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

[threegoofs]

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'.

Well, why don't you show us a paper that says the opposite of what Marcott, pages 2k, Mann, etc etc showed?

Oh yeah. You can't find one. All you can find are blog critiques from unqualified people that you reproduce here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, it'll be the "HOTTERERERERERERST EVAH!!!!!!!!" but only if you live 1,500m down in the ocean

So how much warming do we need for the record, Mikey?

About .4C plus or minus 2C

Hmm, no problem, I'll add in the imaginary warming from this heat vent in the deep Atlantic

 

[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'.

Well, why don't you show us a paper that says the opposite of what Marcott, pages 2k, Mann, etc etc showed?

Oh yeah. You can't find one. All you can find are blog critiques from unqualified people that you reproduce here.

Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

You really do have a reading comprehensions problem!

The Holocene is the current interglacial period, Was there more Holocene's that history was unaware of? Marcott admitted that we are NOT WARMER than the MEWP or the RWP. Even the idiot Obama visited a glacier this last week where the tree stumps that were uncovered in Alaska were dated to the MEWP. So this is cyclical and not unprecedented. Obama in his lust for power showed himself and you fools... Priceless!!

 

[threegoofs]

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'.

Well, why don't you show us a paper that says the opposite of what Marcott, pages 2k, Mann, etc etc showed?

Oh yeah. You can't find one. All you can find are blog critiques from unqualified people that you reproduce here.

Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010

You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

You really do have a reading comprehensions problem!

The Holocene is the current intergalactic period, Was there more Holocene's that history was unaware of? Marcott admitted that we are NOT WARMER than the MEWP or the RWP. Even the idiot Obama visited a glacier this last week where the tree stumps that were uncovered in Alaska were dated to the MEWP. So this is cyclical and not unprecedented. Obama in his lust for power showed himself and you fools... Priceless!!

How can you argue with a guy who knows both local weather AND knows the Holocene was an intergalactic period?

As a meteorologist I have a degree in atmospheric physics. I STUDY THE EARTHS SYSTEMS AND CYCLES...

Funny that alarmist morons cant figure that out!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA BY FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST Department of History, Stockholm University, Sweden

ABSTRACT. A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeotemperature proxy records never previously included in any largescale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology. Key words: Temperature reconstructions, temperature variability, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, global warming, climate change

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

Ian, you dissapoint me, that post is a form of lying. The way you wrote it up seemed to state that the MWP was warmer than the present, when, in fact, the article stated exactly the opposite.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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'.

Well, why don't you show us a paper that says the opposite of what Marcott, pages 2k, Mann, etc etc showed?

Oh yeah. You can't find one. All you can find are blog critiques from unqualified people that you reproduce here.

Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010

You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

bla, bla, bla,

FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST.... this paper has been shredded for many of the same mistakes others have made.

And the level of certainty is... less than 10%

 

[IanC]

...The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century.... Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself....

Thanks for posting that.

 

[westwall]

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'.

My phone has never substituted huge for whole, but however stupid your phone seems to be you are even more moronic. The HTM witnessed many occasions where the warming was both more extreme and FASTER than that which is occurring today.

The image below is from your favorite wiki, the rest of the discussion is pertinent to your particular vacuous area of understanding.

During the following one thousand years the temperature increased, so that climate became several degrees warmer than today. About 8,000 years before present, in Hunter Stone Age, occurred the hottest period throughout the Holocene. This initiated the warm period called the Holocene Optimum, which lasted almost until about 4,500 years before present, whereafter the temperature continued to drop through bronze age, iron age and historical time until it reached a low point in "The Little Ice Age" in the years 1600- 1700. Within the last few hundred years the temperature has again increased, but not to such heights as in Hunter Stone Age.

Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments

 

[threegoofs]

*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'.

My phone has never substituted huge for whole, but however stupid your phone seems to be you are even more moronic. The HTM witnessed many occasions where the warming was both more extreme and FASTER than that which is occurring today.

The image below is from your favorite wiki, the rest of the discussion is pertinent to your particular vacuous area of understanding.

During the following one thousand years the temperature increased, so that climate became several degrees warmer than today. About 8,000 years before present, in Hunter Stone Age, occurred the hottest period throughout the Holocene. This initiated the warm period called the Holocene Optimum, which lasted almost until about 4,500 years before present, whereafter the temperature continued to drop through bronze age, iron age and historical time until it reached a low point in "The Little Ice Age" in the years 1600- 1700. Within the last few hundred years the temperature has again increased, but not to such heights as in Hunter Stone Age.

Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments

Your outdated reference omits the most current research.

But then again, I think you like living in the past in ignorance.

 

[Crick]

Not warmer? Try again

Climate Change Data » Pirate's Cove (A denier site)

 

[flacaltenn]

You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

My god child --- you are devious and seriously learning challenged.

Besides the CRS problem -- you have a reading comp issue..

The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself

Blew that up for you in case visual acuity is primary to your reading issue.... Note again the "possiblyhigher" because of limitations in the proxy study. And TO BE FAIR --- this doesn't compare to the GLOBAL study by Marcott because it's N.Hemi only..

But this is what I told you.. The more you approach INDIVIDUAL proxies and shit can the attempts to do GLOBAL reconstructions -- the better they match the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of past climates...

Thanks Ian...

 

[westwall]

You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

My god child --- you are devious and seriously learning challenged.

Besides the CRS problem -- you have a reading comp issue..

The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself

Blew that up for you in case visual acuity is primary to your reading issue.... Note again the "possiblyhigher" because of limitations in the proxy study. And TO BE FAIR --- this doesn't compare to the GLOBAL study by Marcott because it's N.Hemi only..

But this is what I told you.. The more you approach INDIVIDUAL proxies and shit can the attempts to do GLOBAL reconstructions -- the better they match the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of past climates...

Thanks Ian...

I keep telling you, facts don't matter to religious fruitcakes. They have "faith" man!

 

[flacaltenn]

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA BY FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST Department of History, Stockholm University, Sweden

ABSTRACT. A new temperature reconstruction with decadal resolution, covering the last two millennia, is presented for the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N), utilizing many palaeotemperature proxy records never previously included in any largescale temperature reconstruction. The amplitude of the reconstructed temperature variability on centennial time-scales exceeds 0.6°C. This reconstruction is the first to show a distinct Roman Warm Period c. AD 1–300, reaching up to the 1961–1990 mean temperature level, followed by the Dark Age Cold Period c. AD 300–800. The Medieval Warm Period is seen c. AD 800–1300 and the Little Ice Age is clearly visible c. AD 1300–1900, followed by a rapid temperature increase in the twentieth century. The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself. Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology. Key words: Temperature reconstructions, temperature variability, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, global warming, climate change

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

Ian, you dissapoint me, that post is a form of lying. The way you wrote it up seemed to state that the MWP was warmer than the present, when, in fact, the article stated exactly the opposite.

That IS the peak of the MWP Rocks.. And the line following your hilight just says what the reconstruction shows.

That the MWP met or exceeded the period from 1961 --- 1990... The reconstruction ENDS in about 1935.. The rest is INSTRUMENTED data. And the observation is that with BETTER PROXIES than Mann, Marcott, etc -- used ---- You can easily see 0.6C variability in the natural cycles...

 

[threegoofs]

You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

My god child --- you are devious and seriously learning challenged.

Besides the CRS problem -- you have a reading comp issue..

The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself

Blew that up for you in case visual acuity is primary to your reading issue.... Note again the "possiblyhigher" because of limitations in the proxy study. And TO BE FAIR --- this doesn't compare to the GLOBAL study by Marcott because it's N.Hemi only..

But this is what I told you.. The more you approach INDIVIDUAL proxies and shit can the attempts to do GLOBAL reconstructions -- the better they match the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of past climates...

Thanks Ian...

No. Individual proxies contain lots of noise. They are limited- may be more or less sensitive to s million different variables, most of them unknown.

You minimize that noise with use of multiple proxies.

It's like doing a medical study- individual patient data is notoriously variable, but large groups tends to show the truth much more accurately.

 

[threegoofs]

You mean the paper where it states that the present warming is higher than anything seen in the past?

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

My god child --- you are devious and seriously learning challenged.

Besides the CRS problem -- you have a reading comp issue..

The highest average temperatures in the reconstruction are encountered in the mid to late tenth century and the lowest in the late seventeenth century. Decadal mean temperatures seem to have reached or exceeded the 1961–1990 mean temperature level during substantial parts of the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. The temperature of the last two decades, however, is possibly higher than during any previous time in the past two millennia, although this is only seen in the instrumental temperature data and not in the multi-proxy reconstruction itself

Blew that up for you in case visual acuity is primary to your reading issue.... Note again the "possiblyhigher" because of limitations in the proxy study. And TO BE FAIR --- this doesn't compare to the GLOBAL study by Marcott because it's N.Hemi only..

But this is what I told you.. The more you approach INDIVIDUAL proxies and shit can the attempts to do GLOBAL reconstructions -- the better they match the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of past climates...

Thanks Ian...

I keep telling you, facts don't matter to religious fruitcakes. They have "faith" man!

You're talking about the National Academy of Sciences, I presume?

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Do you see how absurd you look yet?

 

[flacaltenn]

SOME individual proxies have lots of noise. OTHERS --- not so much. And MOST have accuracy issues because they are NOT thermometers and are responsive to corrupting variables... Like tree rings for instance. ]

I've seen proxies for CO2 concentrations that are remarkably free of "noise". In that you look at 10 of them and don't resemble the Marcott Proxy mess.

BUT --- remember for these GLOBAL proxies --- that there are no corals in the temperate zones, No 10,000 year ice at the equator.. And the OLDEST tree rings don't come from Africa. So you would be attempting to use DIFFERENT proxies for different places on the planet. How MANY in a study like Marcott? ----- Less than a hundred for the whole f-ing surface.. How accurate can that be? Think 76 randomly placed thermometers would be enough to distinguish a GWarming signal with any confidence??


LOCAL INDIVIDUAL proxies can be quite good.. Like those Hi Res Ice cores from Greenland. Or even better, CO2 proxies from isotope content of leaves.. You can move to another location and get similiar results.

And of course averaging a bunch of them CAN make it better -- if they have coherent temperature signatures. Can also leave you with nothing but a rough mean value without any variance in it at all..

 

[flacaltenn]

Before the CRS kicks in for our warmer buds. I'd like to back-up the regular claims that I make with a quote
further into the LJUNGQVIST paper..

Despite significant improvement in our understanding
of the temperature variability during the
past one or two millennia, especially for the Northern
Hemisphere, the controversial question whether
Medieval Warm Period peak temperatures exceeded
present temperatures remains unanswered.
IPCC (2007) and NRC (2006) concluded that the
data coverage still is too limited and unevenly distributed
around the globe to say anything with reasonable
certainty about temperatures on a global or
hemispheric scale prior to c. AD 1600. The amplitude
of the multi-decadal to centennial preindustrial
temperature variability constitutes a major
uncertainty. The estimate of this variability
ranges from c. 0.2 to 1°C in the different reconstructions.
Those divergences are to some extent a
result of the use of different methodological
approaches, but the number and choice of proxy
data seem to be of greater importance. Apart from
the general limitations set by the overall scarcity of
long quantitative palaeoclimate records, all largescale
reconstructions have furthermore been hampered
to some degree by the dominance of proxy
records from high latitudes. Many available proxy
records also end sometime during the twentieth
century and thus cannot be calibrated to the high
temperatures during the last decades of the twentieth
century. This may result in an underestimation
of the true temperatures in earlier warm periods.

 

[flacaltenn]

The amplitude of the temperature variability on
multi-decadal to centennial time-scales reconstructed
here should presumably be considered to be the
minimum of the true variability on those time-scales.

If this response is nonlinear
in nature, which is often likely the case, our interpretations
necessarily become flawed. This is
something that may result in an underestimation of
the amplitude of the variability that falls outside the
range of temperatures in the calibration period. The
true amplitude of the pre-industrial temperature variability
could also have been underestimated because
of a bias towards summer temperatures among
the proxies.


Question for CrickHam and the other believers in the Cook/Nutti 97% bullshit..

Given that phony poll only probed the ABSTRACTS to discern opinion on consensus..
How do you think this paper would have been scored?

Above is a TRUELY HONEST appraisal of the LIMITATIONS in the study.. And what climate scientists can't say for truth and certainty.. You assholes are so fixated on having consensus spoon fed to you --- that you probably never saw the REAL SCIENCE being practiced in the papers. Because you can't or won't take the time to actually live, love and appreciate science..
You're just looking for the quick score in the Fantasy Science League..