The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

[flacaltenn]

You are not any kind of scientist and you seem to know very little about it....so pretty much every "question" that you stupidly imagine is significant, is, in reality, not just "simple ass questions", but 'SIMPLE-MINDED questions' that have no relevance to whatever bit of science that you seem to somehow imagine you're qualified to refute.

I get the last word and then I leave you clowns to your blissful worship of data that will NEVER support the hysterical conclusions that have been made of it.

I have coaxed signals out of hydrophones that nobody has ever seen. Detected covert Spread Spectrum Signals and actually deciphered the transmissions. I have enhanced photos that everyone THOUGHT were "just noise". And I've taught machines to find tumors and count different kind of cells. And measured individual photon emissions from tagged proteins in order to find viruses and cancer.

I DOUBT that interpreting a temperature study and the information content of it is the TRICKIEST science, math and engineering I've ever done.. Go back to jerking yourself off...

 

[RollingThunder]

What I find amusing is how you claim the MWP was regional, but then can't present a

Sure I can. Any global temperature reconstruction will not show the MWP, being that it wasn't global.

Maybe you can explain to the class the physics of how a temperature spike would be confined to a single geographic point on the globe. This should be interesting...

So, Westwall is now claiming that all spots on the planet must vary in temperature at exactly the same rate, and there can be no localized warm or cool spots. It's not the dumbest theory he's put forth ... or maybe it is. It's hard to recall, given just how many insanely stupid theories he's put forth.

No, you have presented a fictional graph. How does physics explain the "bubble" of heat over an area? How is that possible? Here is one paper that deals with my neck of the woods. Significantly warmer during the MWP. But you claim that that is impossible. Looks like it is you who are the fool.

The Medieval Warm Period in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA

Millar, C.I., King, J.C., Westfall, R.D., Alden, H.A. and Delany, D.L. 2006. Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Quaternary Research 66: 273-287.

Working with dead tree trunks located above the current treeline on tephra-covered slopes of Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge south of Mono Lake just east of the Inyo Craters in the eastern Sierra Nevada range of California (USA), the authors identified the species to which the tree remains belonged, dated them, and (using contemporary distributions of the species in relation to contemporary temperature and precipitation) reconstructed paleoclimate during the time they grew there.

Millar et al. report that "the range of dates for the deadwood samples, AD 815-1350, coincides with the period identified from multiple [our italics] proxies in the Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin as the Medieval Climate Anomaly," among which are tree-ring reconstructions indicating "increased temperature relative to present (Graumlich, 1993; Scuderi, 1993) and higher treelines (Graumlich and Lloyd, 1996; Lloyd and Graumlich, 1997), and pollen reconstructions [that] show greater abundance of fir in high-elevation communities than at present (Anderson, 1990)."

Focusing on other of their findings, the five researchers say "the Medieval forest on Whitewing was growing under mild, favorable conditions (warm with adequate moisture)," as indicated by "extremely low mean sensitivities [to stress] and large average ring widths." More specifically, they conclude, as reported in their abstract, that annual minimum temperatures during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly in the region they studied were "significantly warmer" (+3.2°C) "than present," while in their final paragraph they say their results "closely compare to climate projections for California in AD 2070-2099 (Hayhoe et al., 2004)," in which "average temperature increases of 2.3-5.8°C were projected and slight increases or decreases in precipitation."

With you, walleyed, ALL science is "fictional". What's it like in Bizarroworld?

Mamooth really nailed it though about your MO.....as you just once again demonstrated....LOLOLOL.....I notice that you never did come up with that list he asked you for of linked papers supposedly supporting your imaginary position on the MWP.

[QUOTE="mamooth, post: 16713621, member: 39072"*
"This is how Westwall and other deniers pull their fraud on the topic of the MWP.

They go to one of their favorite cult websites, maybe "CO2 Science", maybe a different one, and take a couple studies from their pre-cherrypicked list.

Study A at location A shows a warm temp spike at 1000AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study B at location B shows a warm temp spike at 1100AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study C at location C shows a warm temp spike at 1200AD, and cool temps at all other times.

The papers with no warm spikes at all, which would be most of them, are not mentioned. As those didn't support the denier cult agenda, they were not put on the cherrypicked list.

Now, honest and intelligent people would look at those studies as obvious evidence there was no global MWP. A global MWP would have to show warm temps over the whole period over the whole globe, yet those studies directly showed that wasn't the case. The studies the deniers pick actually contradict their claim of a global MWP.

Westwall, if you'd like, you can cut and paste that list of papers that disprove the claim that the MWP was global, and then pretend the opposite. Then I can go down the list, paper by paper, shredding your lies one by one. That would be fun. Why don't you do that? I only require that you post an actual link to each paper, because I shouldn't have to search the internet for every single paper. No actual link, it doesn't count."

 

[westwall]

What I find amusing is how you claim the MWP was regional, but then can't present a

Sure I can. Any global temperature reconstruction will not show the MWP, being that it wasn't global.

Maybe you can explain to the class the physics of how a temperature spike would be confined to a single geographic point on the globe. This should be interesting...

So, Westwall is now claiming that all spots on the planet must vary in temperature at exactly the same rate, and there can be no localized warm or cool spots. It's not the dumbest theory he's put forth ... or maybe it is. It's hard to recall, given just how many insanely stupid theories he's put forth.

No, you have presented a fictional graph. How does physics explain the "bubble" of heat over an area? How is that possible? Here is one paper that deals with my neck of the woods. Significantly warmer during the MWP. But you claim that that is impossible. Looks like it is you who are the fool.

The Medieval Warm Period in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA

Millar, C.I., King, J.C., Westfall, R.D., Alden, H.A. and Delany, D.L. 2006. Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Quaternary Research 66: 273-287.

Working with dead tree trunks located above the current treeline on tephra-covered slopes of Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge south of Mono Lake just east of the Inyo Craters in the eastern Sierra Nevada range of California (USA), the authors identified the species to which the tree remains belonged, dated them, and (using contemporary distributions of the species in relation to contemporary temperature and precipitation) reconstructed paleoclimate during the time they grew there.

Millar et al. report that "the range of dates for the deadwood samples, AD 815-1350, coincides with the period identified from multiple [our italics] proxies in the Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin as the Medieval Climate Anomaly," among which are tree-ring reconstructions indicating "increased temperature relative to present (Graumlich, 1993; Scuderi, 1993) and higher treelines (Graumlich and Lloyd, 1996; Lloyd and Graumlich, 1997), and pollen reconstructions [that] show greater abundance of fir in high-elevation communities than at present (Anderson, 1990)."

Focusing on other of their findings, the five researchers say "the Medieval forest on Whitewing was growing under mild, favorable conditions (warm with adequate moisture)," as indicated by "extremely low mean sensitivities [to stress] and large average ring widths." More specifically, they conclude, as reported in their abstract, that annual minimum temperatures during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly in the region they studied were "significantly warmer" (+3.2°C) "than present," while in their final paragraph they say their results "closely compare to climate projections for California in AD 2070-2099 (Hayhoe et al., 2004)," in which "average temperature increases of 2.3-5.8°C were projected and slight increases or decreases in precipitation."

With you, walleyed, ALL science is "fictional". What's it like in Bizarroworld?

Mamooth really nailed it though about your MO.....as you just once again demonstrated....LOLOLOL.....I notice that you never did come up with that list he asked you for of linked papers supposedly supporting your imaginary position on the MWP.

[QUOTE="mamooth, post: 16713621, member: 39072"*
"This is how Westwall and other deniers pull their fraud on the topic of the MWP.

They go to one of their favorite cult websites, maybe "CO2 Science", maybe a different one, and take a couple studies from their pre-cherrypicked list.

Study A at location A shows a warm temp spike at 1000AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study B at location B shows a warm temp spike at 1100AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study C at location C shows a warm temp spike at 1200AD, and cool temps at all other times.

The papers with no warm spikes at all, which would be most of them, are not mentioned. As those didn't support the denier cult agenda, they were not put on the cherrypicked list.

Now, honest and intelligent people would look at those studies as obvious evidence there was no global MWP. A global MWP would have to show warm temps over the whole period over the whole globe, yet those studies directly showed that wasn't the case. The studies the deniers pick actually contradict their claim of a global MWP.

Westwall, if you'd like, you can cut and paste that list of papers that disprove the claim that the MWP was global, and then pretend the opposite. Then I can go down the list, paper by paper, shredding your lies one by one. That would be fun. Why don't you do that? I only require that you post an actual link to each paper, because I shouldn't have to search the internet for every single paper. No actual link, it doesn't count."

So explain how a bubble of heat can exist over a fairly small geographic area for hundreds of years. C'mon silly boy. You hurl insults and invective but I see precious little real thought from you. All you seem capable of doing is parroting what your masters place in front of you...

 

[mamooth]

Do explain how a bubble of heat can exist over a fairly small geographic area for hundreds of years.

An example.

Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia

Would you like to now claim that too was global? After all, your theory states that it's impossible to have any local warmups or cooldowns.

 

[westwall]

Do explain how a bubble of heat can exist over a fairly small geographic area for hundreds of years.

An example.

Roman Warm Period - Wikipedia

Would you like to now claim that too was global? After all, your theory states that it's impossible to have any local warmups or cooldowns.

Wow, you're going to try and use wiki? HA! Here's a real peer reviewed paper you ninny. The RWP was global as well, with ample evidence for it throughout central and South America. Here is one paper that deals with it in Chile. When you go stupid you go all out don't you fuzzball.


Millennial-Scale Climatic Oscillations in Central Chile

Jenny, B., Valero-Garces, B.L., Urrutia, R., Kelts, K., Veit, H., Appleby, P.G. and Geyh M. 2002. Moisture changes and fluctuations of the Westerlies in Mediterranean Central Chile during the last 2000 years: The Laguna Aculeo record (33°50'S). Quaternary International 87: 3-18.


The authors studied geochemical, sedimentological and diatom-assemblage data derived from sediment cores extracted from one of the largest natural lakes in Central Chile (Laguna Aculeo), in order to obtain information about the hydrologic climate of that region over the past two millennia.


From 200 BC, when the record began, until AD 200, conditions were primarily dry. This period of time coincides with the latter part of what is often referred to as the Roman Warm Period (see our Journal Review of McDermott et al., 2001). Subsequently, from AD 200-700 - with a slight respite in the central hundred years of that period - there was a high frequency of flood events. This period of time likewise coincides with what is generally called the Dark Ages Cold Period (see again McDermott et al., 2001). Then came a several-hundred-year period of less flooding that was coeval with what is generally referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. This more benign period was then followed by another period of frequent flooding from 1300-1700 - which picked up again about 1850 - that was of the same timeframe as the Little Ice Age.

 

[mamooth]

Wow, you're going to try and use wiki?

part of the conspiracy too, eh?

HA! Here's a real peer reviewed paper you ninny. The RWP was global as well, with ample evidence for it throughout central and South America.

So you are claiming it's global. At least you're consistent with your insane theory.

Reality, alas is not kind to you. For example, here's a historical record for China. Sadly, it does not show either Roman or Medieval warming. Most spots in the world be the same. So much for your "everything must be global!" theory.

World Climate Report » China’s 2,000 Year Temperature History

 

[westwall]

Wow, you're going to try and use wiki?

part of the conspiracy too, eh?

HA! Here's a real peer reviewed paper you ninny. The RWP was global as well, with ample evidence for it throughout central and South America.

So you are claiming it's global. At least you're consistent with your insane theory.

Reality, alas is not kind to you. For example, here's a historical record for China. Sadly, it does not show either Roman or Medieval warming. Most spots in the world be the same. So much for your "everything must be global!" theory.

World Climate Report » China’s 2,000 Year Temperature History

Hmmm, here's another graph that shows the RWP in China pretty clearly. Your revisionist science site is pretty sucky.

Western Slope of the Northern Okinawa Trough, East China Sea

Fengming, C., Tiegang, L., Lihua, Z. and Jun, Y. 2008. A Holocene paleotemperature record based on radiolaria from the northern Okinawa Trough (East China Sea). Quaternary International 183: 115-122.


Using a well-established radiolarian-based transfer function, the authors developed a mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) history of the last 10,500 years based on data derived from the top 390 cm of a gravity core recovered from the western slope of the northern Okinawa Trough (29°13.93'N, 128°53'E) of the East China Sea. This effort indicated the existence of the MWP (~ AD 750-1250) and Little Ice Age (~ AD 300-600), after which it began to warm once again. However, the warming was short-lived, with the mean annual SST actually reversing its course and falling slightly below the coldest value of the entire Little Ice Age at about AD 1950, where the SST history terminates. Hence, we presume that current SSTs at this location are likely considerably lower than they were during the peak warmth of the MWP, having had insufficient time to once again reverse course and warm to such an elevated level from their lowest level of the past 1300 years.

 

[mamooth]

Your revisionist science site is pretty sucky.

We get it already. Every bit of data that contradicts your cult is "revisionist".

However, the bigger point is you're faking things now. The real abstract for that paper is here.

A Holocene paleotemperature record based on radiolaria from the northern Okinawa Trough (East China Sea)
---
Using a radiolarian-based transfer function, mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) and seasonal temperature range are reconstructed through the last 10,500 yrs in the northern Okinawa Trough. Down-core SST estimates reveal that throughout the Holocene the changes of mean annual SST display a three-step trend: (i) an early Holocene continuous warming between 10,500 and 8500 yr BP which ends up with a abrupt cooling at about 8200 yr BP; (ii) a relatively stable middle Holocene with high SST that lasted until 3200 yr BP; and (iii) a late-Holocene distinct SST decline between 3200 and 500 yr BP. This pattern is in agreement with the ice core and terrestrial paleoclimatic records in the Chinese continent and other regions of the world. Five cooling events with abrupt mean annual SST drops, which occur at ∼300-600, 1400, 3100, 4600-5100 and 8200 yr BP, are recognized during the last 10,500 yrs. Comparison of our results with records of GISP2 ice core and marine sediment in North Atlantic region suggests these cooling events are strongly coupled, which implies a possible significant climatic correlation between high- and low-latitude areas.
---

Your "abstract" is drastically altered from that.
---
Using a well-established radiolarian-based transfer function, the authors developed a mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) history of the last 10,500 years based on data derived from the top 390 cm of a gravity core recovered from the western slope of the northern Okinawa Trough (29°13.93'N, 128°53'E) of the East China Sea. This effort indicated the existence of the MWP (~ AD 750-1250) and Little Ice Age (~ AD 300-600), after which it began to warm once again. However, the warming was short-lived, with the mean annual SST actually reversing its course and falling slightly below the coldest value of the entire Little Ice Age at about AD 1950, where the SST history terminates. Hence, we presume that current SSTs at this location are likely considerably lower than they were during the peak warmth of the MWP, having had insufficient time to once again reverse course and warm to such an elevated level from their lowest level of the past 1300 years.
---

That is, you didn't give us an abstract. You gave us denier spin from your cult blog, and tried to pass it off as an abstract.

You're busted, fraud. Bye.

 

[westwall]

Your revisionist science site is pretty sucky.

We get it already. Every bit of data that contradicts your cult is "revisionist".

However, the bigger point is you're faking things now. The real abstract for that paper is here.

A Holocene paleotemperature record based on radiolaria from the northern Okinawa Trough (East China Sea)
---
Using a radiolarian-based transfer function, mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) and seasonal temperature range are reconstructed through the last 10,500 yrs in the northern Okinawa Trough. Down-core SST estimates reveal that throughout the Holocene the changes of mean annual SST display a three-step trend: (i) an early Holocene continuous warming between 10,500 and 8500 yr BP which ends up with a abrupt cooling at about 8200 yr BP; (ii) a relatively stable middle Holocene with high SST that lasted until 3200 yr BP; and (iii) a late-Holocene distinct SST decline between 3200 and 500 yr BP. This pattern is in agreement with the ice core and terrestrial paleoclimatic records in the Chinese continent and other regions of the world. Five cooling events with abrupt mean annual SST drops, which occur at ∼300-600, 1400, 3100, 4600-5100 and 8200 yr BP, are recognized during the last 10,500 yrs. Comparison of our results with records of GISP2 ice core and marine sediment in North Atlantic region suggests these cooling events are strongly coupled, which implies a possible significant climatic correlation between high- and low-latitude areas.
---

Your "abstract" is drastically altered from that.
---
Using a well-established radiolarian-based transfer function, the authors developed a mean annual sea surface temperature (SST) history of the last 10,500 years based on data derived from the top 390 cm of a gravity core recovered from the western slope of the northern Okinawa Trough (29°13.93'N, 128°53'E) of the East China Sea. This effort indicated the existence of the MWP (~ AD 750-1250) and Little Ice Age (~ AD 300-600), after which it began to warm once again. However, the warming was short-lived, with the mean annual SST actually reversing its course and falling slightly below the coldest value of the entire Little Ice Age at about AD 1950, where the SST history terminates. Hence, we presume that current SSTs at this location are likely considerably lower than they were during the peak warmth of the MWP, having had insufficient time to once again reverse course and warm to such an elevated level from their lowest level of the past 1300 years.
---

That is, you didn't give us an abstract. You gave us denier spin from your cult blog, and tried to pass it off as an abstract.

You're busted, fraud. Bye.

You're correct I didn't give you an abstract, I gave a synopsis. It is accurate and that is all that matters. The point is you claim the RWP and the MWP were localized but can't tell us how physics would allow that to occur, and I posted the two papers that I had readily available that refute your line of BS.

The only fraud is you bucko.

 

[Crick]

You've got balls for a liar caught red-handed Westie.

 

[SSDD]

So you are claiming it's global. At least you're consistent with your insane theory.

Of course the Roman, and Medieval warm periods were global...the only crazy ones are you members of the glassy eyed chanting cult...Not that you will get anything from it, because you have been shown all this before, but here are studies from locations all over the globe showing that the Roman Warm Period was global in nature...

Here is one done in Ireland

Centennial-scale Holocene climate variability revealed by a high-resolution speleothem ð18O record from SW Ireland.

Here is one done in china China

http://www.ess.uci.edu/~johnsonlab/files/Download/Yang et al., 2002.pdf

Here is one done in Ecuador

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6912/full/nature01194.html

And that is just three...ireland to ecuador...looks pretty global to me

 

[Crick]

The intro to Wikipedia's article on it:
"The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]"

Ireland would be included in the known area of the RWP, so that's nothing.

Your China article shows no exceptional warming in that period. The "Total China" plot actually shows colder than average temperatures.

Your Ecuador article abstract concerns 2-8 year variability from the ENSO cycle and so says nothing about the 650 year long RWP.

So, either you failed to read your references or you chose to lie about them.

 

[Olde Europe]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

1) Nope.

2) Show me a natural forcing that is global in scope, goes on for a few decades, or a century, produces a global temperature increase of almost 1°C, then completely reverses itself, and passes without leaving a single trace in multiple temperature proxies, and neither anything in sediments etc., and you've obliterated the term "unprecedented" in the hokeystick debate. Go.

 

[mamooth]

You're correct I didn't give you an abstract, I gave a synopsis.

No, you copied a "synopsis" from the "CO2 science" website, and put it in a format to make it look like an abstract. Then in violation of plagiarism rules, you did not give an attribution to your source. That's because you wanted everyone to think your fudge was the real abstract, and posting a link to a denier website would have shown that wasn't the case.

"CO2 science" fudges all of the papers that way. If you actually read the papers they talk about -- and they deliberately make that hard by not linking to the actual paper from the website -- the papers almost never say what the website claims they say. The graphs that the website pretends come from the papers aren't in the papers, they're just sketched out fudging from the website. The whole "The MWP global, and 100 papers say so!" scam is an open fraud from top to bottom.

 

[SSDD]

The intro to Wikipedia's article on it:
"The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400.[1]"

Ireland would be included in the known area of the RWP, so that's nothing.

Your China article shows no exceptional warming in that period. The "Total China" plot actually shows colder than average temperatures.

Your Ecuador article abstract concerns 2-8 year variability from the ENSO cycle and so says nothing about the 650 year long RWP.

So, either you failed to read your references or you chose to lie about them.

Sorry guy, the only one lying is you...but then, that's how you roll..right?

Not that it would matter to you any more than it does to the hairball or any of you glassy eyed chanters, but here are more studies showing the global nature of the RWP and MWP.. face it...one of the most fraudulent things mikey did was his attempt to erase the previous warm periods..

Second century megadrought in the Rio Grande headwaters, Colorado: How unusual was medieval drought?

High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110002891

CO2 Science

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618207003680

CO2 Science

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N34/C2.php

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018204001245

Tracing 4,000 years of environmental history in the Cuzco Area, Peru, from the pollen record.

Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over the past 25,000 years in Southern Africa.

Deny on garth.

 

[SSDD]

You're correct I didn't give you an abstract, I gave a synopsis.

No, you copied a "synopsis" from the "CO2 science" website, and put it in a format to make it look like an abstract. Then in violation of plagiarism rules, you did not give an attribution to your source. That's because you wanted everyone to think your fudge was the real abstract, and posting a link to a denier website would have shown that wasn't the case.

"CO2 science" fudges all of the papers that way. If you actually read the papers they talk about -- and they deliberately make that hard by not linking to the actual paper from the website -- the papers almost never say what the website claims they say. The graphs that the website pretends come from the papers aren't in the papers, they're just sketched out fudging from the website. The whole "The MWP global, and 100 papers say so!" scam is an open fraud from top to bottom.

Tell you what hairball...you name the region and I will give you level I or level II studies showing the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period were global..and warmer than the present...

 

[RollingThunder]

You're correct I didn't give you an abstract, I gave a synopsis.

No, you copied a "synopsis" from the "CO2 science" website, and put it in a format to make it look like an abstract. Then in violation of plagiarism rules, you did not give an attribution to your source. That's because you wanted everyone to think your fudge was the real abstract, and posting a link to a denier website would have shown that wasn't the case.

"CO2 science" fudges all of the papers that way. If you actually read the papers they talk about -- and they deliberately make that hard by not linking to the actual paper from the website -- the papers almost never say what the website claims they say. The graphs that the website pretends come from the papers aren't in the papers, they're just sketched out fudging from the website. The whole "The MWP global, and 100 papers say so!" scam is an open fraud from top to bottom.

Tell you what hairball...you name the region and I will give you level I or level II studies showing the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period were global..and warmer than the present...

Oh, you poor sad delusional retard, your scam got completely debunked for all to see...and now, like a good little 'alternative reality' dweller, you're doubling down on your debunked twaddle. LOLOLOLOL...

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

1) Nope.

2) Show me a natural forcing that is global in scope, goes on for a few decades, or a century, produces a global temperature increase of almost 1°C, then completely reverses itself, and passes without leaving a single trace in multiple temperature proxies, and neither anything in sediments etc., and you've obliterated the term "unprecedented" in the hokeystick debate. Go.

Well good on 1) because NOBODY will know if current peaks and rates of rise in OUR lifetimes are "extraodinary" from looking at GLOBAL proxy studies. In FACT -- you have to drop the ruse of PRETENDING to do GLOBAL studies to get ANY accurate clues as to past climate variance.

And you CAN DO THAT by using High Resolution studies of CO2 and temperature at specific LOCAL sites to do just that. They show A LOT of natural variance during our latest "interglacial" period. I can show you the difference.

As for 2) --- neither I or science in general are required to SPECULATE as to exact mathematically backed conclusions to ANY mystery.. HOWEVER -- we've only had tools accurate enough and well-placed enough (like in space) to study short term trends in climate variability.. That USUALLY leads to discontinuity in what we THOUGHT we knew and over-REPORTING of concerns. This happened when we fielded 1000 NextRad doppler radar systems in "tornadic activity" reports for instance.. Or new higher estimates for hurricane statistics since science was given the great satellite toys a mere 30 or so years ago...

So to answer your question ---

1) We KNOW that the Earth climate is TOO complex to have a linear correlated response to a SINGLE nearly linear variable (like CO2) that tracks EXACTLY with time. The thermal distribution paths and time to equilibriums are TOO COMPLEX to do that. You can see that from basic systems analysis. ANY system with massive storage (like heat in the oceans) will have a VARIETY of time constants associated with responses to forcings. These include BOTH GHouse gas forcings, ocean current forcings, and most important of all -- solar forcings. The idea that you can blame ANY of these SOLELY on what happened last Tuesday or the last decade-- is dog shit braindead non-science.. See works from Max Planck or Wood Hole or Judith Curry's group for BETTER science on this.

2) We KNOW that any number of NATURAL CYCLICAL forcings can have a major effect on short term (less than a century) surface temperatures. El Nino demonstrates that regularly. But it is only ONE of dozens of known such events. In mathematics when you combine multiple periodic component (ala Fourier analysis) you can show ANY NUMBER of RESULTANT system output shapes from the addition of these components as they vary with frequency and relative phase to each other.

3) We KNOW that CO2 and Methane DOES have an effect on GH gas forcing in thermal equilibrium. The basic physics and chemistry of this effect yields about a 1.1 DegC per DOUBLING of CO2. At the rate we're going -- this BASIC estimate (without postulated feedbacks and accelerations that are the CONTENTIOUS part of GW theory) would NEVER be an issue. So even I accept that maybe 1/2 or less of the observed warming COULD BE due to increased emissions. It could also because we have the dependence backwards. Because increased temperatures (even without release of addition GH components from calthrates) will lead to higher CO2 concentrations. I don't however buy the add-on GW postulates concerning runaway accelerations, trigger temperatures or dominance of positive feedbacks.

I'm not doing MORE work on your question until I determine that you're here to DISCUSS and not just bitch and protest....

 

[RollingThunder]

Show me a natural forcing that is global in scope, goes on for a few decades, or a century, produces a global temperature increase of almost 1°C, then completely reverses itself, and passes without leaving a single trace in multiple temperature proxies, and neither anything in sediments etc., and you've obliterated the term "unprecedented" in the hokeystick debate. Go.

...you have to drop the ruse of PRETENDING to do GLOBAL studies to get ANY accurate clues as to past climate variance.

And you CAN DO THAT by using High Resolution studies of CO2 and temperature at specific LOCAL sites to do just that. They show A LOT of natural variance during our latest "interglacial" period. I can show you the difference.

...neither I or science in general are required to SPECULATE as to exact mathematically backed conclusions to ANY mystery.. HOWEVER -- we've only had tools accurate enough and well-placed enough (like in space) to study short term trends in climate variability.. That USUALLY leads to discontinuity in what we THOUGHT we knew and over-REPORTING of concerns. This happened when we fielded 1000 NextRad doppler radar systems in "tornadic activity" reports for instance.. Or new higher estimates for hurricane statistics since science was given the great satellite toys a mere 30 or so years ago...

So to answer your question ---

1) We KNOW that the Earth climate is TOO complex to have a linear correlated response to a SINGLE nearly linear variable (like CO2) that tracks EXACTLY with time. The thermal distribution paths and time to equilibriums are TOO COMPLEX to do that. You can see that from basic systems analysis. ANY system with massive storage (like heat in the oceans) will have a VARIETY of time constants associated with responses to forcings. These include BOTH GHouse gas forcings, ocean current forcings, and most important of all -- solar forcings. The idea that you can blame ANY of these SOLELY on what happened last Tuesday or the last decade-- is dog shit braindead non-science.. See works from Max Planck or Wood Hole or Judith Curry's group for BETTER science on this.

2) We KNOW that any number of NATURAL CYCLICAL forcings can have a major effect on short term (less than a century) surface temperatures. El Nino demonstrates that regularly. But it is only ONE of dozens of known such events. In mathematics when you combine multiple periodic component (ala Fourier analysis) you can show ANY NUMBER of RESULTANT system output shapes from the addition of these components as they vary with frequency and relative phase to each other.

3) We KNOW that CO2 and Methane DOES have an effect on GH gas forcing in thermal equilibrium. The basic physics and chemistry of this effect yields about a 1.1 DegC per DOUBLING of CO2. At the rate we're going -- this BASIC estimate (without postulated feedbacks and accelerations that are the CONTENTIOUS part of GW theory) would NEVER be an issue. So even I accept that maybe 1/2 or less of the observed warming COULD BE due to increased emissions. It could also because we have the dependence backwards. Because increased temperatures (even without release of addition GH components from calthrates) will lead to higher CO2 concentrations. I don't however buy the add-on GW postulates concerning runaway accelerations, trigger temperatures or dominance of positive feedbacks.

I'm not doing MORE work on your question until I determine that you're here to DISCUSS and not just bitch and protest....

Just more anti-science denier cult twaddle and clueless gibberish with no connection to reality. As always from ol' fecalhead.

In the real world....

Although it is often shortened to just 'climate sensitivity', the actual scientific term is "equilibrium climate sensitivity" which refers to the total amount of warming that will occur at the Earth's surface once it reaches a new balanced energy state, resulting from the increased greenhouse effect from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and a number of feedback effects. For example, when ice melts it makes the Earth's surface less reflective, causing it to absorb more sunlight and warm further. A warmer atmosphere will also hold more water vapor, and water vapor is another greenhouse gas.

From the experts....

Explaned: Climate sensitivity
If we double the Earth’s greenhouse gases, how much will the temperature change? That’s what this number tells you.
MIT
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
March 19, 2010
Climate sensitivity is the term used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to express the relationship between the human-caused emissions that add to the Earth’s greenhouse effect — carbon dioxide and a variety of other greenhouse gases — and the temperature changes that will result from these emissions.

Specifically, the term is defined as how much the average global surface temperature will increase if there is a doubling of greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents) in the air, once the planet has had a chance to settle into a new equilibrium after the increase occurs. In other words, it’s a direct measure of how the Earth’s climate will respond to that doubling.

That value, according to the most recent IPCC report, is 3 degrees Celsius, with a range of uncertainty from 2 to 4.5 degrees.

This sensitivity depends primarily on all the different feedback effects, both positive and negative, that either amplify or diminish the greenhouse effect. There are three primary feedback effects — clouds, sea ice and water vapor; these, combined with other feedback effects, produce the greatest uncertainties in predicting the planet’s future climate.

With no feedback effects at all, the change would be just 1 degree Celsius, climate scientists agree. Virtually all of the controversies over climate science hinge on just how strong the various feedbacks may be — and on whether scientists may have failed to account for some of them.

Clouds are a good example. Clouds can have either a positive or negative feedback effect, depending on their altitude and the size of their water droplets. Overall, most scientists expect this net effect to be positive, but there are large uncertainties.

“There is still lots of uncertainty in what the climate sensitivity is,” says Andrei Sokolov, a research scientist in MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, who has been doing research on climate sensitivity for many years. “Feedback is what’s driving things,” he says.

It is important to note that climate sensitivity is figured on the basis of an overall doubling, compared to pre-industrial levels, of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But the temperature change given by this definition of climate sensitivity is only part of the story. The actual increase might be greater in the long run because greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere could much more than double without strong policies to control emissions. But in the short run, the actual immediate warming could be less than suggested by the climate sensitivity, since due to the thermal inertia of the ocean, it may take some time after a doubling of the concentration is reached before the climate reaches a new stable equilibrium temperature.

 

[Olde Europe]

Well good on 1) because NOBODY will know if current peaks and rates of rise in OUR lifetimes are "extraodinary" from looking at GLOBAL proxy studies. In FACT -- you have to drop the ruse of PRETENDING to do GLOBAL studies to get ANY accurate clues as to past climate variance.

And you CAN DO THAT by using High Resolution studies of CO2 and temperature at specific LOCAL sites to do just that. They show A LOT of natural variance during our latest "interglacial" period. I can show you the difference.

As for 2) --- neither I or science in general are required to SPECULATE as to exact mathematically backed conclusions to ANY mystery.. HOWEVER -- we've only had tools accurate enough and well-placed enough (like in space) to study short term trends in climate variability.. That USUALLY leads to discontinuity in what we THOUGHT we knew and over-REPORTING of concerns. This happened when we fielded 1000 NextRad doppler radar systems in "tornadic activity" reports for instance.. Or new higher estimates for hurricane statistics since science was given the great satellite toys a mere 30 or so years ago...

So to answer your question ---

1) We KNOW that the Earth climate is TOO complex to have a linear correlated response to a SINGLE nearly linear variable (like CO2) that tracks EXACTLY with time. The thermal distribution paths and time to equilibriums are TOO COMPLEX to do that. You can see that from basic systems analysis. ANY system with massive storage (like heat in the oceans) will have a VARIETY of time constants associated with responses to forcings. These include BOTH GHouse gas forcings, ocean current forcings, and most important of all -- solar forcings. The idea that you can blame ANY of these SOLELY on what happened last Tuesday or the last decade-- is dog shit braindead non-science.. See works from Max Planck or Wood Hole or Judith Curry's group for BETTER science on this.

2) We KNOW that any number of NATURAL CYCLICAL forcings can have a major effect on short term (less than a century) surface temperatures. El Nino demonstrates that regularly. But it is only ONE of dozens of known such events. In mathematics when you combine multiple periodic component (ala Fourier analysis) you can show ANY NUMBER of RESULTANT system output shapes from the addition of these components as they vary with frequency and relative phase to each other.

3) We KNOW that CO2 and Methane DOES have an effect on GH gas forcing in thermal equilibrium. The basic physics and chemistry of this effect yields about a 1.1 DegC per DOUBLING of CO2. At the rate we're going -- this BASIC estimate (without postulated feedbacks and accelerations that are the CONTENTIOUS part of GW theory) would NEVER be an issue. So even I accept that maybe 1/2 or less of the observed warming COULD BE due to increased emissions. It could also because we have the dependence backwards. Because increased temperatures (even without release of addition GH components from calthrates) will lead to higher CO2 concentrations. I don't however buy the add-on GW postulates concerning runaway accelerations, trigger temperatures or dominance of positive feedbacks.

Thanks for your reply.

I don't actually care that much for the "unprecedented", and would be perfectly fine with, "unprecedented, as far as our records show" or some amended version like that, if that removed your acrimony over the implied claim to knowledge that may not be there.

On the other hand, if there's no known forcing that gets into the earth's system an amount of energy to cause a 1°C temperature increase, and then gets that energy out of the system again, and all in, say, 250 years, and leave no other traces, I'd say, that claim to "unprecedented" warming stands on sturdier feet. Still, I am not interested in quibbling about this, but was interested if there was more information behind your criticism.

Just shortly, so maybe we get somewhere: There's but two plausible ways to get that energy into the system, increased irradiation, or energy trapped in the system. Agreed? We know the sun follows very regular cycles. So does the earth's orbit. I've seen nothing in that, or a combination thereof, that would account for such a short-term (in geological time scales) event, and of the required magnitude. That leaves energy trapped, presumably by an increase in greenhouse gases. The only candidate for that would be methane, because it might build up, and dissipate, on that time scale. The problem with that is that there is probably no explanation for the generation of such enormous amounts of methane that doesn't have other, detectable causes. CO2 it cannot be, because the required causes would be detectable (burning enormous amounts of wood or coal, or volcanism on that scale would leave traces in sediments), and it would linger for thousands of years. Increased concentrations of water vapor would be a consequence of warming, rather than the cause thereof.

Even if we get there, a 1°C increase, that still leaves the problem that you'd have to get that energy out of the system just as fast. I, for one, don't have the first clue as to how that's supposed to happen. Even if we increased the amount of energy trapped in the system by way of feedback mechanisms, these would probably also linger and preclude the quick cooling.

I agree, according to common knowledge science is not supposed to "speculate", but does, and, at the frontiers of discovery, all the time. However, it seems to be that you are the one who is speculating, without basis in fact, supposing the possibility of a warming and cooling event on a scale and short time frame that, as far as I can discern, defies even efforts at a theoretical explanation. All in all, I don't see a prehistorical hockey stick, broken off somewhere in the middle of the warming phase. That does not mean it's impossible. I'd still like to see how the like could happen.

That said, I am still fine with with the statement amended as, "The current rate of warming is unprecedented as far as we know, limited prehistorical records and all".