Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[flacaltenn]

Bullshit. The mark of an accomplished scientist is to produce GOOD work. The only people who try and prevent discourse are those who have something to hide. No legitimate scientist is ever afraid to defend his work.


Period.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

 

[threegoofs]

So multigoofs.. Where are YOU on this chart??

Just by eyeball -- I'd say somewhere on the Western slopes of Mt Stupid..
But those robes and pope hats look just FABULOUS on you..

Have you EVER read ANY papers on this topic? Where does YOUR "knowledge" come from? If you read IPCC reports --- did you EVER check any dissenting opinions? What makes you "less Mt Stupid" than the rest of us?

Never answered my question about the mission statement of the IPCC.. See any bias in that? And you're certainly aware that the science for that institution is only secondary to the periodic climate conferences of global beggars and whiners waiting for their redistribution checks to be cut. Long of list of VERY reputable scientists RESIGNED or walked out of that socio/political circus..

Remember posting at least a couple THIS MONTH.. .

Yeah, I've read. And I accept the authors conclusions on the papers. You seem to not accept them...when they dont fit your prespecified agenda. Thats not science, thats hackery. And thats why I am not on Mt Stupid like you are - because you think you know more than the experts, to the point that you cant even accept the fact that the experts agree (which is pretty damn obvious if you pick up a scientific journal - which you dont because you dont have access).

Answer your question on the mission statement? All I remember was another homework assignment followed up by some unreferenced blargle.

 

[threegoofs]

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

*sigh* You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion. Its the abstract - the conclusion.

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be? Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not.. As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...

You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..


. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study. - See more at: Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

So again --- you're comparing a century MAX to the entire Holencene AVERAGE.. And we might know approximately what each of those is ---- But we will probably never know what the 100 yr VARIANCES in temperature were during that Holocene "average".. As I just showed you --- Even well into the transistion from ice age to interglacial -- HI resolution SINGLE proxies do show AT LEAST 2 to 3degC of variance on time scales shorter than 300 years.

You cannot preserve that variance in the proxies when you shoot for a GLOBAL reconstruction of temperature from only 76 proxies worldwide.. Think for a moment there. Covering the ENTIRE world for 10,000 yrs with a HANDFUL of ice cores, tree rings and mudbug shells. With MONGO gaps in the areas represented and trees that only live for 200 yrs at a time.. And you want to assert that would result in seeing a GLOBAL change of about 1degC in the 30 to 60 years of YOUR lifetime??

They don't... Put that appended thermometer data on the right side of the hockey sticks thru a 300 year average with the REST of study --- and see what comes out.. Or --- maybe you can't fathom that math concept..

The hard part is --- the "Grease" that goes into these studies to make them acceptable to peer review and sponsors,. That's why the authors put in that "suggests" word and allowed it to be TOTALLY misrepresented in the media and in politics.. It's hard because you think the work ACTUALLY PROVES that point..

But it doesn't..

You'll just have to understand the funding, peer, and political scrutiny these guys are under to be the Prophets of Doom for the cause...

 

[jc456]

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

*sigh* You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion. Its the abstract - the conclusion.

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be? Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.

I like watching inexperience at work. It's so funny!!!

 

[percysunshine]

.
Dang...I was looking for the 'Conspiracy Theories' thread ... and this is where I ended up....

.

 

[flacaltenn]

So multigoofs.. Where are YOU on this chart??

Just by eyeball -- I'd say somewhere on the Western slopes of Mt Stupid..
But those robes and pope hats look just FABULOUS on you..

Have you EVER read ANY papers on this topic? Where does YOUR "knowledge" come from? If you read IPCC reports --- did you EVER check any dissenting opinions? What makes you "less Mt Stupid" than the rest of us?

Never answered my question about the mission statement of the IPCC.. See any bias in that? And you're certainly aware that the science for that institution is only secondary to the periodic climate conferences of global beggars and whiners waiting for their redistribution checks to be cut. Long of list of VERY reputable scientists RESIGNED or walked out of that socio/political circus..

Remember posting at least a couple THIS MONTH.. .

Yeah, I've read. And I accept the authors conclusions on the papers. You seem to not accept them...when they dont fit your prespecified agenda. Thats not science, thats hackery. And thats why I am not on Mt Stupid like you are - because you think you know more than the experts, to the point that you cant even accept the fact that the experts agree (which is pretty damn obvious if you pick up a scientific journal - which you dont because you dont have access).

Answer your question on the mission statement? All I remember was another homework assignment followed up by some unreferenced blargle.

Well now hold up right thar Mr Scientist --- You're asserting opinions on the topic and you have some order of knowledge of the topic ---- so you fall into the data set of this graph...

You can't excuse yourself from a data set that contains you. That would be bias and cherry picking.. So WHERE ARE YOU on this thing you pitched to me??

And don't worry your soul child. I have access to the entire WORLD of science. I even occasionally go sit in a college library like the old days. Just for fun.. But my work connects me thru Vanderbilt and SJSU and I've done a lot of volunteer "tech development" projects with them to gain that access in recent years..

 

[threegoofs]

The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not.. As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...

You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..


. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study. - See more at: Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

So again --- you're comparing a century MAX to the entire Holencene AVERAGE.. And we might know approximately what each of those is ---- But we will probably never know what the 100 yr VARIANCES in temperature were during that Holocene "average".. As I just showed you --- Even well into the transistion from ice age to interglacial -- HI resolution SINGLE proxies do show AT LEAST 2 to 3degC of variance on time scales shorter than 300 years.

You cannot preserve that variance in the proxies when you shoot for a GLOBAL reconstruction of temperature from only 76 proxies worldwide.. Think for a moment there. Covering the ENTIRE world for 10,000 yrs with a HANDFUL of ice cores, tree rings and mudbug shells. With MONGO gaps in the areas represented and trees that only live for 200 yrs at a time.. And you want to assert that would result in seeing a GLOBAL change of about 1degC in the 30 to 60 years of YOUR lifetime??

They don't... Put that appended thermometer data on the right side of the hockey sticks thru a 300 year average with the REST of study --- and see what comes out.. Or --- maybe you can't fathom that math concept..

The hard part is --- the "Grease" that goes into these studies to make them acceptable to peer review and sponsors,. That's why the authors put in that "suggests" word and allowed it to be TOTALLY misrepresented in the media and in politics.. It's hard because you think the work ACTUALLY PROVES that point..

But it doesn't..

You'll just have to understand the funding, peer, and political scrutiny these guys are under to be the Prophets of Doom for the cause...

Dude - nobody thinks that the current warming is a 'variance' that will go back down to 19th century temps soon. Nobody.

And thats the scenario that would have to happen to make your speculations true.

Its unprecedented.

And we are comparing present temperatures to the maximum in the holocene, assuming we didnt get 2 degree spikes that lasted a couple decades for no reason except you wish it could happen.

 

[flacaltenn]

.
Dang...I was looking for the 'Conspiracy Theories' thread ... and this is where I ended up....

.

No this forum is o

The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not.. As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...

You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..


. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study. - See more at: Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

So again --- you're comparing a century MAX to the entire Holencene AVERAGE.. And we might know approximately what each of those is ---- But we will probably never know what the 100 yr VARIANCES in temperature were during that Holocene "average".. As I just showed you --- Even well into the transistion from ice age to interglacial -- HI resolution SINGLE proxies do show AT LEAST 2 to 3degC of variance on time scales shorter than 300 years.

You cannot preserve that variance in the proxies when you shoot for a GLOBAL reconstruction of temperature from only 76 proxies worldwide.. Think for a moment there. Covering the ENTIRE world for 10,000 yrs with a HANDFUL of ice cores, tree rings and mudbug shells. With MONGO gaps in the areas represented and trees that only live for 200 yrs at a time.. And you want to assert that would result in seeing a GLOBAL change of about 1degC in the 30 to 60 years of YOUR lifetime??

They don't... Put that appended thermometer data on the right side of the hockey sticks thru a 300 year average with the REST of study --- and see what comes out.. Or --- maybe you can't fathom that math concept..

The hard part is --- the "Grease" that goes into these studies to make them acceptable to peer review and sponsors,. That's why the authors put in that "suggests" word and allowed it to be TOTALLY misrepresented in the media and in politics.. It's hard because you think the work ACTUALLY PROVES that point..

But it doesn't..

You'll just have to understand the funding, peer, and political scrutiny these guys are under to be the Prophets of Doom for the cause...

Dude - nobody thinks that the current warming is a 'variance' that will go back down to 19th century temps soon. Nobody.

And thats the scenario that would have to happen to make your speculations true.

Its unprecedented.

And we are comparing present temperatures to the maximum in the holocene, assuming we didnt get 2 degree spikes that lasted a couple decades for no reason except you wish it could happen.

Just showed you 2 degC spikes after the majority of the Holocene meltdown. They exist in certain INDIVIDUAL high resolution proxies. They DON'T show on the crappy resolution GLOBAL studies.. I've got a bunch more examples of what "normal Holocene" variance looks like... I have no funking idea why and how they happened and most climate scientists don't either.. Because climate science has spent their whole wad looking for MAN MADE effects and not figuring the basic thermodynamics of the climate system.

We had a mini ice age about 200 years ago.. MANY say that solar cycles "SUGGEST" the next 30 or so there will be another. We don't know CRAP about many important things. Only had useful satellites up for 30 years or so.. It's brand new insight...

 

[threegoofs]

.
Dang...I was looking for the 'Conspiracy Theories' thread ... and this is where I ended up....

.

No this forum is o

The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not.. As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...

You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..


. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study. - See more at: Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

So again --- you're comparing a century MAX to the entire Holencene AVERAGE.. And we might know approximately what each of those is ---- But we will probably never know what the 100 yr VARIANCES in temperature were during that Holocene "average".. As I just showed you --- Even well into the transistion from ice age to interglacial -- HI resolution SINGLE proxies do show AT LEAST 2 to 3degC of variance on time scales shorter than 300 years.

You cannot preserve that variance in the proxies when you shoot for a GLOBAL reconstruction of temperature from only 76 proxies worldwide.. Think for a moment there. Covering the ENTIRE world for 10,000 yrs with a HANDFUL of ice cores, tree rings and mudbug shells. With MONGO gaps in the areas represented and trees that only live for 200 yrs at a time.. And you want to assert that would result in seeing a GLOBAL change of about 1degC in the 30 to 60 years of YOUR lifetime??

They don't... Put that appended thermometer data on the right side of the hockey sticks thru a 300 year average with the REST of study --- and see what comes out.. Or --- maybe you can't fathom that math concept..

The hard part is --- the "Grease" that goes into these studies to make them acceptable to peer review and sponsors,. That's why the authors put in that "suggests" word and allowed it to be TOTALLY misrepresented in the media and in politics.. It's hard because you think the work ACTUALLY PROVES that point..

But it doesn't..

You'll just have to understand the funding, peer, and political scrutiny these guys are under to be the Prophets of Doom for the cause...

Dude - nobody thinks that the current warming is a 'variance' that will go back down to 19th century temps soon. Nobody.

And thats the scenario that would have to happen to make your speculations true.

Its unprecedented.

And we are comparing present temperatures to the maximum in the holocene, assuming we didnt get 2 degree spikes that lasted a couple decades for no reason except you wish it could happen.

Just showed you 2 degC spikes after the majority of the Holocene meltdown. They exist in certain INDIVIDUAL high resolution proxies. They DON'T show on the crappy resolution GLOBAL studies.. I've got a bunch more examples of what "normal Holocene" variance looks like... I have no funking idea why and how they happened and most climate scientists don't either.. Because climate science has spent their whole wad looking for MAN MADE effects and not figuring the basic thermodynamics of the climate system.

We had a mini ice age about 200 years ago.. MANY say that solar cycles "SUGGEST" the next 30 or so there will be another. We don't know CRAP about many important things. Only had useful satellites up for 30 years or so.. It's brand new insight...

I'm sorry.

"You showed me" ???

You said it, I'll give you that. And I will give you as much credit for that analysis as any dipshit on the internet. But you telling me something is not the same as you 'showing' me something.

If thats the case, I just showed that you were clinging to the summit of Mt, Stupid.

 

[jc456]

.
Dang...I was looking for the 'Conspiracy Theories' thread ... and this is where I ended up....

.

No this forum is o

The Abstract says his results SUGGEST that recent warming is unprecedented. Does't say that they ARE unprecendented.. Now you may think that's just choice of phrase. But it's not.. As HE CLEARLY explains in the interview -- HIS DATA DOES NOT PROVE THAT.. IT CAN'T...

You also cut that other other excerpt a little close. Let's open it up a bit..


. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study. - See more at: Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

So again --- you're comparing a century MAX to the entire Holencene AVERAGE.. And we might know approximately what each of those is ---- But we will probably never know what the 100 yr VARIANCES in temperature were during that Holocene "average".. As I just showed you --- Even well into the transistion from ice age to interglacial -- HI resolution SINGLE proxies do show AT LEAST 2 to 3degC of variance on time scales shorter than 300 years.

You cannot preserve that variance in the proxies when you shoot for a GLOBAL reconstruction of temperature from only 76 proxies worldwide.. Think for a moment there. Covering the ENTIRE world for 10,000 yrs with a HANDFUL of ice cores, tree rings and mudbug shells. With MONGO gaps in the areas represented and trees that only live for 200 yrs at a time.. And you want to assert that would result in seeing a GLOBAL change of about 1degC in the 30 to 60 years of YOUR lifetime??

They don't... Put that appended thermometer data on the right side of the hockey sticks thru a 300 year average with the REST of study --- and see what comes out.. Or --- maybe you can't fathom that math concept..

The hard part is --- the "Grease" that goes into these studies to make them acceptable to peer review and sponsors,. That's why the authors put in that "suggests" word and allowed it to be TOTALLY misrepresented in the media and in politics.. It's hard because you think the work ACTUALLY PROVES that point..

But it doesn't..

You'll just have to understand the funding, peer, and political scrutiny these guys are under to be the Prophets of Doom for the cause...

Dude - nobody thinks that the current warming is a 'variance' that will go back down to 19th century temps soon. Nobody.

And thats the scenario that would have to happen to make your speculations true.

Its unprecedented.

And we are comparing present temperatures to the maximum in the holocene, assuming we didnt get 2 degree spikes that lasted a couple decades for no reason except you wish it could happen.

Just showed you 2 degC spikes after the majority of the Holocene meltdown. They exist in certain INDIVIDUAL high resolution proxies. They DON'T show on the crappy resolution GLOBAL studies.. I've got a bunch more examples of what "normal Holocene" variance looks like... I have no funking idea why and how they happened and most climate scientists don't either.. Because climate science has spent their whole wad looking for MAN MADE effects and not figuring the basic thermodynamics of the climate system.

We had a mini ice age about 200 years ago.. MANY say that solar cycles "SUGGEST" the next 30 or so there will be another. We don't know CRAP about many important things. Only had useful satellites up for 30 years or so.. It's brand new insight...

I'm sorry.

"You showed me" ???

You said it, I'll give you that. And I will give you as much credit for that analysis as any dipshit on the internet. But you telling me something is not the same as you 'showing' me something.

If thats the case, I just showed that you were clinging to the summit of Mt, Stupid.

Hahahaha, loserville. I love it. How about you tell us how warm 100ppm of co2 is?

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. The mark of an accomplished scientist is to produce GOOD work. The only people who try and prevent discourse are those who have something to hide. No legitimate scientist is ever afraid to defend his work.


Period.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Ummm, that's a blog. Didn't you claim to not use blogs?

WHHHOOOOOPSIES!

 

[threegoofs]

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Ummm, that's a blog. Didn't you claim to not use blogs?

WHHHOOOOOPSIES!

I guess you're about as good at science as you are at reading comprehension.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

*sigh* You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion. Its the abstract - the conclusion.

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be? Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.

1) Do you even have even the smallest amount of comprehension of the English language? Given that you can not discern what the word "Suggests" means, probably not.

2) You have been shown over and over that the RESOLUTION of proxies CAN NOT SHOW periods of time less than about 300 years. So your Michael Mann parlor trick is still crap.

3) You will not even acknowledge what Marcott himself has stated.

Conclusion: You are either a troll, a fool, Or Both... My money is on Paid shill so its BOTH!

 

[westwall]

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Ummm, that's a blog. Didn't you claim to not use blogs?

WHHHOOOOOPSIES!

I guess you're about as good at science as you are at reading comprehension.

Yes, and I am considerably better at it than you it appears. Thanks for playing!

 

[threegoofs]

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

*sigh* You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion. Its the abstract - the conclusion.

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be? Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.

1) Do you even have even the smallest amount of comprehension of the English language? Given that you can not discern what the word "Suggests" means, probably not.

2) You have been shown over and over that the RESOLUTION of proxies CAN NOT SHOW periods of time less than about 300 years. So your Michael Mann parlor trick is still crap.

3) You will not even acknowledge what Marcott himself has stated.

Conclusion: You are either a troll, a fool, Or Both... My money is on Paid shill so its BOTH!

Again, thanks for acknowledging my professionalism.

1) suggests? You obviously don't read science often. It means what it says, but it doesn't overstate, like you are doing.
2) you said it. Showing usually means citing papers in the real world.

3) he stated it. Yer even though he said that, he still says the warming expected will be higher than anything ever seen in huge holocene. You seem to ignore that.

 

[westwall]

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

*sigh* You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion. Its the abstract - the conclusion.

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be? Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.

1) Do you even have even the smallest amount of comprehension of the English language? Given that you can not discern what the word "Suggests" means, probably not.

2) You have been shown over and over that the RESOLUTION of proxies CAN NOT SHOW periods of time less than about 300 years. So your Michael Mann parlor trick is still crap.

3) You will not even acknowledge what Marcott himself has stated.

Conclusion: You are either a troll, a fool, Or Both... My money is on Paid shill so its BOTH!

Again, thanks for acknowledging my professionalism.

1) suggests? You obviously don't read science often. It means what it says, but it doesn't overstate, like you are doing.
2) you said it. Showing usually means citing papers in the real world.

3) he stated it. Yer even though he said that, he still says the warming expected will be higher than anything ever seen in huge holocene. You seem to ignore that.

What is "huge" holocene?

 

[IanC]

Bullshit. The mark of an accomplished scientist is to produce GOOD work. The only people who try and prevent discourse are those who have something to hide. No legitimate scientist is ever afraid to defend his work.


Period.

And this is fine in the published literature.

Otherwise, it's like a creationist site. Or a homeopathic site. Blogs. Blargh.

Or an actual INTERVIEW with the AUTHOR of a famous peer-reviewed paper --- just like this dishonest data prep that you're discussing --- where they REFUTE the outrageous UNFOUNDED claims made for his work... Or have you forgotten?

Claims that YOU have digested and internalized mostly from complicit media or blogs or Nat Geo TV..
Because you didn't understand that refutation of your "unprecendented" claims --- you probably need to study a bit..

Which claims do you speak of?

Why is it that the memories of all our warmer buddies is so bad? I think there an inference here..

That graph posted above in the thread. You tossed out the claim that it proves "unprecendented rates of warming or temperatures"..

Then Ian and I pointed out to you that if you took a heavily filtered and sparsely sampled historical proxy over 10,000 years and "tacked on" a modern hi accuracy instrumentation to it --- you would ALWAYS get a hockey stick..

And I gave you an interview with Marcott -- lead author of one of the famous of those Global proxy studies CONFIRMING that the data prep and methods would never see a 60 year blip like ours in it. And you pranced away with your hands over your ears and spouting ad homs.

Now -- You take some of the INDIVIDUAL proxies that are used in the GLOBAL data prep and look at those at HIGHER resolution --- You'll see temperature mins and maxs and rates that are virtually INVISIBLE in those hockey stick worldwide filtering excercises. True story der 'derp....

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Foster's idea doesnt work. he is altering the reconstruction, not the proxies.

here are the first 25 Marcott proxies -

these proxies are wildly different from each other, in magnitude, direction and timing. Foster didnt go back and alter the proxies and rerun the construction, he added spikes to the existing reconstruction and found that smoothing could attenuate the results but not remove them. duh!!!!

an actual spike would show up in the proxies as......different in magnitude, direction and timing.

are any of you global warming alarmists capable of actually digesting what a proxy reconstruction is?

 

[IanC]

let's take this farther. pretend that the first 25 Marcott poxies gave a reconstruction that was flat, no temp increase or decrease.

if we changed the selection criteria in a way that excluded proxies 19 and 20 the reconstruction would show declining temps. if we excluded 18 and 23 then it would show increasing temps.

there were other issues in Marcott. he changed the dating in some of the proxies from the original presentation by the authors. this had a large impact.

who's dating is right? I dont know. but I am getting tired of 'reanalysis' that gets rid of inconvenient data and substitutes good news for the 'Noble Cause'.

 

[threegoofs]

You're wrong and/or over interpreting.

A spike in temps can't be seen because the assumption is that spike goes down as rapidly as it went up- which is not the case in the present.

And yeah, you'll always get a hockey stick because the spike we have in warming is real, and hasn't happened before as far as we can tell.

This blog explains it. It pretends there are short term temp spikes that resolve quickly. Totally unrealistic, of course, but that's your supposition.


Smearing Climate Data

But it's a blog, just like yours, so caveats are needed. The reason I need to use a blog is because the issue isn't a real one in the scientific literature.

Now you're just winging it and IGNORING the science as Marcott explained it to you.. Doesn't matter to a filter whether the "wiggle" is UP or Down or both. It be attenuated and it's rise/fall times will be reduced by the bandwidth of the filter applied. When you are trying to merge ice cores, mudbug shells and tree rings, they all have different sampling points and sampling rates. To MERGE these in data prep --- your best resolution is closer to the WORSE proxies than the good ones and you HAVE to filter heavily..

When Marcott says that events less than 300 yrs are INVISIBLE in his work he means it.. PLEASE don't wing it. I might end up liking you better...

I've already told you -- might have SHOWED you --- that there are INDIVIDUAL PROXIES --- that SHOW transistions like ours all THRU this interglacial period. Lemme post this AGAIN for you below. The problem comes in because of the attempt to take a sparse number of mudbugs, tree rings, and ice cores from different parts of world and PRETEND you have a temperature record as accurate as the DEVIOUSLY tacked on modern thermometer record..


Here's a start -- I've clipped many others...
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Go compare that to the GLOBAL hockeystick chart (about post 371) that you shoved at us.. Shows NONE of the 2 - 10 degC changes that this INDIVIDUAL proxy study does..

UNPRECENDENTED --- my ass...

*sigh* You ARE married to blogs arent you?

Lets just go back to Marcotts original paper, shall we?

What does the abstract say? (my emphasis)
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."

This isnt some random paragraph in the discussion. Its the abstract - the conclusion.

And what does Marcott himself say about the study and how extreme the future projected warming will be? Lets pull up the interview that you posted and see (since you seem to hang on his words):

"Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study."

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Now go run back to your professional denier blogs and find out what you're supposed to say now.

1) Do you even have even the smallest amount of comprehension of the English language? Given that you can not discern what the word "Suggests" means, probably not.

2) You have been shown over and over that the RESOLUTION of proxies CAN NOT SHOW periods of time less than about 300 years. So your Michael Mann parlor trick is still crap.

3) You will not even acknowledge what Marcott himself has stated.

Conclusion: You are either a troll, a fool, Or Both... My money is on Paid shill so its BOTH!

Again, thanks for acknowledging my professionalism.

1) suggests? You obviously don't read science often. It means what it says, but it doesn't overstate, like you are doing.
2) you said it. Showing usually means citing papers in the real world.

3) he stated it. Yer even though he said that, he still says the warming expected will be higher than anything ever seen in huge holocene. You seem to ignore that.

What is "huge" holocene?

A typo/autocorrect. I'm on my phone. You can guess that I meant 'whole'.