The 2005 volume is online here although earlier issues seem to be pay-as-you-play. It has many interesting articles, including ones on Puruogangri and tropical glaciers. Enjoy.
-
Tip Jar
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location) -
Pages
-
Categories
-
Articles
-
Blogroll
- Accuweather Blogs
- Andrew Revkin
- Anthony Watts
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Tisdale
- Dan Hughes
- David Stockwell
- Icecap
- Idsos
- James Annan
- Jeff Id
- Josh Halpern
- Judith Curry
- Keith Kloor
- Klimazweibel
- Lubos Motl
- Lucia's Blackboard
- Matt Briggs
- NASA GISS
- Nature Blogs
- RealClimate
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Roman M
- Science of Doom
- Tamino
- Warwick Hughes
- Watts Up With That
- William Connolley
- WordPress.com
- World Climate Report
-
Favorite posts
-
Links
-
Weblogs and resources
-
Archives
Climate Audit 
10 Comments
An interesting article in Nature describes the “seasaw” effect between the 2 poles.
How can they do these sort of wild swings without mankind being involved? Is that allowed?
Thanks for the cue, Steve M.; I’ve been waiting for this. Note also that they say more articles will be added.
Of the articles available so far, I found this one to be of greatest interest. Yet another hockey stick, it would appear.
Re #2: Yes, and it’s added cause for concern. Do you suppose there’s anything we could do to see if it’s possible to trigger a similar event in the middle of an interglacial? Hmm, where would we start…
Re: 3, Steve Bloom,
The purpose of the paper was to compare glacier change and tree rings. Unfortunately, as the authors admitted in the conclusions, they only had 100 years of glacier data for the comparison. No one is disputing that temperatures have increased since the minimum at the end of the LIA. Perhaps Mann and some of his friends might make this claim since they seem to make the claim that the LIA did not exist.
The Gou et al tree ring data did not seem to go back much before 1100, thus it can not show much of a MWP. It does show a LIA, thus the increase of the past 150 years or so from the LIA minimum is not surprising.
Re #3 – **Of the articles available so far, I found this one to be of greatest interest. Yet another hockey stick, it would appear.**
You are able to see a hockey stick anywhere. Must be great exercise to stretch your imagination!!
I don’t understand their conclusion.
At first they talk about the seesaw effect, “cold conditions in Greenland tend to be associated with warming in Antarctica, and vice versa.” And at the end – “Nevertheless, these prehistoric climate shifts were relatively localized…..regional, not global.”
So regional, that they influenced whole oceans?
Re #6
“Regional” is a relative term, context-dependent. To describe “whole ocean” responses as “regional” rather than “global” would make sense … except for the authors’ argument that these “regional” shifts are inter-regionally non-independent. i.e. The shifts appear to be “global” in scale, but they are complex, regionally heterogeneous. Poor choice of words.
Point is: “global” shifts need not be globally homogeneous. Scale of response and scale of homogeneity are two different things.
I wonder if changes in the earth´s axis rotation has to do with this phenomenon. Recent research showed that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees, about the current distance between Alaska and the equator, in less than 20 million years.
No axis shifting discussion please.
For #8
“New Model Suggests Antarctic More Dynamic Than Previously Believed”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060625123103.htm