New Paper Finds Seas Warmer During Medieval Warm Period

Say, how did all the sea life survive during the Medieval Warm Period? Why didn’t all the coral die out? Was there some sort of mass die-off of sea life? Did islands tip over? Were they covered in hundreds of feet of sea rise? A paper published in The Holocene delves into the sea temperatures of that time period (Via The Australian Climate Skeptic Party)

(CO2 Science) What was done: Using ten proxy sea surface temperature (SST) records – six from the Norwegian Margin, three from the North Icelandic Shelf and one from the Scottish Margin – Cunningham et al. prepared a 1,000-year SST record spanning the period from AD 1000 to 2000, which revealed, in their words, that “the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ warming was most pronounced before AD 1200, with a long-term cooling trend apparent after AD 1250.” And what did the new record reveal about the uniqueness – or not! – of the region’s late-20th-century Current Warm Period?

What was learned: The twenty researchers report that “in recent decades temperatures have been similar to those inferred for the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’.” However, their graphical representations (three versions of them) of the one-thousand-year period clearly indicate that the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period has actually been a couple tenths of a degree C less than that of the earlier Medieval Warm Period.

What it means: As has been found to be the case in so many land-based assessments of the relative warmth of the Medieval and Current Warm Periods, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth’s current level of warmth … although it could be thought to be somewhat unusual in that even with the 120-ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration that occurred over the last 1000 years, it is still not as hot now as it was back in the Medieval Warm Period.

Let’s repeat that last line:

…although it could be thought to be somewhat unusual in that even with the 120-ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration that occurred over the last 1000 years, it is still not as hot now as it was back in the Medieval Warm Period.

Unusual in terms of Warmist model predictions, which state that the Earth, and the seas, should be much warmer. Of course, Warmists will simply pronounce that the warming of the seas has disappeared into the deep oceans, much like with the surface warming. Why? Because shut up, that’s why. You ask too many questions, and asking questions isn’t science, ya know.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

40 Responses to “New Paper Finds Seas Warmer During Medieval Warm Period”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Unusual in terms of Warmist model predictions, which state that the Earth, and the seas, should be much warmer.

    You don’t seem to understand the basics of the climate problem. It’s not the current warming that’s the problem, but the projected warming due to continued greenhouse gas emissions.

  2. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    No, you dont understand. You want us to base our continued existence upon the prediction of failed and untested computer models.

    If the models have been incapable of predicting current warming, or non-warming in this case, then why should they be believed at all about future warming?

    The models were wrong in the 70s. They were wrong in the 90s. They are even more wrong now.

    You can not prove a future utter destruction when the current mild climate was not in the models.

  3. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: If the models have been incapable of predicting current warming, or non-warming in this case, then why should they be believed at all about future warming?

    Basic physics indicates that increasing the atmospheric content of CO2 and other gases will increase the greenhouse effect. The Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting. That’s a basic confirmation. The amount of climate sensitivity is still uncertain, but is almost certainly more than 1°C, and probably in the range of 2-4°C. Exactly how the heat will move through the climate system is also uncertain.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: You can not prove a future utter destruction when the current mild climate was not in the models.

    Climate science doesn’t predict a future of “utter destruction”.

  4. The future warming, eh? Yet 97% of the models have failed in predicting the last 17 years.

  5. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Basic physics indicates that increasing the atmospheric content of CO2 and other gases will increase the greenhouse effect.

    That is only true to a point. CO2 has a logarithmic warming. We are at near maximum now. Adding additional CO2 will not provide any more measurable warmth to the atmosphere (due to the mechanism that CO2 absorbs solar insolation and re-emits it). So, currently, this can’t be used as a justification.

    The Earth is absorbing more heat than it is emitting.

    Well, if that is the case, then man is not to blame. yet, from where is this outside source of heat coming from?

    That’s a basic confirmation.

    And yet science still has not settled yet on what the energy budget of Earth is yet.

    The amount of climate sensitivity is still uncertain, but is almost certainly more than 1°C, and probably in the range of 2-4°C

    Most people agree that it is around 1C. If it is 2C, then estimates are double. If it is 4C, then estimates are quadrupled. I say that because the outcomes are based on those estimates. If we still dont know whether the estimates are 1C or quadrupled to 4C (I think previous IPCC estimates had it even higher) then how can the “scientists” positively state that they know the answers? and politicians state that they have the cure? Why don’t we find out what the problem is, if there is one, before we start mandating economy-killing solutions?

    Exactly how the heat will move through the climate system is also uncertain.

    So, this is “new” heat? This heat won’t act like old heat?

  6. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Yes Teach. The future warming. The warming that will destroy civilization and kill life unless we stop the western economies now.

    These brave climate sciencey types know the exact climate 100 years from now, but can’t predict the weather 3 days out, let alone one week. Sure, Teach, you can live your life based upon hypotheticals built upon uncertainties, but I choose to base your laws upon projections, models, trend lines and unproven\untested theories. Because those pieces of paper carry more weight than all of your backyard thermometers and physical observations.

    /yeah, that was sarc, you CAGWers.

  7. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    RE:
    Easterbrook noted that his 20-year prediction was the “mildest” one of four possible scenarios, all of which involve lower temperatures, and added that only time will tell whether the Earth continues to cool slightly or plunges into another Little Ice Age as it did between 1650 and 1790.”

  8. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Yet 97% of the models have failed in predicting the last 17 years.

    Climate models can’t accurate forecast the internal dynamics of the climate system. However, the overall heat content is increasing.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Adding additional CO2 will not provide any more measurable warmth to the atmosphere (due to the mechanism that CO2 absorbs solar insolation and re-emits it).

    A doubling of CO2 will directly cause a 1°C increase in global mean temperature. The scientific question is climate sensitivity. There are a number of ways to estimate climate sensitivity, including climate response to volcanoes, radiation budget experiments, and paleoclimatic constraints. These observations put climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Well, if that is the case, then man is not to blame.

    An increase in the greenhouse effect will cause an increase in heating on the surface while the upper atmosphere will cool.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: And yet science still has not settled yet on what the energy budget of Earth is yet.

    The Earth is absorbing 0.58 ± 0.15 W m^2 more than it emits. See Hansen et al., Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2012.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Most people agree that it is around 1C.

    Most scientific studies show a climate sensitivity of about 2-4°C.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: how can the “scientists” positively state that they know the answers?

    Scientists don’t know all the answers. What they have are estimates. The lower numbers will cause significant climate disruption. The higher numbers will cause critical problems.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: These brave climate sciencey types know the exact climate 100 years from now, …

    When you add heat to a pot of water and bring it to a boil, you can predict the average temperature of the water while it heats, but you can’t predict the turbulence.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: but can’t predict the weather 3 days out, let alone one week.

    The average temperature in Paris in July will probably be higher than the average temperature in Paris in January. Can’t predict the weather, but you can still predict the trend.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Easterbrook

    The Earth is not cooling. Current changes in the greenhouse effect smother the slight reduction in solar irradiance that has occurred.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Pirate,

    Do you have access to the actual article? The Ipso’s can’t be trusted to accurately relate what was in the paper. The available abstract does not confirm the Ipso conclusion.

  10. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    Climate models can’t accurate forecast the internal dynamics of the climate system. However, the overall heat content is increasing.

    In other words, yes the models are completely falsified but we’re going with a heat content message anyway. So there.

    A doubling of CO2 will directly cause a 1°C increase in global mean temperature.

    Only at low levels. Once you reach near 400ppm, the effect is peaked to non-significant amounts. Try something else.

    See Hansen et al., Earth’s energy imbalance and implications,

    Except, as has also been shown, that the earth will always balance out its energy. It may take centuries but it happens. How do you think we came out of hot and cold times to return to a somewhat normal temperate range, that we find ourselves in now?

    When you add heat to a pot of water and bring it to a boil, you can predict the average temperature of the water while it heats,

    and yet, if you don’t know all the heating and cooling sources, you can’t accurately predict it. As has been shown by the failure of your predictive models. Nuff said. And, should the heat be turned off while you think it is still on, then your models fail again. See today. You fail again.

    The average temperature in Paris in July will probably be higher than the average temperature in Paris in January. Can’t predict the weather, but you can still predict the trend.

    Wow, you just found out about the annual variations due to seasonality?? COngratulations. Did you also know that the sun is closer to the earth during that January period than in that July period? It is. I swearsies.

    Wow, when you fail you fail spectacularly.

  11. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: In other words, yes the models are completely falsified

    Um, no. The models can only provide broad estimates. But even if you ignore the general circulation models, the basic physical model remains.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Only at low levels. Once you reach near 400ppm, the effect is peaked to non-significant amounts. Try something else.

    A doubling of CO2 will directly cause a 1°C increase in global mean temperature, whether from 250 ppm to 500 ppm or from 500 ppm to 1000 ppm.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Except, as has also been shown, that the earth will always balance out its energy. It may take centuries but it happens.

    Sure it will, but at a higher energy level. If humans stop emitting CO2, it will be scrubbed out the atmosphere by geological and biological processes over several centuries.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: How do you think we came out of hot and cold times to return to a somewhat normal temperate range, that we find ourselves in now?

    Yes, the Earth has gone from being almost completely ice to no ice caps at all.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: and yet, if you don’t know all the heating and cooling sources, you can’t accurately predict it.

    To which magical mechanism are you referring?

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Wow, you just found out about the annual variations due to seasonality??

    It’s a well-known example of how we can predict a longer trend, even if we can’t predict the shorter trend.

  12. jl says:

    I love the “to which magical mechanism are you referring” answer to Gumball’s “if you don’t know all the heating and cooling sources, you can’t accurately predict it” question. Talk about major deflection. No, we don’t know all we need to know about heating and cooling sources, as evidenced by the “rebuttal”. And if everything is known, the “predictions” wouldn’t have so high a failure rate.

  13. Zachriel says:

    jl: I love the “to which magical mechanism are you referring” answer to Gumball’s “if you don’t know all the heating and cooling sources, you can’t accurately predict it” question.

    The Earth can only absorb and emit heat radiatively. Studies have shown that the Earth is absorbing more than it is emitting. Energy is conserved.

  14. jl says:

    You make a statement that means nothing. Your statement does not prove AGW. Sorry.

  15. jl says:

    “Studies have shown…” Never has a more un-scientific statement been made. “Studies” have shown a lot of things- probably none more contradictory than “climate change.”

  16. Zachriel says:

    jl: You make a statement that means nothing. Your statement does not prove AGW.

    Start with what we know. The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively. The Earth is absorbing more energy than it is emitting. Energy is conserved.

    The greenhouse effect is due to the atmosphere. If the greenhouse effect is increasing, the surface will warm while the upper atmosphere will cool. That is what we observe. We can study the atmosphere to determine what is changing that can account for an increased greenhouse effect, which is primarily CO2. Indeed, we can calculate the effects of an increase in CO2. Where has the increased CO2 come from? From human activities.

    jl: “Studies have shown…”

    It’s called data.

  17. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

    The Earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively

    Which of course, everyone knows is false. But, thanks for trying. You keep repeating yourself, but doesn’t make the statement true. It is your opinion, and that is fine. Some people believe in The Great Spaghetti Monster too.

    If the greenhouse effect is increasing

    Which it is not. The Effect can not increase or decrease. It only is.

    the surface will warm while the upper atmosphere will cool. That is what we observe.

    Double-wrong-o. Your models predicted the surface would warm as well as the upper atmosphere. We’ve done neither in the last 20 years. Before that, even the upper atmosphere did not believe in your models. Models being nothing but wishful thinking and all.

    We can study the atmosphere to determine what is changing that can account for an increased greenhouse effect

    Yep, we can surely study the atmosphere. But our knowledge ends there. With so much that scientists still do not understand or know about our global ecology, it is idiotic hubris to state that man is at fault when anything happens.

    an increased greenhouse effect, which is primarily CO2.

    Like with J, that is your biggest fail. You are so wrong. So completely wrong. So unbelievably wrong that even 1st graders know the answer to the question of “what is responsible for the greenhouse effect?” WATER VAPOR!!!

    Indeed, we can calculate the effects of an increase in CO2. Where has the increased CO2 come from? From human activities.

    We can indeed calculate what the effect from an increased CO2 level in our atmosphere would do. However, we are at the maximum affect now. Adding more CO2 won’t really impact us that much more. Right now, CO2 production and uptake and absorption are all theory. There really isn’t a way to KNOW the exact sources, absorption, and uptakes that our ecosystem holds.

    The fact that you believe that man produces 40% of all our CO2 is literal fantasy. We can estimate what our production is. We can best guess what natural sources do. There can even be more that we don’t know about. Also, there can even be sources that absorb CO2 that we don’t know about, or process of CO2 conversion that we don’t know about. The fact that you blame man, and ONLY man for the rise in CO2 shows how idiotic your cult’s thought processes are.

    I tire of arguing with willfully ignorant children.

  18. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Which of course, everyone knows is false. But, thanks for trying.

    What other mechanisms (short of a cosmic collision) can add significant energy to the Earth?

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Which it is not. The Effect can not increase or decrease.

    Of course the greenhouse effect can increase or decrease. The Earth’s average temperature without the greenhouse effect would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.”

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: Your models predicted the surface would warm as well as the upper atmosphere.

    That is not correct. This is basic physics. A cooling stratosphere is a signature of an increasing greenhouse effect.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

    On the other hand, if warming were due to solar irradiance, for instance, then the entire atmosphere would be expected to warm. That is not what is observed.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: So unbelievably wrong that even 1st graders know the answer to the question of “what is responsible for the greenhouse effect?” WATER VAPOR!!!

    Water vapor amplifies the effect of CO2 warming, yes.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: However, we are at the maximum affect now.

    That is incorrect. A doubling of CO2 will result in a direct increase of about 1°C. This is amplified by increased water vapor to about 2-4°C.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: There really isn’t a way to KNOW the exact sources, absorption, and uptakes that our ecosystem holds.

    There is no reasonable doubt that atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to human activities.

    ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs: We can estimate what our production is. We can best guess what natural sources do.

    That’s right. Humans produce more than twice what is necessary to account for the increased CO2 content of the atmosphere. The balance is absorbed by the oceans, increasing its acidity.

  19. Zachriel says:

    {Most of} the balance is absorbed by the oceans, increasing its acidity.

  20. ReFrozen_Spring_Gumballs says:

  21. Zachriel says:

    ReFrozen_Spring_mballs:

    Not an answer. What other ways can the Earth gain or lose significant energy?

  22. david7134 says:

    Zachriel,
    Maybe you can answer the questions that Jeff couldn’t. I will start with the acidification of the oceans. This is a major tenet of your belief system. So, CO2 dissolves in the ocean and that accounts for the reduction in pCO2 and the increase in acidification of the oceans. Now, what is the measured concentration of carbonic acid and others acids in the ocean that accounts for this decrease in pH? Jeff referenced a highly technical white paper that he did not understand. So, with a new believer on board, answer the question.

  23. Zachriel says:

    david7134: Now, what is the measured concentration of carbonic acid and others acids in the ocean that accounts for this decrease in pH?

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

  24. david7134 says:

    Zachriel and Jeff,
    I just thought of another question. You keep saying that natural process can not explain the warming period, if one exist. And that you demand to see exactly what causes the warming periods other than CO2. Well lets turn it around. What causes an Ice Age? Now that I researched in depth some years ago, so lets here it.

  25. Zachriel says:

    david7134: What causes an Ice Age?

    There’s a number of factors involved, but orbital variations, changes in atmospheric concentration, continental drift, volcanism, and the occasional cosmic impact, can cause significant climate change.

  26. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    The CO2, H2CO3, H+, HCO3- system is the primary biological buffer in plasma (as a physician, you know this). Why do clinical labs routinely measure CO2, H+, and HCO3-, but not carbonic acid? If actually interested, one can calculate H2CO3 concentration since you know CO2, H+ and HCO3-.

    Do you have evidence that some other H+ donor is responsible for the decreased pH of seawater?

  27. david7134 says:

    Zachriel and Jeff,
    It is clear that neither of you have any idea of what you are talking about. All you have done is to read a number of very biased white papers on the aspect of climate change from the point of view that you desire. In other words, you have not done any research on the subject (primary). You can’t come up with a very simple answer to a very simple question that is at the heart of your model of a CO2 cycle. Now, a number of articles have answered my question, only problem is that none, I repeat none, have indicated a sizable influence of carbonic acid to explain the lowering in oceanic pH. Without that, then you can’t explain any aspect of your model. All you can do is speculate and that is what the janitor does, not a scientist. Now, Jeff, hydrogen atoms do not just float around unattached, they readily combine with substances, usually oxygen. Then, I don’t have to have evidence of a “hydrogen” donor. You have to provide a measured concentration of acids in sea water to substantiate your bizarre theories. Now, in the human body, we measure pH of the blood and other factors, but a number of substances can cause acidosis. And we measure those before we speculate on the reason for the acidosis.

  28. Zachriel says:

    david7134: It is clear that neither of you have any idea of what you are talking about.

    Not an argument.

    david7134: Now, a number of articles have answered my question, only problem is that none, I repeat none, have indicated a sizable influence of carbonic acid to explain the lowering in oceanic pH.

    It’s basic chemistry that in order to maintain equilibrium some of the CO2 in water forms carbonic acid which reacts with the water to form a hydronium ion and a bicarbonate ion. It’s not that complicated. We provided you a citation showing that oceanic CO2 is increasing, while oceanic pH is decreasing.

  29. Zachriel says:

    Here’s your basic reaction:

    CO2 + H2O H2CO3 HCO3− + H+ CO3-− + 2 H+

  30. Zachriel says:

    Here’s the basic reaction:

    CO2 + H2O ←→ H2CO3 ←→ HCO3− + H+ ←→ CO3-− + 2 H+

  31. david7134 says:

    z,
    Ok, you have an equation, now what happens to the free hydrogen ion? Notice that you admit to the fact that CO2 ultimately leads to bicarbonate, thus, it can not easily participate in the acidification of the oceans. That acidification is one of your main positions. Now, find a reference, an article, where the great scientist of climate have measured, I repeat, used quantitative chemistry to analyze a quantity of sea water and determine the acids in that given sample. It does not exist for carbonic acid. By the way, to finish the equation, you assume oxygenation of the hydrogen ion.

  32. jl says:

    “Studies have shown..” Z- It’s called data. Nice try, you forgot the rest. “Studies” have shown many things, many contradictory to AGW. But don’t worry about studies, just look outside. It’s now warming anymore. “Start with what we know. The earth can only gain or lose energy radiatively. The earth is absorbing more energy than it’s emitting.” So in other words your physics lesson has been going on for 4 billion years. While your physics lesson was in progress billions of years ago, the earth warmed and cooled. The processes that happened before are happening now. Sorry you went to such great lengths, but stating what (according to you) happens in the physical world does not one bit prove AGW. Try again.

  33. Jeffery says:

    d,

    pH refers to the concentration of free H+, nothing else. A measured pH of 7 indicates a H+ concentration of 1 x 10-7 mol/L. Do you not “believe in” pH measurements?

    You’ve mentioned before that you think the addition of CO2 to water has no effect on pH. This is just untrue.

    Why does pathologic hypoventilation cause an increase in pCO2, a decrease in plasma pH (more H+) and an increase in HCO3-? Coincidence? Is the drop in pH not caused by increased pCO2?

    CO2 + HOH H2CO3 H+ + HCO3- 2H+ + CO3–

    Increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased pCO2 in water by mass action. A fraction of the dissolved CO2 distributes as the equation above demonstrates.

  34. Zachriel says:

    david7134: Notice that you admit to the fact that CO2 ultimately leads to bicarbonate

    ← →

    Those are double arrows. It’s an equilibrium reaction. There are always going to be free ions.

    jl: “Studies” have shown many things, many contradictory to AGW.

    Be happy to look at specific citations.

    jl: But don’t worry about studies, just look outside. It’s now warming anymore.

    Just look outside. The world is flat.

    jl: While your physics lesson was in progress billions of years ago, the earth warmed and cooled.

    Over the scale of billions of years, we have to add Earth’s internal processes and cometary impacts, so it’s not all radiative. Nowadays, volcanism doesn’t directly add significant energy as it did billions of years ago. (The eruption of Krakatoa, for instance, emitted about as much energy as Norway does in a year.) And it’s been a while since the last cosmic collision.

    The greenhouse effect is due to the atmosphere. If the greenhouse effect is increasing, the surface will warm while the upper atmosphere will cool. That is what we observe. We can study the atmosphere to determine what is changing that can account for an increased greenhouse effect, which is primarily CO2. Indeed, we can calculate the effects of an increase in CO2. Where has the increased CO2 come from? From human activities.

    Jeffery: You’ve mentioned before that you think the addition of CO2 to water has no effect on pH. This is just untrue.

    Not only untrue, but easily testable.

  35. Jeffery says:

    back to the topic of the original post…

    “Let’s repeat that last line:

    …although it could be thought to be somewhat unusual in that even with the 120-ppm increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration that occurred over the last 1000 years, it is still not as hot now as it was back in the Medieval Warm Period.”

    The ‘last line’ did not come from the authors of the scientific paper but from science “skeptics”, the Idso’s, Craig, Sherwood and Keith, who “interpreted” the paper for his loyal readers.

    The authors looked at proxies to estimate the sea temperatures for the a small area of northern seas – to quote – “Using ten proxy sea surface temperature (SST) records – six from the Norwegian Margin, three from the North Icelandic Shelf and one from the Scottish Margin”. Note Norway, Iceland, Scotland…

    So how could the authors reach a conclusion that the global average temperature was greater in the so-called MWP than now? The answer: they couldn’t and they didn’t. The “skeptics” at CO2 ‘Science’ did. The Pirate gladly distributed this misinformation. Idso facto: there is no good evidence that the average global temperature was warmer then than now. Perhaps for some areas in the North Atlantic, just as the Arctic is likely warmer now than then.

  36. Jeffery says:

    for those interested, below is the abstract from the scientific paper, without the biased interpretation from the Idso clan and the Pirate.

    Abstract

    We undertake the first comprehensive effort to integrate North Atlantic marine climate records for the last millennium, highlighting some key components common within this system at a range of temporal and spatial scales. In such an approach, careful consideration needs to be given to the complexities inherent to the marine system. Composites therefore need to be hydrographically constrained and sensitive to both surface water mass variability and three-dimensional ocean dynamics. This study focuses on the northeast (NE) North Atlantic Ocean, particularly sites influenced by the North Atlantic Current. A composite plus regression approach is used to create an inter-regional NE North Atlantic reconstruction of sea surface temperature (SST) for the last 1000 years. We highlight the loss of spatial information associated with large-scale composite reconstructions of the marine environment. Regional reconstructions of SSTs off the Norwegian and Icelandic margins are presented, along with a larger-scale reconstruction spanning the NE North Atlantic. The latter indicates that the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ warming was most pronounced before ad 1200, with a long-term cooling trend apparent after ad 1250. This trend persisted until the early 20th century, while in recent decades temperatures have been similar to those inferred for the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’. The reconstructions are consistent with other independent records of sea-surface and surface air temperatures from the region, indicating that they are adequately capturing the climate dynamics of the last millennium. Consequently, this method could potentially be used to develop large-scale reconstructions of SSTs for other hydrographically constrained regions.

  37. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    You are so over your head on assumptions and not reading the literature that it really does show why liberals/communist are such believers. First, I never said that CO2 did not have an effect on H20. Second, you are trying to take a biologic environment in a closed system and apply that to the ocean???? Of course when you increase blood CO2 you get acidosis. Now tell me what the concentration of acid is in the sea, the measured amount, not the mythical determinations that you keep coming up with. By the way, pCO2 has to be significantly increased, relative, to obtain a respiratory acidosis. You don’t have that in your ocean model. Now, grow up and find the numbers. Then try your best to understand what “free” hydrogen is.

  38. Zachriel says:

    david7134: Now tell me what the concentration of acid is in the sea, the measured amount

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html

  39. Jeffery says:

    dave typed: “You are so over your head on assumptions and not reading the literature that it really does show why liberals/communist are such believers.”

    Believers in evidence? Guilty. dave, no offense, but this is freshman chemistry level information. Did you skip the day they taught chemistry in chemistry class?

    The ocean pH is 8. It was 8.1. So now it is more acidic.

    pH 8 means the concentration of H+ in seawater is 1 x10-8 mol/L. That is “free” hydrogen ion. Your contention that there can be no “free” H+ in solution is false. pH meters measure “free” H+.

    dave typed: “Second, you are trying to take a biologic environment in a closed system and apply that to the ocean???? Of course when you increase blood CO2 you get acidosis…. By the way, pCO2 has to be significantly increased, relative, to obtain a respiratory acidosis.”

    According to your med school renal physio Davenport diagram, a significant 33% increase in pCO2 will significantly drop plasma pH from 7.4 to 7.25

    Ocean pCO2 appears to lag a bit from atmospheric pCO2 but has significantly increased 30-40% in the past century and the ocean pH has significantly dropped to 8.

    I’m curious, from what medical school did you graduate? I suspect the school would rather you not say.

  40. Jeffery says:

    dave typed: “Now, a number of articles have answered my question, only problem is that none, I repeat none, have indicated a sizable influence of carbonic acid to explain the lowering in oceanic pH.”

    dave, Would you kindly share those references?

Bad Behavior has blocked 9288 access attempts in the last 7 days.