Report: Global cooling ended in the 19th century

There are 14 comments on the TG Daily story from Apr 24, 2013, titled Report: Global cooling ended in the 19th century. In it, TG Daily reports that:

The most comprehensive evaluation of temperature change on Earth's continents over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years indicates that a long-term cooling trend - caused by factors including fluctuations in the amount and distribution of heat from the sun, and increases in volcanic activity - ended late in the 19th century.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TG Daily.

PHD

Montalba, TX

#1 Apr 25, 2013
While the researchers do not make explicit correlations in their study between the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the 20th century and the increased global temperatures, they note that their analysis will serve as a benchmark for future studies.

There you have it more of they really don't know. The good thing is they are honest about what they don't really know.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2 Apr 25, 2013
fetid feces face flip flopper fiend wrote:
they don't really know.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Dirtling's gathering of 2 day's posts by,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' fluffs........ less now:
///////
PHDumbo wrote:
Well you can't pass on any top secrets babble not allowed."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"There you have it "budd"" the commander dirtling running its hate babble again."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"WOW the Less than a Box of Rocks continues the babble of a one child from the left behind program. Why don't you go away your scarring[sic] the children of the world. Hay your the reason we may have global warming from all that hot air you spew."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"And your status would be? Yes its a less than zero. You must do better remember your the commander of babble."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"What would be a compliment is tossing out your useless babble and show all your own work. No one can compete with you on fiction your the commander of babble i.e. fiction."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"More oe[sic] incorrect babble from the dirtling."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"More than any hate babble that you spew daily.Now take your meds."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"I bit like a virus sure. Unlike you that is a virus of stupid useless babble.Hay dirling forget to take your meds today?"
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Is this another case of useless babble?"
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"More hate and useless bae from the dirtling."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"The real problem is your useless babble. The other would be your hot air causing climate change."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Hay dirtling if you had any best principles you wouldn't babble. YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION. Show us your work the cut and paste is getting old. Hay PHDumdo knows how to spell continuous. Your confusing your!! self!! with the useless hot air babble."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"I respectively[sic] correct you. You forgot the dirtling."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"And don' forget the dirtling is the commander of useless babble."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Now you’re talking in your normal less than zero education. You do better with you useless babble. Hay the world is cooling spew more hot air."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"More useless babble from the commander of babble."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"You ran out of useless babble so you resort to the usual copy and paste thing.Well dirtling any more useless babble you wish to offer or will you continue the copy and paste thing?"
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Well do tell all you’re the one that posts in spanglish do explain. Hay dirtling try your best to refrain from the useless babble."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Again you don't have any best principles unless you count the USELESS BABBLE you spew daily."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"True but we have the durtling out there to spew more useless babble."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Wow I bet you can cut and paste www.useless babble and would find a description of you the dirtling."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Well there you have it again folks. The dirtling can't answer the question and rants on with more cut and paste and useless babble. So boring that you come back for more. Hay dirtling look at the bright side you managed to make an ASSumption of your self again."
<<<<<<< <<<<<
"Well there’s intelligent dialogue and there’s dirtling with the stupid useless babble. Hay dirtling you never answered the question. Is the useless babble confusing you again? Inserting your head in a commode would increase your mental capacity."
<<<<<<< <<<<<<
So you recognize the truth you spew more hate and useless babble in every post."
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#3 Apr 25, 2013
This would indicate the Little Ice Age was global.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#4 Apr 25, 2013
The basic information they confirm has been available since Michael Mann's groundbreaking study in 1999 or so where he did a 'multiproxy reconstruction' of the NH temperature totals.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#5 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
This would indicate the Little Ice Age was global.
fun farts sees what he want to see in a study.

Even if it isn't there.

Even if the study says the opposite.

Even if he hasn't read the study.

"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confi...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#6 Apr 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>

"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confi...
Did you not read it? The above says what scientist have been saying all along. Yes the LIA was global, not all temps were cold all at the same time. That's the reason for the

"Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."

Just like today, and yesterday. Last March the US had it's warmest March on record, March 2013 is something like #43 warmest for the US and 10th warmest for the globe, yet global warming is a worldwide even if some areas of the US had March temps that were lower than the average of December temps.

Even when some areas are cold, we say the overall trend is warming. Your reference said the same thing.

"Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."

And just so you don't forget, here's the map of the MWP. You can see how "the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures..."

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Medieva...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#7 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not read it?
Fun Facts wrote:
This would indicate the Little Ice Age was global.
Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confi...

LOL.

It's incredible how fun farts can read a report and see in it what he wants to believe despite it saying the very opposite thing.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#8 Apr 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confi...
LOL.
It's incredible how fun farts can read a report and see in it what he wants to believe despite it saying the very opposite thing.
Read it again.

"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals."

Based on what is stated, we are not having global warming becuase the antarctic is not warming, even if the arctic is warming, we aren't having global warming because both are not doing the same thing at the same time.

And eventhough the average temps are higher than before, not all temps are higher than before so therefore there is no global warming because not everywhere got hot at the same time.

We don't have warming in the US, because one look at the map shows that the US has been almost cut in half with the eastern side being warm when the west is cold. No global warming, both the east and the west are not doing the same thing at the same time.

Look at March, how can you have global warming with a map with both hot and cold temps at the same time?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

Not much global warming here, therefore no global warming according to the above statement.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/sho...

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#9 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it again.
I'm not your student to patronise.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#10 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Read it again.
"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals."
Based on what is stated, we are not having global warming ..
The reference was to the LIA. And it confirmed that there was no LIA globally. The opposite of your claim so you are busted.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on what is stated, we are not having global warming ..
Non-sequitur. The LIA is a period of cooling supposedly showing up everywhere (by your claim). There is no evidence of this (as stated) and the global AVERAGE temperature isn't available for study (not enough data records unlike todays meteorology network)
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
becuase the antarctic is not warming, even if the arctic is warming, we aren't having global warming because both are not doing the same thing at the same time.
Unlike the LIA which is defined by a temperature excurions on a REGIONAL basis, AGW is the GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE warming at a steady rate. This does not preclude climate changes in regions having warmer, colder, wetter or drier climates.

Michael Mann's study did show that there was a global COOLING prior to AGW of about 0.2C/Millenium. Even that is criticised for limited proxy data (dendrochronology, boreholes, ice cores, ocean deposits, etc. It is true that the study is weaker than AGW for the simple reason that proxy studies are 'second hand' and less reliable than modern instrumentation. But the 'global LIA' is actually proven WRONG here. Because it is defined as the local warming, NOT the global average. The global average (from all reconstructions) does not have a significant excursion during this time so it is almost certain that the LIA is a regional phenomenon due to change in heat distribution. NOT global.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#11 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at March, how can you have global warming with a map with both hot and cold temps at the same time?
AGW = increase in the global AVERAGE surface temperature. Try to learn ONE thing at least. i.e the definition of what you are trying to talk about (but failing).

With a warmer average temperature and changes in heat distribution from the 'blanket effect' of GHGs (i.e cooler stratosphere, less difference in temps from pole to equator, the climate (driven by a heat engine) is bound to create change (which can be hotter, cooler,drier or warmer depending on how the change affects the local region) The TOTAL heat content of the planets surface will be higher but LOCAL heat transport may be weaker.

Maybe your next post won't be quite as stupid?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#12 Apr 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW = increase in the global AVERAGE surface temperature. Try to learn ONE thing at least. i.e the definition of what you are trying to talk about (but failing).
With a warmer average temperature and changes in heat distribution from the 'blanket effect' of GHGs (i.e cooler stratosphere, less difference in temps from pole to equator, the climate (driven by a heat engine) is bound to create change (which can be hotter, cooler,drier or warmer depending on how the change affects the local region) The TOTAL heat content of the planets surface will be higher but LOCAL heat transport may be weaker.
Maybe your next post won't be quite as stupid?
I get it, so the LIA was a decrease "in the global AVERAGE surface temperature". The fact that not all areas of the world were cold at the same time doesn't negate the LIA being global since the average temps were lower overall. Try finding a place in the world that was warm during the 70 years of the Maunder Minimum.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#13 Apr 26, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it, so the LIA was a decrease "in the global AVERAGE surface temperature".
There is no evidence for that. And I guess I lose the bet on how stupid your 'next post' would be. Such deliberate misreading is cheap even for you.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that not all areas of the world were cold at the same time doesn't negate the LIA being global since the average temps were lower overall.
As noted, all studies using proxy data (we don't have meteorology records that old) finds NO significant change in the overall global average temperatures. They are probably too noisy to detect such a small change as might be accounted for by the 'Maunder Minimum' over such a short period. The thermal mass of the Earth changes very slowly even with significant forcing and the MM would have an equilibrium temperature change of only about .4C. If it had lasted a CENTURY, maybe we would have seen a change.

But the point is that the 'global LIA' is described as a short term, synchronous event by the denailists so it has to be debated by that description. I assume that there may have been a SMALL change overall temperature due to the global effect of the MM but it would almost certainly be below 0.1C and thus nowhere near comparable to AGW. It is the DEMAND by the denialists that there is a LARGE change and that it is global to compare to AGW that is faulty.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Try finding a place in the world that was warm during the 70 years of the Maunder Minimum.
The equator. It certainly wasn't cold. What point are you trying to make? Relative cold or relative warm? Lots of examples of both during and after the MM. Regional climate is a semi-chaotic process and not 'steady state'. Which is why you have to take longer term trends or the sum of ALL thermal content.

Try to make an intelligent post. This is boring.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#14 Apr 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The equator. It certainly wasn't cold. What point are you trying to make? Relative cold or relative warm? Lots of examples of both during and after the MM. Regional climate is a semi-chaotic process and not 'steady state'. Which is why you have to take longer term trends or the sum of ALL thermal content.
Try to make an intelligent post. This is boring.
Evidently not 'boring' enough to get you to go away.

But hey as long as you're still here, yes even the equatorial region had lower temps in the 1700s.

Remember this one, it's one of my favorites,

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Medieva...

Eventhough it's for the MWP most of those proxy studies include the LIA time period as well. Not many for the equator but I found some close.

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Lund-20...

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Newton-...

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Goni-20...

And from the antarctic penisula

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Khim-20...

the arctic

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Cook-20...

When you look, kinda hard not to see a pattern, don't you think?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Geology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News New Island Off Pakistan's Coast May Not... (Sep '13) 2 hr shahid afridi 7
News Climate Change and the Catholic Church 3 hr Jim the Hoax Denier 2
News Small earthquake rattles the greater Los Angele... Mon Reg Stromquist 2
News 4.2-magnitude Michigan earthquake felt througho... Sat Wassup 1
News No reports of major damage from small earthquak... Sat Nelson 1
News Behind Nepal's Shangri-la image, poverty and mi... Apr 30 not so lucky 1
News Preparations fall short for Nepal earthquake Apr 27 4500 gone 1
More from around the web