Second Little Ice Age

He's whistling past the graveyard, Walter . . . don't waste your time.

The entire planet is like a great big record keeping system. Whenever we have recent examples of sea level rises and falls, we have lots of cross corroborating data available from other sources.
We have, Oxygen isotope ratios that directly give us a sense of sea temperatures responsible for that sea stand. We have stable Carbon ratios that give us a sense of temperature of the solid earth (from things like snail shells),
We have varves and tree rings that allow us to see how regions are "holding up" wrt to climate.

Doing a calculation that must look forward to some degree of validation is really kind of lame and relies on some of the same bits of "arrogance" that you claim the Climatgate people are doing.

Its only wrong when my side says so.
That aint science gooey.

My name is John...I havent shown you any disrespect have I?




uh yeah... counting tree rings isnt lame?

No! That question was pretty lame--one of the problems that many with the surety of faith is when that surety is shown to be built upon sand.

I fear the method of skepticism with you is not quite complete. Show an alternative--one that can be tested--repeatedly and with independence.

Rap

Hi rapcrap

uh, yeah...math and geometry is tested and repeatable...but thanks for playing.

If you don't understand how varves and tree rings actually work, Id suggest you read a bit before you try to sound informed (not like some uneducated hillbilly)

Hillbilly? Hey dumb ass, I is from the big city, NORTH of the Mason Dixon...you is self-admitted to being rural from below the Mason Dixon.


I never discounted using tree rings to guesstimate age (I prefer radio-metric dating thank you)...however when making palaeoclimatic determinations I have a problem.

Several important caveats must be borne in mind when using tree-ring data for palaeoclimate reconstructions. Not least is the intrinsic sampling bias. Tree-ring information is available only in terrestrial regions, so is not available over substantial regions of the globe, and the climate signals contained in tree-ring density or width data reflect a complex biological response to climate forcing. Non-climatic growth trends must be removed from the tree-ring chronology, making it difficult to resolve time-scales longer than the lengths of the constituent chronologies.

Furthermore, the biological response to climate forcing may change over time. There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors. In caontrast there has been evidence hpresented that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season. Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species.

Tree growth is not only determined by climate, but is also affected by other, non-climatic factors. Tipically, ring width decreases exponentially with tree age, according to the geometry of an increasing trunk diameter.

Also, for example, growth rate of an individual tree can be greatly enhanced after a neighbour tree is cut.

Thus, climate reconstructions based on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response.

Math is not science--math is used for tools of science.

BTW Geometry is math. If you look as math as a set--geometry would be a subset.

Also Math uses proofs and theorems --a theory is not a theorem and can never be a proved.

BTW it is interesting that carbon 13 dating doesn't work for any living entity after about 50 years after the industrial revolution---why we've been pumping so mush fossil carbon 12 into the atmosphere that the atmospheric carbon 13 equilibrium is all cattywhumpas.

I won't even mention what a few atmospheric thermonuclear tests has done for many other radiographic analysis methods.

Rap

Uh, yeah rapcrap...thanks for the science lesson??? I tried looking up cattwhumpas in scientific nomenclature but couldn't find it...you must be at a level beyond my comprehension.

Thanks, glujohn, but its not too hard to trey to educate someone who's ignorance is only exceeded by their arrogance.

Rap

Seems like you've only read the beginning sections of wikepedia.

There are really good tools to extract the "coning effects" of tree rings v age of tree. (The declines of rings vary almost in a geometric pattern. We have very good software tools to help in the tedious work fod oing ring-ratio indeces for various aged trees (and from fossil lumber.

Keep reading grasshopper, you will have your eyes opened at the many uses to which we can apply tree rings.

PSS john--Ive never made it a secret that I live in PA,since when does pa lie south or west of the Mason Dixon

Ya...I dont do wiki...smacks of communism!

in other words you only seek out and read that which underpins your beliefs and biases eh?

Have you learnt anymore about tree rings? If you want any help let me know.

No thanks...too low tech for me.

oopps you're right...been a while since I drove south on 15, sorry, thought half of PA was below M/D

Temperature departure map for 2014. Just FYI stuff:

Unfortunately for the central and eastern US, it looks like we've been hovering under a "cold bubble" for a couple of years now. It's nice in the summertime because we get beautiful warm (not too hot days), but it makes for a very tough winter.

That sorta lets the myopic regionalist views of "The Climate is cooling" ,folks be brought into a global context.

Yes. I wonder how warm it has to get before it triggers the next glaciation cycle.

I was reading an article in SCIENCE about how, by using some combination of predictive models,(which they "Superloaded" the North Atlantic with lot of icy cold water from polar ice cap melting. It still didn't generate a quick climate change UNLESS we were in one of the "Dansgrd Eschger" cycles in which the planets "wobble" is more extreme (>25degrees away from the sun in Northern winters).
SSO, according to those guys, a host of things have to happen to conspire together. What they did find was that once the seesaw tipped into a glacial friendly climate range, IT HAPPENED REALLY FAST, (less than 25 years).

It make a good story , and, unlike "The DAY AFTER TOMORROW" , the actual available landscape for colonization would INCREASE as the ocean levels dropped to a minimum of -150 Mfrom todays sea level datum.

WHO KNOWS? predictive models always scare me. they aint forensic tools, they are a mathematical solution to a bunch of data that probably could have an unlimited number of other solutions.