What? No hockey stick for Hydrological Climate Change???

[flacaltenn]

The MWP exceeded the temporal resolution of that proxy. Big whoop. That has nothing to do with individual versus group proxies. Proxy data aren't thrown together in a bag and poured out on the table. Each is treated individually according to its characteristics: its scaling factors, its range, it's temporal resolution and so forth.

You've got to stop assuming that folks with PhDs who've been doing this sort of stuff all their lives and are following on other PhDs who did it all their lives, know no more than do you.

There sure IS a difference between individual proxies. Especially the specific TYPE of proxy used. That ice core study you gave me in that other thread DEMONSTRATES this. Because the slices were taken at MUCH finer increments. You can't DO that for a 10,000 year proxy.. Not only that -- but there is less filtering done on individual proxies resulting in maybe 3 or 4 times the sampling resolution. Don't believe me -- read Marcott's comments above in the thread. The INDIVIDUAL proxies had inherent temporal resolution in the range of 100 years. The MERGED and HOMOGENIZED multi-proxy result had NO temporal resolution at 300 years. And reduced resolution out to 1000 years. That's not a temperature record. It's a very crude estimate of LONG TERM mean values of temperature.

The "big whoop" that you STILL DON'T GET is that Mann/Marcott others did not get good fidelity on KNOWN events less than 500 years --- So they in NO WAY could show a 100 year event like this modern one.. I've shown you MANY HIGH RESOLUTION proxies that show variations of 1deg or more local to those individual samples. And fairly COMMON as well.. You've forgotten all that for sure.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've got 20 individual from OTHER places not in the N.Hemi that say the MWP has a SIGNIFICANT signature all over the world.

We're familiar with that dishonest cherrypicking fallacy pioneered by the "CO2 Science" website. They take proxies that have a warm bump in them somewhere, which don't even line up at the same time, and then declare that proves a global MWP. And in the process, they ignore the vastly more numerous proxies that don't show any warm bump at all.

NOTHING I posted comes from or depends on anything other the ORIGINAL citations. Except for the Wiki which is REQUIRED to provide it's own citations

 

[Wyatt earp]

1) The important point is that Paleo data CANNOT be compared to modern instrumented records less than 300 or 400 years long. Isn't me that's foggy on that point. These climate activist heroes attempted to DO THAT. By tacking on the modern instrumentation record to their BARREN proxy results. So when these Paleo people make sweeping generalizations COMPARING the 2 things in either RATES or MAGNITUDES --- they LIED and misrepresented their work to the public.

2) The MedWarmPer. and the LIA were GLOBAL events. The individual proxies for these events are found ALL over the globe. They DISAPPEAR in long period studies because of smoothing and harmonizing the crappy assortment of proxies that are selected.

3) Your last paragraph is a real belly laugh. Because BOTH of those guys work is based largely on the same sparse proxies. There's not that many to use. Marcott used used just 75, Mann even less. In no fashion did I misunderstand that Mann attempted to dismiss the EMBARRASSING results of the Hydro Cycle study that this thread is about. ALL proxy studies have the same weaknesses. So Mann criticizing Lundqvist was a SIGNED CONFESSION that Mann greatly exaggerated the statements made on behalf of his OWN work..

Only reason you would miss that -- is that you don't understand the limitations being referred to and/or you don't remember the magnitude of the exaggerations MADE in the media over these proxy studies that are NOT backed by the science behind them..

4) I NEVER expect or hope to see HISTORICAL temperature or rainfall data from tree rings, ice cores, and mudbugs that COULD be compared to our modern records. That's not on the table because of limitations in these proxies for thermometers and rain gauges. YOU WISH there was a way to say that our recent temperature history is UNPRECEDENTED in Magnitude or Rates.. Butt there is no data set with the spatial/temporal accuracy to honest make that declaration..

5) The Hydo cycle study which is the topic of this thread was interesting because it illustrates how LITTLE consensus there actually is in "climate science". 2 dominant OPINIONS are that GW will "make wet areas wetter and dry areas driers" and GW will "make all areas wetter". And YET -- Lindqvist read the proxy tea leaves and determines that probably NEITHER projection was correct because the hydro variance he found in his study showed VERY LITTLE reliance on "global temperature" and that the Variances he saw historically were LARGER than what we're measuring with our current "warming".. Thus you can make outrageous exaggerations out of proxy studies for ANY opinion that suites your fancy. And M. Mann -- not liking the Lindqvist verdict comes along and takes a HUGE crap on paleo studies in general..

You can't get better comedy material than that.. Can you???

1. Heavens, of course these records can be compared, just as you can compare temperature graphs taking a measure every minute to graphs taking a measure once per hour. You just have to keep in mind the latter will miss some extremes. And, of course, for the times prior to 1850 we have next to no direct temperature measurements, so we have to use the proxies we can find to create a historical record with which to compare what we're measuring.

2) "The MedWarmPer. and the LIA were GLOBAL events." Nope, they weren't, at the very least we don't have data whereupon to base such statement.

3) "So Mann criticizing Lundqvist was a SIGNED CONFESSION that Mann greatly exaggerated the statements made on behalf of his OWN work." No, he did not. In order to assert that you have to presuppose that Mann's own work is based on the paleo-record, and nothing else, as if measurements during the last century weren't the most important clues supporting Mann's work.

4) Exactly, there is probably nothing to be had by way of medieval or pre-historical data that would be comparable in precision to the modern record. Again, take "unprecedented" to mean that there's nothing comparable to today's warming to be found in the historical data, and finish off this point, finally. It's irrelevant for our prospects anyway, except for some comical outrage over a word you need to nurture. I find that unbecoming.

5) There's basic agreement on the foundation of climate science, with the boundaries and frontiers being in more or less dispute. That is so in every science, including physics, I can think of. However, your misunderstandings may help your bemusement, but don't reveal anything about the science:

"2 dominant OPINIONS are that GW will "make wet areas wetter and dry areas driers" and GW will "make all areas wetter"."​

Nope: GW will "make wet areas wetter and dry areas drier" and GW will in both areas increase the frequency of extreme precipitation events. These two are absolutely compatible. See, for instance, an arid region getting 10 to 15 days of light to middling rain a year now, and three days of extreme rain in, say, 50 years, and almost no rain in between. Over the year, this region will see drier conditions, and also extreme flooding during that time. I find it's time for you to wrap your head around this.

1. Heavens, of course these records can be compared, just as you can compare temperature graphs taking a measure every minute to graphs taking a measure once per hour. You just have to keep in mind the latter will miss some extremes. And, of course, for the times prior to 1850 we have next to no direct temperature measurements, so we have to use the proxies we can find to create a historical record with which to compare what we're measuring.


You posting this with a straight face? You can not compare proxies with modern day temperature equipment

Heck you can not even compare old. Analog 1955 temperature records with modern day digital temperature records .

Are you seriously trying to say that 1000 years of this temperature record

Would equal a thousand years from now of this temperature record?

You can not add modern day temperature records to proxies to get any true graph, what is so hard to understand?

And of course Mann didn't include modern day proxies to his graph because it wouldn't show the hockey stick.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just for the record. So you can't say that you've never seen proxies for the MWPeriod all over the world ------


Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heavens, flacaltenn...

"Despite uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100. Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change."​

From your own link. My argument was, peak warm periods at different times occurring in different regions of the world lead to a smoother global warming curve. Lo and behold, your own link supports my argument, as different regional warming events the world over different times mostly even out.

And then, the LIA:

"The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period."​

The same thing here, not a global event (of any significance). And that's pretty much what I told you.

Plenty of linked references in the Wiki for you to start reading. .The deal is -- INDIVIDUAL proxies have inherently better resolution when you don't attempt to AGGREGATE them with different types for the entire globe. THUS some of the INDIVIDUAL proxy work is more enlightening in terms of samples around the globe.

Yeah, I understand your argument, and the problem with that is, knowing that some region experienced a cold or warm spell doesn't really tell us anything about the world's climate, and does not shed a light on our future - which is, after all, what climate science is all about.

It seems clear by now, you'd like to have the current GLOBAL warming interpreted as some kind of "blip", the likes of which happens almost all the time, no worries. But, some singular proxy won't tell you that. And nope, a single proxy won't tell you that the globe was warming at the current rate at any other time during the last 1000 years in the way it did during the last decades. And that's why your insistence on "can't say 'unprecedented'" doesn't make any sense: There is still no evidence whatsoever for a precedent. And you, well informed as you are, can't come up with any kind of forcing that might have created a precedent, and still not show up in the (proxy) records.

Despite uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100. Proxyrecords show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change."


But but it is different with Micheal Mann only using trees in Siberia?


Lmao


You are one strange guy.


Global Warming's Tree Ring Circus Brings Us The Costliest Show On Earth

Based heavily upon data taken from tree growth rings on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia,

Snip

as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in those Middle Ages






.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- go tell Woods Hole Oceanographic that the Indo-Pac ocean sediment study did NOT find a very strong MWP signature in the CORRECT spot in history..

There's a much healthier mix of opinions and vigorous debate recently in Climate Science. The days of embargoed papers and muffled debate are ending..

 

[Wyatt earp]

1) The important point is that Paleo data CANNOT be compared to modern instrumented records less than 300 or 400 years long. Isn't me that's foggy on that point. These climate activist heroes attempted to DO THAT. By tacking on the modern instrumentation record to their BARREN proxy results. So when these Paleo people make sweeping generalizations COMPARING the 2 things in either RATES or MAGNITUDES --- they LIED and misrepresented their work to the public.

2) The MedWarmPer. and the LIA were GLOBAL events. The individual proxies for these events are found ALL over the globe. They DISAPPEAR in long period studies because of smoothing and harmonizing the crappy assortment of proxies that are selected.

3) Your last paragraph is a real belly laugh. Because BOTH of those guys work is based largely on the same sparse proxies. There's not that many to use. Marcott used used just 75, Mann even less. In no fashion did I misunderstand that Mann attempted to dismiss the EMBARRASSING results of the Hydro Cycle study that this thread is about. ALL proxy studies have the same weaknesses. So Mann criticizing Lundqvist was a SIGNED CONFESSION that Mann greatly exaggerated the statements made on behalf of his OWN work..

Only reason you would miss that -- is that you don't understand the limitations being referred to and/or you don't remember the magnitude of the exaggerations MADE in the media over these proxy studies that are NOT backed by the science behind them..

4) I NEVER expect or hope to see HISTORICAL temperature or rainfall data from tree rings, ice cores, and mudbugs that COULD be compared to our modern records. That's not on the table because of limitations in these proxies for thermometers and rain gauges. YOU WISH there was a way to say that our recent temperature history is UNPRECEDENTED in Magnitude or Rates.. Butt there is no data set with the spatial/temporal accuracy to honest make that declaration..

5) The Hydo cycle study which is the topic of this thread was interesting because it illustrates how LITTLE consensus there actually is in "climate science". 2 dominant OPINIONS are that GW will "make wet areas wetter and dry areas driers" and GW will "make all areas wetter". And YET -- Lindqvist read the proxy tea leaves and determines that probably NEITHER projection was correct because the hydro variance he found in his study showed VERY LITTLE reliance on "global temperature" and that the Variances he saw historically were LARGER than what we're measuring with our current "warming".. Thus you can make outrageous exaggerations out of proxy studies for ANY opinion that suites your fancy. And M. Mann -- not liking the Lindqvist verdict comes along and takes a HUGE crap on paleo studies in general..

You can't get better comedy material than that.. Can you???

1. Heavens, of course these records can be compared, just as you can compare temperature graphs taking a measure every minute to graphs taking a measure once per hour. You just have to keep in mind the latter will miss some extremes. And, of course, for the times prior to 1850 we have next to no direct temperature measurements, so we have to use the proxies we can find to create a historical record with which to compare what we're measuring.

2) "The MedWarmPer. and the LIA were GLOBAL events." Nope, they weren't, at the very least we don't have data whereupon to base such statement.

3) "So Mann criticizing Lundqvist was a SIGNED CONFESSION that Mann greatly exaggerated the statements made on behalf of his OWN work." No, he did not. In order to assert that you have to presuppose that Mann's own work is based on the paleo-record, and nothing else, as if measurements during the last century weren't the most important clues supporting Mann's work.

4) Exactly, there is probably nothing to be had by way of medieval or pre-historical data that would be comparable in precision to the modern record. Again, take "unprecedented" to mean that there's nothing comparable to today's warming to be found in the historical data, and finish off this point, finally. It's irrelevant for our prospects anyway, except for some comical outrage over a word you need to nurture. I find that unbecoming.

5) There's basic agreement on the foundation of climate science, with the boundaries and frontiers being in more or less dispute. That is so in every science, including physics, I can think of. However, your misunderstandings may help your bemusement, but don't reveal anything about the science:

"2 dominant OPINIONS are that GW will "make wet areas wetter and dry areas driers" and GW will "make all areas wetter"."​

Nope: GW will "make wet areas wetter and dry areas drier" and GW will in both areas increase the frequency of extreme precipitation events. These two are absolutely compatible. See, for instance, an arid region getting 10 to 15 days of light to middling rain a year now, and three days of extreme rain in, say, 50 years, and almost no rain in between. Over the year, this region will see drier conditions, and also extreme flooding during that time. I find it's time for you to wrap your head around this.

1. Heavens, of course these records can be compared, just as you can compare temperature graphs taking a measure every minute to graphs taking a measure once per hour. You just have to keep in mind the latter will miss some extremes. And, of course, for the times prior to 1850 we have next to no direct temperature measurements, so we have to use the proxies we can find to create a historical record with which to compare what we're measuring.


You posting this with a straight face? You can not compare proxies with modern day temperature equipment

Heck you can not even compare old. Analog 1955 temperature records with modern day digital temperature records .

Are you seriously trying to say that 1000 years of this temperature record

View attachment 71025


Would equal a thousand years from now of this temperature record?

View attachment 71026


You can not add modern day temperature records to proxies to get any true graph, what is so hard to understand?

And of course Mann didn't include modern day proxies to his graph because it wouldn't show the hockey stick.

I forgot to mention this is just a hunch but I think I know why Michael Mann didn't include modern day proxies of tree rings...

He thought to himself " they are not growing right because of man made climate change" so he dumped the data and substituted instead modern day temperature readings.




.




.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yeah -- go tell Woods Hole Oceanographic that the Indo-Pac ocean sediment study did NOT find a very strong MWP signature in the CORRECT spot in history..

There's a much healthier mix of opinions and vigorous debate recently in Climate Science. The days of embargoed papers and muffled debate are ending..

I hope so, I personally could care less if man is causing it or not, I just want FACTS and not JUNK science wrapped up as FACTS, I hate being lied to when it is so obvious someone is bullshitting.



.

 

[Crick]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

Does it make you mad bro? That a low IQ blue collar worker like myself can look at Mann's charts and how he got them can figure out he is full of shit?





Now do you have something to try to convince me this

Is more accurate then this?

Oh and btw are you still upset I pointed out your hypocrisy????????


It is always amusing to me when people never even get that.


.

 

[Olde Europe]

If it turns out that the 1deg/doubling is closer to the truth than the hysterical older pronouncements of 6 or 8DegC by 2100 (accomplished by assigning SUPER powers to CO2 through magic "climate sensitivity" multipliers), then there is no impending crisis. Because this circus never would have made the front page at that rate.

Just saying:

Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds
By Jim Shelton, April 7, 2016

A Yale University study says global climate models have significantly underestimated how much the Earth’s surface temperature will rise if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase as expected.

Yale scientists looked at a number of global climate projections and found that they misjudged the ratio of ice crystals and super-cooled water droplets in “mixed-phase” clouds — resulting in a significant under-reporting of climate sensitivity. The findings appear April 7 in the journal Science.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure used to estimate how Earth’s surface temperature ultimately responds to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Specifically, it reflects how much the Earth’s average surface temperature would rise if CO2 doubled its preindustrial level. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated climate sensitivity to be within a range of 2 to 4.7 degrees Celsius.

The Yale team’s estimate is much higher: between 5 and 5.3 degrees Celsius. Such an increase could have dramatic implications for climate change worldwide, note the scientists.

“It goes to everything from sea level rise to more frequent and extreme droughts and floods,” said Ivy Tan, a Yale graduate student and lead author of the study.​

BTW -- the multiple LOWs of the LIA was a known feature. It was NOT because of "regional delays" that would mask a "Global" signature. But to dismiss the LIA and MWP and RWP as regional would be silly. Since TODAY, GW in the Arctic is at least 2 to 4 times more severe than anywhere else on the planet.

You wouldn't appreciate me waving my hands *jumping up and down* and telling you that today's GW is largely an ARCTIC phenomenon wouldya?

Of course, you wouldn't tell me that "today's GW is largely an ARCTIC phenomenon" because that would be silly, as it had to ignore the global system storing additional energy comparable to the heat content of a sizable atomic bomb every second. Which is quite distinct from largely internal variation leading to warm peaks here and a cold spell there, combining to a largely quiet global signal.

As to "unprecedented":

With very high confidence, the current rates of CO2, CH4 and N2O rise in atmospheric concentrations and the associated radiative forcing are unprecedented with respect to the highest resolution ice core records of the last 22,000 years. There is medium confidence that the rate of change of the observed GHG rise is also unprecedented compared with the lower resolution records of the past 800,000 years.​

I think, I'll go with the IPCC's assessment on that score, rather than your opinion, or with the conclusions of Ljungkvist's study.

 

[jc456]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

well we know that a tree ring isn't as sophisticated a device as a digital thermometer that reads to the tenth degree. But hey, you keep posting this kind of junk.

 

[flacaltenn]

If it turns out that the 1deg/doubling is closer to the truth than the hysterical older pronouncements of 6 or 8DegC by 2100 (accomplished by assigning SUPER powers to CO2 through magic "climate sensitivity" multipliers), then there is no impending crisis. Because this circus never would have made the front page at that rate.

Just saying:

Climate models have underestimated Earth’s sensitivity to CO2 changes, study finds
By Jim Shelton, April 7, 2016

A Yale University study says global climate models have significantly underestimated how much the Earth’s surface temperature will rise if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase as expected.

Yale scientists looked at a number of global climate projections and found that they misjudged the ratio of ice crystals and super-cooled water droplets in “mixed-phase” clouds — resulting in a significant under-reporting of climate sensitivity. The findings appear April 7 in the journal Science.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure used to estimate how Earth’s surface temperature ultimately responds to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Specifically, it reflects how much the Earth’s average surface temperature would rise if CO2 doubled its preindustrial level. In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated climate sensitivity to be within a range of 2 to 4.7 degrees Celsius.

The Yale team’s estimate is much higher: between 5 and 5.3 degrees Celsius. Such an increase could have dramatic implications for climate change worldwide, note the scientists.

“It goes to everything from sea level rise to more frequent and extreme droughts and floods,” said Ivy Tan, a Yale graduate student and lead author of the study.​

BTW -- the multiple LOWs of the LIA was a known feature. It was NOT because of "regional delays" that would mask a "Global" signature. But to dismiss the LIA and MWP and RWP as regional would be silly. Since TODAY, GW in the Arctic is at least 2 to 4 times more severe than anywhere else on the planet.

You wouldn't appreciate me waving my hands *jumping up and down* and telling you that today's GW is largely an ARCTIC phenomenon wouldya?

Of course, you wouldn't tell me that "today's GW is largely an ARCTIC phenomenon" because that would be silly, as it had to ignore the global system storing additional energy comparable to the heat content of a sizable atomic bomb every second. Which is quite distinct from largely internal variation leading to warm peaks here and a cold spell there, combining to a largely quiet global signal.

As to "unprecedented":

With very high confidence, the current rates of CO2, CH4 and N2O rise in atmospheric concentrations and the associated radiative forcing are unprecedented with respect to the highest resolution ice core records of the last 22,000 years. There is medium confidence that the rate of change of the observed GHG rise is also unprecedented compared with the lower resolution records of the past 800,000 years.​

I think, I'll go with the IPCC's assessment on that score, rather than your opinion, or with the conclusions of Ljungkvist's study.

Wow.. Your scientific reading comprehension sucks. Here we are discussing TEMPERATURE proxies and how exaggerated claims have been made for UNPRECEDENTED rates and magnitudes. And you search UNPRECEDENTED and come up with a tangent topic on GreenHouse gases. That's kinda of brain fart.

And again that claim is very weak. Because on any 800,000 year proxy search for CO2 you are gonna have the same MUTING effects on magnitude and rate. I've posted several HIGH RESOLUTION proxies for CO2 over shorter time spans (like 4000 years) that show REMARKABLE variance in them.. In fact it might not be 400ppm peaks but there are definitely 350ppm points shown changing by 100ppm over a 1000 years,. ALL WITHOUT SUVs and fossil fuel burning during the early Holocene Period. It's the kind of lying by OMISSION that the IPCC is known for.,

I can also tell you are fan of the crayon cartoonists at SkepShitScience by your :"atom bomb" counting. The only GW "science" site on the I-Webs with atom bomb counters on most every page. A construct made popular by the that GW activist God Hansen who hides out in a labcoat.

I can tell you that amount of energy used to charge portable electronics is ALSO equivalent to several atom bombs per hour.. Big whoops. If you wanna count the Urban Heat Island effect it would probably be several atom bombs per minute. Go --- find your safe place and worry about it..

If you go with the conclusions of the Ljungqvist recent Hydro study. . That puts you at odds with the GW "consensus" and at disagreement with M. Mann -- head of Public Misinformation and Chief WitchDoctor.
So choose your enemies wisely.. Hanging your reputation on tree rings, mudbugs and old ice is VERY risky proposition. You Thrive by the tea leaves, You Die by the tea leaves.

 

[flacaltenn]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

well we know that a tree ring isn't as sophisticated a device as a digital thermometer that reads to the tenth degree. But hey, you keep posting this kind of junk.

"I think that I shall never see ---
a thermometer as bad as a tree." Anonymous from "Walt Whitman"???

 

[Wyatt earp]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

well we know that a tree ring isn't as sophisticated a device as a digital thermometer that reads to the tenth degree. But hey, you keep posting this kind of junk.

What amazes me is they know this temperature record in the 1900s

Is some how compatible to this in 2016

And then yell headlines like this



Warmest year in history

December Heat Boosts 2015 to 2nd Warmest Year in U.S. History


They stupid.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

well we know that a tree ring isn't as sophisticated a device as a digital thermometer that reads to the tenth degree. But hey, you keep posting this kind of junk.

What amazes me is they know this temperature record in the 1900s

Is some how compatible to this in 2016

And then yell headlines like this



Warmest year in history

December Heat Boosts 2015 to 2nd Warmest Year in U.S. History


They stupid.



.

Even this old analog temperature controler in the 1960s, 10 different people can read it 10 different ways.

They dumb.






.

 

[Olde Europe]

Wow.. Your scientific reading comprehension sucks. Here we are discussing TEMPERATURE proxies and how exaggerated claims have been made for UNPRECEDENTED rates and magnitudes. And you search UNPRECEDENTED and come up with a tangent topic on GreenHouse gases. That's kinda of brain fart.

And again that claim is very weak. Because on any 800,000 year proxy search for CO2 you are gonna have the same MUTING effects on magnitude and rate. I've posted several HIGH RESOLUTION proxies for CO2 over shorter time spans (like 4000 years) that show REMARKABLE variance in them.. In fact it might not be 400ppm peaks but there are definitely 350ppm points shown changing by 100ppm over a 1000 years,. ALL WITHOUT SUVs and fossil fuel burning during the early Holocene Period. It's the kind of lying by OMISSION that the IPCC is known for.,

I can also tell you are fan of the crayon cartoonists at SkepShitScience by your :"atom bomb" counting. The only GW "science" site on the I-Webs with atom bomb counters on most every page. A construct made popular by the that GW activist God Hansen who hides out in a labcoat.

I can tell you that amount of energy used to charge portable electronics is ALSO equivalent to several atom bombs per hour.. Big whoops. If you wanna count the Urban Heat Island effect it would probably be several atom bombs per minute. Go --- find your safe place and worry about it..

If you go with the conclusions of the Ljungqvist recent Hydro study. . That puts you at odds with the GW "consensus" and at disagreement with M. Mann -- head of Public Misinformation and Chief WitchDoctor.
So choose your enemies wisely.. Hanging your reputation on tree rings, mudbugs and old ice is VERY risky proposition. You Thrive by the tea leaves, You Die by the tea leaves.

Yeah, who would have thought that CO2 levels would be a good proxy for temperature. I have to admit, that's really "kinda of brain fart."

Oh, and you have found not one, but several proxies telling you what you want to hear (no conclusion on the global CO2 levels possible, though).

Ah, those irksome, cantankerous guys over at skepticalscience.com. They're a nuisance, aren't they? Explaining climate science in ways so that us Unwashed can understand it, and making mince meat out of paid denialists and assorted liars... that cannot stand.

Absolutely, charging portable electronics is also devastating, so there's no need to get into an argument about the humongous amounts of additional energy flowing into the global system, and cooking it. It's almost as wise and helpful as debating your interlocutor's reading comprehension or, well, the earth shattering issue of dying by "tea leaves". But hey, "M. Mann -- head of Public Misinformation and Chief WitchDoctor" really was fun.

 

[flacaltenn]

"MINCED MEAT"

The only minced meat involved is what they've done to your knowledge of the topic.. Between their atom bomb counters, their "crayoned" versions of important graphs, and their fatally flawed 97% consensus propaganda --- they are a dangerously funny sideshow..

And technically -- CO2 is NOT a direct proxy for surface temperatures. If you understood the difference between a forcing in W/m2 and a surface temperature in degrees -- there's just too many moving parts to call it proxy for temperature. In fact -- CO2 is dependent on temperature to a large part. Go look at the annual variations in CO2 at Mauna Loa or the OCO satellite data.. OMG -- you might LEARN something..

And YES I'm a fan of HIGH RESOLUTION proxies. Something that does not appear in any of the hockey sticks..It's the BEST way to get glimpses of ancient climate with sufficient resolution to start making comparisons to our current "event"..

And I'm glad I bring joy and fun into your otherwise barren and disciplined life..

 

[Olde Europe]

"MINCED MEAT"

The only minced meat involved is what they've done to your knowledge of the topic.. Between their atom bomb counters, their "crayoned" versions of important graphs, and their fatally flawed 97% consensus propaganda --- they are a dangerously funny sideshow..

And technically -- CO2 is NOT a direct proxy for surface temperatures. If you understood the difference between a forcing in W/m2 and a surface temperature in degrees -- there's just too many moving parts to call it proxy for temperature. In fact -- CO2 is dependent on temperature to a large part. Go look at the annual variations in CO2 at Mauna Loa or the OCO satellite data.. OMG -- you might LEARN something..

And YES I'm a fan of HIGH RESOLUTION proxies. Something that does not appear in any of the hockey sticks..It's the BEST way to get glimpses of ancient climate with sufficient resolution to start making comparisons to our current "event"..

And I'm glad I bring joy and fun into your otherwise barren and disciplined life..

Chuckle. And the old canard of "CO2 follows temperature" (except if it doesn't).

Just avert your eyes, since facts are things that make you cringe:

Our planet is building up a lot of heat. When scientists add up all the heat warming the oceans, land, atmosphere and melting the ice, they calculate that our planet is accumulating heat at a rate of 2.5x1014 Watts. This is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second.​

Nobody said that CO2 is a "direct proxy for surface temperatures", but that was nice little straw man tiny enough for you to wrestle to the ground.

And YES I'm a fan of HIGH RESOLUTION proxies. Something that does not appear in any of the hockey sticks.

Look:

Hockey stick graph -
Reconstructions 2003–2006



Ten of the hemispheric temperature reconstructions published by December 2005, four were omitted because they had been superseded by later reconstructions or due to data plotting issues.

Using various high-resolution proxies including tree rings, ice cores and sediments, Mann and Jones published reconstructions in August 2003 which indicated that "late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere.​

Yeah, generously speaking, you're right at the rate of a broken clock.

 

[jc456]

"MINCED MEAT"

The only minced meat involved is what they've done to your knowledge of the topic.. Between their atom bomb counters, their "crayoned" versions of important graphs, and their fatally flawed 97% consensus propaganda --- they are a dangerously funny sideshow..

And technically -- CO2 is NOT a direct proxy for surface temperatures. If you understood the difference between a forcing in W/m2 and a surface temperature in degrees -- there's just too many moving parts to call it proxy for temperature. In fact -- CO2 is dependent on temperature to a large part. Go look at the annual variations in CO2 at Mauna Loa or the OCO satellite data.. OMG -- you might LEARN something..

And YES I'm a fan of HIGH RESOLUTION proxies. Something that does not appear in any of the hockey sticks..It's the BEST way to get glimpses of ancient climate with sufficient resolution to start making comparisons to our current "event"..

And I'm glad I bring joy and fun into your otherwise barren and disciplined life..

Chuckle. And the old canard of "CO2 follows temperature" (except if it doesn't).

Just avert your eyes, since facts are things that make you cringe:

Our planet is building up a lot of heat. When scientists add up all the heat warming the oceans, land, atmosphere and melting the ice, they calculate that our planet is accumulating heat at a rate of 2.5x1014 Watts. This is equivalent to 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second.​

Nobody said that CO2 is a "direct proxy for surface temperatures", but that was nice little straw man tiny enough for you to wrestle to the ground.

And YES I'm a fan of HIGH RESOLUTION proxies. Something that does not appear in any of the hockey sticks.

Look:

Hockey stick graph -
Reconstructions 2003–2006



Ten of the hemispheric temperature reconstructions published by December 2005, four were omitted because they had been superseded by later reconstructions or due to data plotting issues.

Using various high-resolution proxies including tree rings, ice cores and sediments, Mann and Jones published reconstructions in August 2003 which indicated that "late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere.​

Yeah, generously speaking, you're right at the rate of a broken clock.

except in here we know that the tree ring, can't be used with digital station data. So, you won't sell that story in here. Mann is done.

 

[Sunsettommy]

As you have demonstrated to all of us here repeatedly, you wouldn't know good science or bullshit if you stepped in it over your galoshes.

No, it is Gooks like YOU who have no idea about Resolution factors in Proxies and continuously ignore the numerous examples of low-resolution proxies of Dr. Mann who is on record of admitting they are LOW RESOLUTION proxies thus can't objectively say 1998 (based on a yearly resolution) is warmer than all those low-resolution proxy data (100+ years for a data point) of the last 2,000 years which is why his claim is absurd.

You are too unaware of your chronic inability to understand basic resolution values of data which is why your gookism is so vivid.