New NATURE paper uses 'hide the incline'

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Apr 8, 2012.

  1. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,445
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

    there is the link, although it is paywalled. fortunately the SI is freely available. W Eschenbach (freelance writer at WUWT) took the data and plotted it up
    [​IMG]

    I recommend reading the article because it also plots all the individual proxies in thumbnail so that you can see the basic process.A reply to Shakun et al – Dr. Munchausen Explains Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?

    all-in-all a very interesting description which gives a better idea about the uncertainties in using proxy data than the clear crisp lines usually used in science papers.



    but Willis wasnt finished. he wondered why Shakun2012 only used one CO2 record so he found a bunch of other ice core records for the same period and plotted them up as well.
    [​IMG]Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy! | Watts Up With That?

    imagine that!!!

    CO2 increasing while temperature was decreasing for the last 5000 years! isnt that odd?

    I understand the tendency of scientists to make as strong a case for their work as possible but I am getting tired of papers chopping off inconvenient data for the sake of 'the cause'. Old Rocks and others denigrate blogs (that they dont agree with) but where else are you going to find information and analysis to form a more complete picture of what is going on? I noticed that the CO2 record stopped short in the original but I basically ignored it because I couldnt do anything about it. what percentage of people would notice that inconsistency and then be able to do something about it? one in ten thousand? so what happened to peer review, why didnt they insist that the record be extended to match the time period of the temperatures?

    the problem with being a slave to authority is that you dont get to hear the objections. I dont have a big problem with Shakur2012 but I dont think they really proved their conclusion that CO2 increased first, then temperature. there are some studies one way, others show the reverse. but I am pissed off that they broke the rules of scientific investigation to make their case stronger, knowing that most people wouldnt catch on or be able to do anything about it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,445
  3. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,445
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

    Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
    Jeremy D. Shakun,
    Peter U. Clark,
    Feng He,
    Shaun A. Marcott,
    Alan C. Mix,
    Zhengyu Liu,
    Bette Otto-Bliesner,
    Andreas Schmittner
    & Edouard Bard
    Affiliations
    Contributions
    Corresponding author
    Nature 484,49–54(05 April 2012)doi:10.1038/nature10915Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012


    The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age

    These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that the antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature response at the end of the most recent ice age.

    Seems to be stating what has been stated before. That the Milankovic Cycles begin a process and CO2 creates a feedback to creates the majority of the warming. Definitely states that the warming is driven by CO2.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    So, we came out of an ice age on the differance between 180 ppm and 280 ppm. Now we are at 390 ppm, and over 1800 ppt of CH4, an increase in the CH4 that we never saw in the deglaciations. And we have added industrial GHGs, for which there are no natural analogs. Many of which are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2.

    We are adding CO2 and other GHGs at an ever increasing rate, and the clathrates in the Artic are already getting restless. But, of course, nothing at all to worry about.
     
  6. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,214
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,220
    none of this stuff matters..........................


    Climate Coalitions Crumble, Economic Worries to Blame
    By Sterling Burnett
    April 10, 2012 2:20 P.M.


    In recent months, major coalitions of big business/big labor/green lobbyists, formed to combat climate change, have begun unravel. What this portends for the future of the climate controversy is anyone’s guess, but one point is clear: The waning support for these groups is good news for jobs and sound policy.

    Environmentalists founded these groups to camouflage the fact that their policies could be demonstrated as bad for the economy and job creation. Corporations and unions joined largely because cap-and-trade legislation and the push for “green jobs” seemed inevitable, and it was in their interest to work with environmentalists to shape climate policies.

    But today, the climate-change headlines have been replaced by more immediate concerns over unemployment and foreclosures. As the economy took center stage, environmental groups manufactured a new threat to stir up their supporters and raise funds for their operations. This new target of their campaigns is hydraulic fracturing.

    Here in Texas, hydraulic fracturing has been in use since the 1040s and is the tried-and-true technology credited with unlocking oil and natural gas in tight sands and hard rock formations. Its application in the Barnett Shale and the Eagle Ford has helped to create thousands of jobs, significantly increase oil and natural gas production, and given Texas a measure of economic prosperity that few states can match.

    Texas also has passed commonsense legislation to regulate fracturing without unduly impeding its use. But in states where residents are unfamiliar with drilling and fracturing, environmental groups are using scare tactics to push for drilling moratoria. Their goal is to stop or delay drilling in shale formations, including the Marcellus Shale which is deemed to be the second largest natural gas deposit in the world.

    One of the most common falsehoods is the charge that hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater. An ongoing study by the University of Texas has found no link between the fracturing process and groundwater pollution. Furthermore, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress last year that there have been no confirmed cases.

    Yet the misconceptions and falsehoods persist and are needlessly frightening the residents of several states. The accusations also are slowing the production of U.S. energy resources at a time when advanced energy technologies are poised to greatly reduce U.S. dependence on energy from unstable regions. As energy expert Daniel Yergin wrote recently, innovations including hydraulic fracturing are changing the world’s energy focus from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere.

    “For the United States,” Yergin explained, technologies and “these new sources of supply add to energy security in ways that were not anticipated . . . [demonstrating] how innovation is redrawing the map of world oil — and remaking our energy future.”

    Domestic energy production also could help to light a fire under the U.S. economy. According to a Wood Mackenzie study, policies that encourage oil and natural gas production — including the Canadian oil sands, the Keystone pipeline, and other projects — could create as many as 1.4 million jobs by 2030.


    Climate Coalitions Crumble, Economic Worries to Blame - By Sterling Burnett - Planet Gore - National Review Online



    Like Ive been saying...............:D:D:D
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  7. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,445
    I dont know why I keep expecting you to be reasonable, or even inquisitive. Did you read the articles at WUWT? they melt Shakur's case away to nothing but an unsubstantiated conclusion that at best is just not definitively proven wrong. his proxy data does not have the precision to date whether there is a lag or advance between CO2 and temperature. the long standing common interpretation is that the oceans give up their CO2after they warm up. his equivical data are certainly not strong enough to overturn that.

    plus he used Mike's Nature Trick of cutting off inconvenient data which show that for the last 5000 years CO2 has been going up, while temperatures have been going down. not very good science.

    I really recommend people to read the articles just so that they get an idea about how weak the correlations of proxy data are.
     
  8. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,214
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,220
    the other things is..........every other day there is new evidence which casts doubt about the possible reason for climate change.................

    Like a slight change of the earths orbit which caused warming a long, long time ago..............

    From this week in RealClearScience.................

    Dramatic climate change triggered by Earth's orbit | COSMOS magazine


    So who knows?


    The answer is...........nobody.






    Also...........the exaggeration factor >> Global Warming Forecasts 'Exaggerated' People are now more aware that anything the IPCC puts out always goes with the hyper-hysterical predictions, which of course, always get the most news!!! Because it sells s0ns!!!!!:coffee:


    Indeed...........the Sharpie dynamic is very, very real!!!

    [​IMG]







    Ian........didnt mean to jack your thread..........just adding a bit of Realville into the discussion
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012
  9. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,445
    I hate to cast unfounded aspersions but.....

    old paridigm tossed, a new one to replace it. one that is beneficial to CAGW.


    anybody want to bet against this seriously flawed paper being prominently placed in the new IPCC report? hahahaha, what a bunch of crooks
     
  10. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,195
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,445
    no problem....I was addressing Old Rocks. I just assumed that I would be under his comment
     

Share This Page