why do you keep asking me these questions? The answers aren't going to change.

Grow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top