Replies

Global cooling manifests as a large number of local coolings and locally above or below normal precip. Likewise warming to warming and abnormal precip.

But you still need to link the change in precipitation to either warming or cooling at that time in that area. If you can't do this, the information is worthless.

The other scientists' explanations that he reviews are from local weather pattern changes (e.g. the polar vortex).

But again, there is nothing to link a change in the polar vortex to temperature change. All the polar vortex will do is to change the circulation air which WILL change precipitation.

The hypothesis I allude to in 138 is that global temperature anomalies are more likely to create climate anomalies than when global temperatures are normal. I think that is well supported both empirically and in theory.

I am not as sure of the connection as you are, however it is not really relevant here. The key that I keep going over and over is that you can not just point to anomalies and say that they are indications of warming or cooling. There must be a way to tie the anomaly's to temperature change and then to either warming or cooling.

But the overwhelming evidence from Soon's paper is for warming in the MWP well beyond any in the 20th century (and most of that was early 20th in any case).

Absolutely not! As discussed above, we can't say what the changes in precipitation show in regards to temperature. Also, few if any of the studies are designed to look for 20th century anomalies. These are all (as far as I can see) papers trying to study past events and they use appropriate methods for that purpose. For example, ice core samples depend on the depth of the firn ice which can take up to several hundred years to develop and radio-carbon dating is only good after about 50 years has passed and will not generally give you a reading within much less than 100 years. Add to this the error of measurement such as (quoting from Bond, another author Soon references) "We sampled both cores at intervals of 0.5 to 1 cm (equivalent to a resolution of 50 to 100 years)" So if the resolution is 50 to 100 years, can we say anything about the last 1/2 of the 20th century?

Finally, I will add to the list of errors that Soon has made in this paper by saying that he or his researchers has a reading comprehension problem (using WOSG's terminology). I was re-reading deMenocal and I will note that Soon has listed him as answering NO to the question of "Is there an objective discernible climatic anomaly within the 20th century?" (as given in Table 1 - deMenocal 2000). In his paper deMonocal says " ... the LIA, ended in the late 19th century, and some of the warming since that time may be related to the present warming phase of this millennial-scale climate oscillation (Fig. 4), although the warming in recent decades is unprecedented relative to the past millennium." Of course he is talking about warming due to changing currents but that didn't stop Soon before.!

Absolutely not! As discussed above, we can't say what the changes in precipitation show in regards to temperature. Also, few if any of the studies are designed to look for 20th century anomalies. These are all (as far as I can see) papers trying to study past events and they use appropriate methods for that purpose.

Not absolutely anything! There are plenty of proxies that are just temperature. The only debate is the global extent of warming in the MWP. I researched the examples you stabbed at above and found it wasn't just glaciers in Argentina (with possible precip influence) but climate compared to today (Cioccale 99). The Chinese example wasn't just cultivation but oxygen isotopes that are determined by temp, not precip. The stalagmites are affected by both temp and precip but the precip can be controlled (www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/holmgren.pdf)

Admittedly, the data for global warming in MWP is not as strong as the North Atlantic, but it exists in the South Atlantic and South America. The others are wet and dry, or may have precip influence (e.g. Aussie tree rings). The Peruvian glacier shows some hockey stick characteristics, but also that today's temperatures are a bit cooler than the MWP. That one is certainly a temperature proxy.

In short, the evidence for MWP warmth is substantial but doesn't exceed today's temperatures by much except for N America and Europe. It was certainly global in extent and does not support the contention that the 20th century was warmer. At best it was similar in the early part of the century.