Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 20 May 2010

Template:Community article probation

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Little Ice Age article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Rm graph

See MWP. William M. Connolley 09:55:23, 03 September 2005 (UTC).

Failure to understand "inherent variability"

Saying that "inherent variability" is an explanation of the Little Ice Age is idiotic. One might as well say that the temperature went down because it went down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.202.217 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If I say that the darkness of the polar winter is a part of the inherent variability of light levels at the surface of the earth at high latitudes, whilst the darkness of the ocean depths is due to the absorption of light by the intervening volume of water, I think that gets the message across. There are better ways of putting it, though. And that is probably also the case here. --TS 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that there is no need for the LIA to have a "cause". It is all too easy to assume that just because there was a temperature fluctuation it must have had some external "cause". Including internal / intrinsic variability makes this point; but maybe it needs to be made more clearly. Don't title sections "iditoic"; it annoys people William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the intrinsic variability thing - pre-panic historians did not assume than the MWP was significantly warmer, or the LIA significantly colder, on average - only that but I have struggled to see where this is discussed in articles on climate here on Misplaced Pages. A link where the lead says "an inherent variability in global climate" would be helpful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate variablility on WP redirects to Climate change, but I don't see a section there dedicated to chaotic changes, in opposition to forced. This publication makes the distinction "We investigate the roles of climate forcings and chaos (unforced variability) in climate..." so maybe a linkable WP article or section should do this too? (I don't have easy access to academic papers, or I'd tackle it myself). Novickas (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's important to search for the cause of the little ice age. We search and obtain ideas about causes for smaller scale fluctuations, such as El Nino/La Nina. So of course there's going to be a "cause", and it would be very significant if any group or individual were establish a "cause" for LIA which went on to gain scientific consensus. Among other things, it would be important to know a cause so that such an event might be predicted in advance were the same causal conditions to occur or projected to occur. Retran (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Separately there's the matter of how to characterize the LIA in the first place... was it really colder globally (it wasn't) and did every region experience changes globally, and how much of the global climate should fluctuate before we categorize a period of time into an "age" like this? Are we naming it "LIA" because it happened so recently, and had we had less precision to historically analyze it, would it even be significant on a broader scale? I would think yes... but it ties in with the first question about wheather its important to find a cause. If one argues the futility of finding a "cause" then one is seems to be arguing the LIA was not a climatically important event. (And I think it was, and the scientific consensus is that it was as well) Retran (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "unforced" changes and stuff about "chaos"... that seems to be an idiosyncratic (maybe even metaphysical) use of climate terminology. All climate change is forced, period. The problem is determining what mechanism is responsible for the forcing. Changing amount of incoming solar radiation is a forcing mechanism. It seems the astrological mechanisms (Milankovitch cycles) which lead to changes in isolation, the established forcing mechanism between the glacial and interglacial cycles have been ruled out in the case of LIA. "Inherent Variability" isn't a very satisfying explanation... that's just like saying "stuff just happens". Useless. Why bother bringing that up? I'm not looking for a philosophical reason. Science requires searching for a physical observable reason. Anyone not engaged in the search for a observable, testable, predictable, cause for the LIA is not engaged in Science. In fact, the "Inherent Variability" section doesn't belong in a article like this, it represents no knowledge or understanding. Inherent Variability would have to describe something like Milankovitch cycles... and in anything those are a real description of a true inherent variability. The discussions about "chaos" do not belong here. Retran (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Imagine an Earth with no external forcing. There would still be variations in year-to-year, decade-to-decade, etc, average temperatures. Whether you call that climate or cliamte change is a matter of perspective. How large it is remains unclear William M. Connolley (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If imaging an earth with no external forcing, variations would be due to internal distributions in temperature, eventually coming to equilibrium. Climate in the context of climate study, is by definition weather patterns averaged on a 20 scale. How is chaos theory relevant to explaining the LIA? The idea is that some variation occurs without any cause except that variation occurs without cause. Isn't it like saying "welp, couldn't find nothing else so we'll just use Chaos theory"? Seem's like a catch-all. How's this different than saying "It was God's will", etc etc? Chaos theory seems useful in modeling realistic analogies, but not in making these kinds of predictions or explanations. Also, in your imagination exercise you suggest there's no external forcing, but what if LIA was caused by internal forcing? (perhaps it was just an exercise and you were trying to help me understand chaos theory's application better?) Retran (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Black Death as a cause of the Little ice Age?!

The current Little Ice Age entry provides several possible causes of the LIA: "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the flow of ocean currents, an inherent variability in global climate, and decreased human populations due to the Black Death and the Columbian Exchange." Excuse me but how on earth could either the Black Death or the Columbian Exchange cause climate change?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.35.75 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea there is that humans were already affecting climate by clearing forests for agriculture. So if they died off in sigificant numbers the forests grew back and captured carbon. More here . Novickas (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How mainstream are the ideas about "Black Death" and "Columbian Exchange" in the field of global climate change, or does that necessarily matter? Both remain rather controversial explanations for LIA scientifically (even given the consensus of modern climate change due to fossil fuel use since industrial revolution). That doesn't mean they will always remain scientifically controversial; but do they warrant current inclusion in an encyclopedia article? Retran (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw a disclaimer was added "This hypothesis has not gained widespread scientific support." but I feel that is not adequate. The idea that humans contributed to warming of the earth (however slight but detectable) thousands of years before present has only just NOW began to be noticed and accepted in mainstream climate science. Then combining this idea with "Black Death" and "Columbian Exchange" by saying one or the other caused an interruption in this warming, would be really stretching it. The problem is the Black Death and the Columbian Exchange occurred at two different times, and two times recent enough that we should be able to deduce which, if either, it was. Which was it? And if the studies pin different ones down, they conflict each other by too much for so recent of a date to be acceptable for mention in an encyclopedia, since its a scientific discussion in the periphery... nothing close to established.Retran (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Farcical Article

This article is farcical in its blatant pro-AGW bias, who's going to clean it up ? SunSpot (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

SA sediment cores

This is a step in the right direction but isn't good enough. If there are only conf anstracts, and it didn't make it into any papers, then it should come out William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

-Atmoz (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that the same thing? Only one author in common, but the same link. I can't access it: what does it say? 4 years later, has their text changed (well, if it is still the same paper, of course) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the paper corresponding to the conf abs is , but it doesn't actually mention LIA. Another paper in the special section is which mentions LIA several time saying "...during the southern-hemisphere equivalent of the Little Ice Age" in the abstract, but waffling ensues. is much stronger "The A.D. 1490–1700 wet period is associated with the onset of the European Little Ice Age (LIA) and interpreted as its local signature. This work supports the fact that the LIA was a global event, not only restricted to the Northern Hemisphere." -Atmoz (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hate it when they do that. It isn't the "Little Wet Age". This is just humans-can-find-patterns stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "Little Ice Age" is based an early description and naming that became popular (as the article states). When temperature is cooler and moisture content remains the same, precip increases. Perhaps it would be helpful to include details about the proposed differences between the global/regional high/low systems of today vs. the LIA. Retran (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)