New NATURE paper uses 'hide the incline'

[bobgnote]

Speed kills . . . but freaks tweak.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you don't like the one at 120,000 yr -- let's do the 3degC mini-dip at 260,000 yrs. CLEARLY the CO2 didn't drive the sudden drop in temps.

And you didn't answer my question about the NON-MAN-made source of all this historical CO2 chaos. Was it all forest fires and volcanoes? Are you SURE? Or is there some doubt how all those spikey temperature events happened without AGW?

The main trough about 265,000 years ago headed up, when CO2 levels climbed. The mini-spike 260,000 years ago stopped short of a climb, when CO2 acceleration dipped, you shit. A few thousand years later, CO2 went back up, and so did temperature, for the usual 10 C swing. The swings are now headed, for at least a massive 15-20 C rise, in temperature.

Do I have do go over how Trakar thinks you are not even a smart undergrad? I graduated from college, I am sure Trakar has an advanced degree, and I guess Old Rocks is a geologist or something. Your disrespect for them and your perverse affinity for queers like yourself indicates you are a social inversionist and a punk-ass who has to be led through his own graph! You asshole, bitch, waldo-punk. Your claims to science are fraudulent. Who would pay you, and not find you out? Good work, getting the graph to load.

I've met frauds, before, Fatasshole. See that signature? You'd get kicked out of every house I've ever been in, living, working, whatever. No kleptos, bitch!

Why don't you wait until Trakar or O.R. are interested, in answering your now-tiresome questions? I don't give a shit about what caused all the fluctuations since 450,000 years ago, this evening. You have been stupid, all day long, and now, if humans didn't do it, I don't give a shit. Maybe I will want to hit search, tomorrow, for stupids who can't read your graph, including you.

Men aren't even interesting, until 10,000 years ago, and they aren't really interesting, until the start of the 19th Century. Then men do industry and defoliation, to shoot CO2 way up there. Or is that still difficult, for your sub-average mind, to comprehend? Your emptyhead Crosstard Bitch didn't put the graph up, again. What's wrong, Crosstard? Don't you like to play, or are your panties all bunchy-wunchy?

I shouldn't even care that you can't read a graph and respond, but I wanted to snip and save anyway...

Case 1: Just as CO2 reaches a local minimum for several thousand years, the temperature spontaneously rockets off into a 2DegC rise before the CO2 rises significantly. The temperature then reaches a local peak and goes into a 3.5DegC dive while the CO2 is STILL Climbing. CO2 then plateaus and FOLLOWS the temperature back down..

We should just ignore that 20,000 years in the proxie record. Right?

Case 2: After achieving a DEEP minimum for both CO2 and Temp, They start back up. More arguably here (because of the dual scaling), but POSSIBLY with the Temp LEADING the CO2 change. More importantly, the CO2 plateaus at one of the highest values in the chart and STAYS THERE -- while the Temp crashes dramatically.

Like I said -- I find more confounding evidence at the TRAILING edge of these curves than at the rising edges. My belief is that the proxy data time accuracy is WAAAAY oversold, so I'm not doing victory dances here. It's GIGOut. Especially tree rings. That and fact that we're looking at an icy period of the globe with much less vegetation and open ocean for CO2 sinking..

All those cases on the temp declines where Temp LEADS CO2 can't all be volcanoes and asteroids.. Other theories?

 

[Trakar]

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...

I don't do political blog pseudoscience, so I can't comment on what shennanigans the bumbel butts are doing to the paper's findings and considerations. Looking at the paper itself, however, I see nothing that contradicts mainstream climate considerations and many supportive findings for AWG theories. Good find, thank-you for bringing it to my attention!

...Global temperature reconstructions and transient model simulations spanning the past century and millennium have been essential to the attribution of recent climate change, and a similar strategy would probably improve our understanding of glacial cycle dynamics. Here we use a network of proxy temperature records that provide broad spatial coverage to show that global temperature closely tracked the increase in CO2 concentration over the last deglaciation, and that variations in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) caused a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres, supporting an early hypothesis that identified potentially important roles for these mechanisms11. These findings, supported by transient simulations with a coupled ocean–atmosphere general circulation model, can explain the lag of CO2 behind Antarctic temperature in the ice-core record and are consistent with an important role for CO2 in driving global climate change over glacial cycles...

...Thus, the small apparent lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 in the icecore records12,14 does not apply to global temperature. An additional evaluation of this result comes from an objective identification of inflection points in the CO2 and global temperature records, which suggests that changes in CO2 concentration were either synchronous with or led global warming during the various steps of the deglaciation (Supplementary Table 2). An important exception is the onset of deglaciation, which features about 0.3 uC of global warming before the initial increase in CO2 ,17.5 kyr ago. This finding suggests that CO2 was not the cause of initial warming. We return to this point below. Nevertheless, the overall correlation and phasing of global temperature and CO2 are consistent with CO2 being an important driver of global warming during the deglaciation, with the centennial scale lag of temperature behind CO2 being consistent with the thermal inertia of the climate system owing to ocean heat uptake and icemelting15.

...Unlike these regional-scale forcings, methane, nitrous oxide and possibly dust are global in nature. Because greenhouse gas forcing was dominated by CO2 (ref. 19; Supplementary Fig. 29a), and because at the onsets of the Bølling–Allerød, Younger Dryas and Holocene the methane and nitrous oxide records havesmall step changes like those of the global temperature stack, including these greenhouse gases leaves the correlation with the stack essentially unchanged (r250.93) and slightly decreases the temperature lag (2506340 yr) (Supplementary Fig. 29). Global dust forcing is poorly constrained19, however, and we cannot dismiss it as a potentially important driver of global temperature independent of greenhouse warming. Vegetation forcing is likewise difficult to assess19 and may have significantly contributed to global warming. These uncertainties notwithstanding, we suggest that the increase in CO2 concentration before that of global temperature is consistent with CO2 acting as a primary driver of global warming, although its continuing increase is presumably a feedback from changes in other aspects of the climate system.

...We also evaluated the EPICA Dome C CO2 chronology13 by comparing the Dome C methane record on this timescale with the more precisely dated Greenland composite methane record on the GICC05 timescale21. This comparison suggests that the EPICA Dome C CO2 age model may be one to two centuries too young during parts of the deglaciation (Supplementary Fig. 7), which would further increase the lead of CO2 over global temperature. We thus regard the lag of global temperature behind CO2 reported here as conservative.

...The proxy database provides an opportunity to explore what triggers deglacial warming. Substantial temperature change at all latitudes (Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a), precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago, suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming. This early global warming occurs in two phases: a gradual increase between 21.5 and 19 kyr ago followed by a somewhat steeper increase between 19 and 17.5 kyr ago (Fig. 2a). The first increase is associated with mean warming of the northern mid to high latitudes, most prominently in Greenland, as there is little change occurring elsewhere at this time (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 20). The second increase occurs during a pronounced interhemispheric seesaw event (Fig. 5), presumably related to a reduction in AMOC strength, as seen in the Pa/Th record and our modelling (Fig. 4f, g).

...This lag suggests that the high-southern-latitude temperature response to an AMOC perturbation may involve a time constant such as that from Southern Ocean thermal inertia23,37, whereas the CO2 response requires a threshold in AMOC reduction to displace southern winds or sea ice sufficiently38 or to perturb the ocean’s biological pump35. We also suggest that the delay of Antarctic warming that follows the AMOC seesaw event 19 kyr ago and occurs relative to the mid southern latitudes over the entire deglaciation (Fig. 5b) is difficult to reconcile with hypotheses invoking a southern high-latitude trigger for deglaciation39,40. Our global temperature stack and transient modelling point to CO2 as a key mechanism of global warming during the last deglaciation.
Furthermore, our results support an interhemispheric seesawing of heat related to AMOC variability and suggest that these internal heat redistributions explain the lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 while global temperature was in phase with or slightly lagged CO2.
Lastly, the global proxy database suggests that parts of the northern mid to high latitudes were the first to warm after the LGM, which could have initiated the reduction in the AMOC that may have ultimately caused the increase in CO2 concentration.

All reasonable seeming; I mean, certainly the data will need to be reviewed and the numbers run in a couple of different ways to make sure that we are't lookng at methodological process artifacts, but it sounds good to me on first blush.

I see nothing here that would contradict or require serious reconsiderations of any aspect of modern mainstream climate science understandng, if anything it is seems an enhancement of understanding. The AMOC may well be involved with underling mechanisms of milankovitch phase transitions. As our annual orbit gradually shifts from more extreme to more circular (for instance), the changing solar tidal force may subtly nudge circulations and oscillations in our oceans and atmosphere that stimulate phase shifts in the patterns of those systems, when this happens, this may well be one of the primary mechanism senarios in natural, milankovitich dominated climate cycles on our planet.

Which, if I'm not mistaken was the general gist of Dr. Shakun's doctoral thesis at Oregon State a couple years back.

"Analyzing Large Paleoclimate Datasets: Implications for Past and Future Climate Change." - http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/18836/ShakunJeremyD2010.pdf?sequence=1
(full open-source paper)

...Averaging 77 calibrated proxy temperature records over the last deglaciation indicates that global mean temperature was highly correlated and varied nearly in phase with the rise in CO2, which differs from ice-core studies suggesting Antarctic temperature led CO2. This result thus suggests a primary role for CO2 in driving deglacial warming and the global deglaciation. Northern and Southern Hemisphere mean temperature time series both bear the imprint of CO2 forcing, but differ largely in response to the millennial-scale seesawing of heat between the hemispheres related to AMOC variability. An analysis of deglacial temperature variability by latitude indicates that deglacial warming began near-synchronously throughout the Southern Hemisphere and tropics at ~19 ka and was coeval with abrupt cooling in the northern extratropics. These worldwide temperature changes may have been driven by a collapse of the AMOC related to the 19-kyr meltwater pulse. As this meltwater event has been tied to initial melting of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets in response to boreal summer insolation forcing, a classic Milankovitch trigger is implicated for the last deglaciation....

 

[bobgnote]

Case 1: Just as CO2 reaches a local minimum for several thousand years, the temperature spontaneously rockets off into a 2DegC rise before the CO2 rises significantly. The temperature then reaches a local peak and goes into a 3.5DegC dive while the CO2 is STILL Climbing. CO2 then plateaus and FOLLOWS the temperature back down..

We should just ignore that 20,000 years in the proxie record. Right?

Please read my several comments about this. The CO2 levels, and a new equilibrium is generated, leading to a shift in temperature, which may rise past the plotted CO2, since the process is rough, but consistent. Both CO2 and temperature are then going to rise, for any several reasons, but they do this, again and again, from 180 ppm CO2.

All downslopes last a lot longer, than rocketing warming. On each of these, local phenomena occur, which sees temperature decline, underneath CO2. When the graph was calibrated, the statisticians fitted the scale, so a whole lot of thought had to go into how to make the slopes fit together, since CO2 and temperature are clearly related, somehow.

The CO2 shows a clear preference, for peaks at 280 ppm, troughs at 180 ppm. The modern trend might have tried to go back down, during the Napoleonic Wars, when one of those big volcanoes on Iceland went off. But the industrial revolution stalled decline.

As interesting as the parts you circled is the 225,000 year local drop, which almost broke the 80-120K year cycle trend. But the general cycle resumed, after what was probably some kind of glacial maximum.

Case 2: After achieving a DEEP minimum for both CO2 and Temp, They start back up. More arguably here (because of the dual scaling), but POSSIBLY with the Temp LEADING the CO2 change. More importantly, the CO2 plateaus at one of the highest values in the chart and STAYS THERE -- while the Temp crashes dramatically.

Like I said -- I find more confounding evidence at the TRAILING edge of these curves than at the rising edges. My belief is that the proxy data time accuracy is WAAAAY oversold, so I'm not doing victory dances here. It's GIGOut. Especially tree rings. That and fact that we're looking at an icy period of the globe with much less vegetation and open ocean for CO2 sinking..

All those cases on the temp declines where Temp LEADS CO2 can't all be volcanoes and asteroids.. Other theories?

The CO2 plateaus in example 2 about the same place, as every other peak, on the graph, at 280 ppm. The CO2 lingers, then starts down, like it does every other peak, except for present, when CO2 shot past 280 ppm, to 400 ppm. We have yet to see that adjustment. I contend we will see that adjustment, as a rise in temperature and acidity.

Temperature never leads CO2, in the area of major peaks and troughs. CO2 reaches an atmospheric equilibrium, in modern times, of 180 ppm at troughs and 280 ppm at peaks. No real variation is evident, in this 430,000 year record. Since CO2 levels, and temperature shoots past and peaks, CO2 is clearly the forcing element, in the relationship. Why this peak and trough system is natural is anybody's guess.

Goddamit! The CO2 shot past 280 ppm, all the way to 400 ppm, acid will shit up everything, and then the methane will cause runaway global warming. Whether it's AGW isn't even important, if you are smart. What's coming is deadly, already.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

We shall see, if tidal mass is a forcing factor, in favor of volcanic and seismic events. That sea level is going up, in which case the CO2 will stay up, as temperature drops, which is a lag, by CO2. But that will be the first peak or trough lag, by CO2, in the 430,000 year history, and this will only happen, in the event of catastrophic volcanic activity.

Also to be both feared and expected are oceanic algae and bacteria blooms, which die and stink. Algae at least consume CO2, when the plants are alive, but then dead plants and animals emit CH4. I don't know the net CO2 aspects of bacteria, but they emit this, when alive, then CH4, when they die. Acid won't always scour these, but it sure is proven to kill desirable species.

 

[IanC]

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

What's so odd about it?

????

the whole CAGW movement has been all about how CO2 controls the climate by increasing temperature. you dont find it odd that the temps have decreased while CO2 has increased?

 

[bobgnote]

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

What's so odd about it?

????

the whole CAGW movement has been all about how CO2 controls the climate by increasing temperature. you dont find it odd that the temps have decreased while CO2 has increased?

Temperatures were more balanced, over 5000 years because CO2 peaked at 280 ppm, and it would have reduced, starting a long, 80-100K year cooling trend. But this is the Anthrocene Era, of the Holocene period, Crapforbrains. Humans! Not just chimps. Humans were defoliating and burning fossil fuels.

So the scheduled, slow drop to 180 ppm CO2 didn't happen, but CO2 is now at 400 ppm, headed for 900 ppm or more. The scheduled gradual cooldown may have wanted to happen, but it didn't take, and more warming and acidification is ongoing and accelerating. You know! 3rd gear, it's all right . . . faster, faster, etc.

Modern temperatures are lagging, behind the dramatic CO2 increase, since the rise can only go so fast, at the top of the equilibrium peak. The fatal rise can be measured, in one lifetime, by now, Crapforbrains. That should be fast enough, even to get you to move your shitty ass, to work to re-green. Are you somehow a professional stupid idiot?

I don't know how you could fail to learn what is happening and how bad it all is. I sure am learning. At some point, I'll peak, and I'll have to go study something else. You don't seem like you are learning as fast. I guess you couldn't even get into my college, which was a major university, not some Log Cabin Club deform school, like you attended.

 

[IanC]

bump for saigon.

just read the first page or two, before bobgnote derailed the thread.

Shakur2012 was a peer reviewed paper that got a lot of media attention when it was released. my point wasnt to prove it was wrong. this is an important distinction. my point was to show that is was fundamentally weak and did not support its conclusions. proxy data is useful only as a guideline whereas so many papers graph out the results with a thin line and no reasonable reference to the real uncertainty involved. even worse, and especially prevalent in climate science, is the choice of proxies to be used. typically this means retaining the ones that support the conjecture of the paper and removing ones that weaken it. Gergis2012 is a prime example, they got caught cherrypicking and lying about their selection criteria and were forced to retract their paper.

I know it sounds harsh to criticize scientists and foster doubt about their conclusions but this is a very important topic that has not had time to mature into a robust science. it has been swayed far to much by proponents of the 'noble cause' who will exaggerate because they feel it is necessary, and seem certain that their iffy results now will be verified later.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Pothead..


It shouldn't but there are at least 5 times in that MAN-LESS history where EXACTLY that happens. Have you found Waldo yet?? Look at about 120,000 yrs. Clue -- it's just left of 100,000...

Point?

What do YOU think the significance of that is OopyDoo? The fact that one can spot MANY places in the 450,000 year record where Temp DROPS PRECEDE any significant downward move in CO2?

How many places?

 

[IanC]

here are the thumbnails of the proxies-

The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.
The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.

but Shakur will be credited with getting rid of the lag, just like Mann was credited with getting rid of the MWP. it will work until the IPCC report after next year's anyways

bump for Trakar.

 

[Dubya]

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

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.

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.

Let's try basic science! Isn't the first rule of scientific discovery called observation? Do you need pictures of glaciers retreating, sea ice melting or homes falling apart as permafrost melts to know something is happening? If I go to Patagonia and find a glacier retreating leaving the remains of wood (and can date it), can't I conclude there was once a forest that the glacier overtook after it was warmer, then the area became cooler and warmer now to leave those remains behind? If I find remains of forests near the arctic and mammoths, can't I conclude it was warmer and became cooler, but now the remains are being exposed due to warming? Are there elephants visiting the Arctic Ocean yet?

The Holocene Climatic Optimum is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and that was coined by scientific evidence, long before global warming concerns. I remember reports years ago about people eating mammoth meat in Siberia, but whether true or false, we have dug up mammoths with flesh. There is also evidence of using mammoth tusks to build dwellings. Is the evidence that it was warmer around 8,000+ years ago, then became cooler in dispute? Is there evidence of it now becoming warmer than before?

Oh, it's cycles, because the world gets warmer and cooler, but where is the evidence to support such claims? Yes, there is evidence to support minor changes in recent past global temperature, but where are the elephant remains in Siberia from recent times? Elephants are smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity, if the opportunity exists. If the opportunity for an elephant to exist in Siberia presented itself, the elephant would have taken it. There weren't many people there and it just became too cold for an elephant to exist even during yearly migration for food resources.

So let's get back to the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, called observation! Way back in the '50s, a little after I was born, we put nuclear submarines with nuclear cruise missiles under the arctic ice cap. Obviously, they had to surface to deliver their weapons and the next subs after the first that visited that area did exactly that, plus develop sonar technology. I think the second sub surfaced around 10 times. So we have been there many years before satellite observation. The problem with sonar is it sends a signal and subs need stealth.

I've talked to people in the navy and they claim to have mapped polynias or openings in the sea ice. The point is, the exact thickness of that arctic sea ice has been a strategic concern, because it's necessary to launch nuclear weapons. Since '79 we have data about sea ice extent or area from satellites. I've heard people bitch about the data for weather and the sea ice, but do you know all that data comes from the Commerce Department of the United States or the United States Navy? It's just reprocessed in universities, because they do it cheaply. The only other data comes from NASA assisting them and they reprocess the weather data down in Alabama. That data is available to the public and the world only because our nation doesn't perceive a strategic threat. The commerce data has been available since it was started to aid commerce.

Now, back to observation! Do you really think governments give that much of a damn to environmentalists, to build satellites for their purposes? Why in hell did we build satellites to map gravitational changes of the Earth and monitor ice caps and sea ice, if they didn't know there was a problem and it isn't just one country doing it? Scientifically speaking, the governments I know about in this world aren't going to waste much resource for any concern not in their interests. Try using common sense, if scientific reasoning evades you!

 

[IanC]

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

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.

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.

Let's try basic science! Isn't the first rule of scientific discovery called observation? Do you need pictures of glaciers retreating, sea ice melting or homes falling apart as permafrost melts to know something is happening? If I go to Patagonia and find a glacier retreating leaving the remains of wood (and can date it), can't I conclude there was once a forest that the glacier overtook after it was warmer, then the area became cooler and warmer now to leave those remains behind? If I find remains of forests near the arctic and mammoths, can't I conclude it was warmer and became cooler, but now the remains are being exposed due to warming? Are there elephants visiting the Arctic Ocean yet?

The Holocene Climatic Optimum is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and that was coined by scientific evidence, long before global warming concerns. I remember reports years ago about people eating mammoth meat in Siberia, but whether true or false, we have dug up mammoths with flesh. There is also evidence of using mammoth tusks to build dwellings. Is the evidence that it was warmer around 8,000+ years ago, then became cooler in dispute? Is there evidence of it now becoming warmer than before?

Oh, it's cycles, because the world gets warmer and cooler, but where is the evidence to support such claims? Yes, there is evidence to support minor changes in recent past global temperature, but where are the elephant remains in Siberia from recent times? Elephants are smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity, if the opportunity exists. If the opportunity for an elephant to exist in Siberia presented itself, the elephant would have taken it. There weren't many people there and it just became too cold for an elephant to exist even during yearly migration for food resources.

So let's get back to the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, called observation! Way back in the '50s, a little after I was born, we put nuclear submarines with nuclear cruise missiles under the arctic ice cap. Obviously, they had to surface to deliver their weapons and the next subs after the first that visited that area did exactly that, plus develop sonar technology. I think the second sub surfaced around 10 times. So we have been there many years before satellite observation. The problem with sonar is it sends a signal and subs need stealth.

I've talked to people in the navy and they claim to have mapped polynias or openings in the sea ice. The point is, the exact thickness of that arctic sea ice has been a strategic concern, because it's necessary to launch nuclear weapons. Since '79 we have data about sea ice extent or area from satellites. I've heard people bitch about the data for weather and the sea ice, but do you know all that data comes from the Commerce Department of the United States or the United States Navy? It's just reprocessed in universities, because they do it cheaply. The only other data comes from NASA assisting them and they reprocess the weather data down in Alabama. That data is available to the public and the world only because our nation doesn't perceive a strategic threat. The commerce data has been available since it was started to aid commerce.

Now, back to observation! Do you really think governments give that much of a damn to environmentalists, to build satellites for their purposes? Why in hell did we build satellites to map gravitational changes of the Earth and monitor ice caps and sea ice, if they didn't know there was a problem and it isn't just one country doing it? Scientifically speaking, the governments I know about in this world aren't going to waste much resource for any concern not in their interests. Try using common sense, if scientific reasoning evades you!

I missed this from earlier. are you saying that govts and the US in particular only fund science and satellites for strategic reasons?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

AGW Tourettes

Continuous spouting of AGW related misinformation

 

[westwall]

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

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.

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.

Let's try basic science! Isn't the first rule of scientific discovery called observation? Do you need pictures of glaciers retreating, sea ice melting or homes falling apart as permafrost melts to know something is happening? If I go to Patagonia and find a glacier retreating leaving the remains of wood (and can date it), can't I conclude there was once a forest that the glacier overtook after it was warmer, then the area became cooler and warmer now to leave those remains behind? If I find remains of forests near the arctic and mammoths, can't I conclude it was warmer and became cooler, but now the remains are being exposed due to warming? Are there elephants visiting the Arctic Ocean yet?

The Holocene Climatic Optimum is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and that was coined by scientific evidence, long before global warming concerns. I remember reports years ago about people eating mammoth meat in Siberia, but whether true or false, we have dug up mammoths with flesh. There is also evidence of using mammoth tusks to build dwellings. Is the evidence that it was warmer around 8,000+ years ago, then became cooler in dispute? Is there evidence of it now becoming warmer than before?

Oh, it's cycles, because the world gets warmer and cooler, but where is the evidence to support such claims? Yes, there is evidence to support minor changes in recent past global temperature, but where are the elephant remains in Siberia from recent times? Elephants are smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity, if the opportunity exists. If the opportunity for an elephant to exist in Siberia presented itself, the elephant would have taken it. There weren't many people there and it just became too cold for an elephant to exist even during yearly migration for food resources.

So let's get back to the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, called observation! Way back in the '50s, a little after I was born, we put nuclear submarines with nuclear cruise missiles under the arctic ice cap. Obviously, they had to surface to deliver their weapons and the next subs after the first that visited that area did exactly that, plus develop sonar technology. I think the second sub surfaced around 10 times. So we have been there many years before satellite observation. The problem with sonar is it sends a signal and subs need stealth.

I've talked to people in the navy and they claim to have mapped polynias or openings in the sea ice. The point is, the exact thickness of that arctic sea ice has been a strategic concern, because it's necessary to launch nuclear weapons. Since '79 we have data about sea ice extent or area from satellites. I've heard people bitch about the data for weather and the sea ice, but do you know all that data comes from the Commerce Department of the United States or the United States Navy? It's just reprocessed in universities, because they do it cheaply. The only other data comes from NASA assisting them and they reprocess the weather data down in Alabama. That data is available to the public and the world only because our nation doesn't perceive a strategic threat. The commerce data has been available since it was started to aid commerce.

Now, back to observation! Do you really think governments give that much of a damn to environmentalists, to build satellites for their purposes? Why in hell did we build satellites to map gravitational changes of the Earth and monitor ice caps and sea ice, if they didn't know there was a problem and it isn't just one country doing it? Scientifically speaking, the governments I know about in this world aren't going to waste much resource for any concern not in their interests. Try using common sense, if scientific reasoning evades you!

Where to begin, oh yeah, let's talk about Greenland. You want recent evidence that it was warmer in the recent past just look to Greenland. The Vikings had a colony there that lasted for over 500 years, it supported at least 10,000 Vikings and was wealthy enough to support one cathedral, one monastery, one nunnery and 12 churches. It also was able to send out colonisation efforts of its own to New Foundland and there is a Viking burial site on Baffin Island where some archeologists believe the Vikings had a trading post.

Then the Little Ice Age hit them and they died out. It took until the year 1900 to reach the population level of the Vikings again. More recently, with the retreat of the glaciers, tree stumps that grew during the HTM have been revealed and they show that Greenland was indeed green during the HTM.

Melting Glacier Reveals Ancient Tree Stumps | LiveScience

 

[Dubya]

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

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.

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.

Let's try basic science! Isn't the first rule of scientific discovery called observation? Do you need pictures of glaciers retreating, sea ice melting or homes falling apart as permafrost melts to know something is happening? If I go to Patagonia and find a glacier retreating leaving the remains of wood (and can date it), can't I conclude there was once a forest that the glacier overtook after it was warmer, then the area became cooler and warmer now to leave those remains behind? If I find remains of forests near the arctic and mammoths, can't I conclude it was warmer and became cooler, but now the remains are being exposed due to warming? Are there elephants visiting the Arctic Ocean yet?

The Holocene Climatic Optimum is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and that was coined by scientific evidence, long before global warming concerns. I remember reports years ago about people eating mammoth meat in Siberia, but whether true or false, we have dug up mammoths with flesh. There is also evidence of using mammoth tusks to build dwellings. Is the evidence that it was warmer around 8,000+ years ago, then became cooler in dispute? Is there evidence of it now becoming warmer than before?

Oh, it's cycles, because the world gets warmer and cooler, but where is the evidence to support such claims? Yes, there is evidence to support minor changes in recent past global temperature, but where are the elephant remains in Siberia from recent times? Elephants are smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity, if the opportunity exists. If the opportunity for an elephant to exist in Siberia presented itself, the elephant would have taken it. There weren't many people there and it just became too cold for an elephant to exist even during yearly migration for food resources.

So let's get back to the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, called observation! Way back in the '50s, a little after I was born, we put nuclear submarines with nuclear cruise missiles under the arctic ice cap. Obviously, they had to surface to deliver their weapons and the next subs after the first that visited that area did exactly that, plus develop sonar technology. I think the second sub surfaced around 10 times. So we have been there many years before satellite observation. The problem with sonar is it sends a signal and subs need stealth.

I've talked to people in the navy and they claim to have mapped polynias or openings in the sea ice. The point is, the exact thickness of that arctic sea ice has been a strategic concern, because it's necessary to launch nuclear weapons. Since '79 we have data about sea ice extent or area from satellites. I've heard people bitch about the data for weather and the sea ice, but do you know all that data comes from the Commerce Department of the United States or the United States Navy? It's just reprocessed in universities, because they do it cheaply. The only other data comes from NASA assisting them and they reprocess the weather data down in Alabama. That data is available to the public and the world only because our nation doesn't perceive a strategic threat. The commerce data has been available since it was started to aid commerce.

Now, back to observation! Do you really think governments give that much of a damn to environmentalists, to build satellites for their purposes? Why in hell did we build satellites to map gravitational changes of the Earth and monitor ice caps and sea ice, if they didn't know there was a problem and it isn't just one country doing it? Scientifically speaking, the governments I know about in this world aren't going to waste much resource for any concern not in their interests. Try using common sense, if scientific reasoning evades you!

Where to begin, oh yeah, let's talk about Greenland. You want recent evidence that it was warmer in the recent past just look to Greenland. The Vikings had a colony there that lasted for over 500 years, it supported at least 10,000 Vikings and was wealthy enough to support one cathedral, one monastery, one nunnery and 12 churches. It also was able to send out colonisation efforts of its own to New Foundland and there is a Viking burial site on Baffin Island where some archeologists believe the Vikings had a trading post.

Then the Little Ice Age hit them and they died out. It took until the year 1900 to reach the population level of the Vikings again. More recently, with the retreat of the glaciers, tree stumps that grew during the HTM have been revealed and they show that Greenland was indeed green during the HTM.

Melting Glacier Reveals Ancient Tree Stumps | LiveScience

Running your mouth about Vikings isn't proving anything, except you can't distinguish fact from fiction. Vikings liked to tell stories too, but they didn't claim to be scientists. I've studied the settlements in Greenland and you are making all kinds of claims and pretending they are facts. Is you mind so far gone you never can get back to reality? Can't you ever focus on exactly what is known and distinguish it from speculation?

We don't know if the LIA caused the Viking settlements in Greenland to end. People have been living in Greenland for a long time and it seems they've been living better than the Vikings. I've seen some recent videos of how the climate in Greenland has changed. If you want to learn something, go to the source. You listen to people who actually live in Greenland tell you how things have changed and what they expect the future to bring. There were people there benefiting from global warming, but still concerned that things are changing. One guy pointed out where the ice sheet was in the past and now he has to use a helicopter to round up his reindeer, because the ice has melting and they move away. There were farmers there planting things they couldn't plant in the past. There were some fisherman who said things were good, but many said it was bad, perhaps the currents have changed. As the ice melts it reveals resources, so town struggle to decide if they will mine rare earth metals and put up with the radiation in the runoff that goes through their town.

I can tell by what you say you get your material from Denialista propaganda sites. The stuff has been refuted, so why do you keep pretending it's fact? There is no data supporting the MWP and LIA were global during the same time period, there isn't even dates for the events. There is simply evidence from historical records that it became colder in Europe, like problems making wine. If it became colder, then it had to be warmer before then and that's all we know about it. We don't have proxies all over the world to tell us about the past and the ones we have aren't that accurate.

What we have are Denialistas wanting to have warm periods in the past to discount global warming now. They point to things like GISP2 and pick out peaks on charts with the wrong dates. They make claims that it proves how the whole world was, but they ignore there is no GISP1, but there is GRIP the first study a little north that doesn't show those peaks on it's data. How can the data represent the world, if it can't represent an area a little further north? Cherry picking is phony science, you have to include all evidence if the evidence is valid. Only doing that will give you the full picture of the past and it has to tell you what has been and not what you want the past to be.

You post a link about finding tree stumps in Canada that are about 7000 years old. Well, no shit! The treeline during the Holocene Climatic Optimum was further north all around the arctic. It's possible there could still have been mammoths alive then. That time is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and it was suppose to be the time that was the warmest. Those trees didn't get that far north in a hundred years, it takes time to expand a treeline, regardless of the present temperature. If we maintain our present temperatures, we are going to have forests bordering the Arctic Ocean. We already have tundra areas that are getting brush, when once there was low lying sparse vegetation. Those changes in vegetation also cause warming. A snow covered forest has a different albedo than a snow covered tundra. The point about that past warm period is it was suppose to slowly get colder until the next ice age maximum and it hasn't. The slow cooling has been reversed significantly and perhaps enough to prevent a future ice age.

 

[IanC]

What we have are Denialistas wanting to have warm periods in the past to discount global warming now. They point to things like GISP2 and pick out peaks on charts with the wrong dates. They make claims that it proves how the whole world was, but they ignore there is no GISP1, but there is GRIP the first study a little north that doesn't show those peaks on it's data. How can the data represent the world, if it can't represent an area a little further north? Cherry picking is phony science, you have to include all evidence if the evidence is valid. Only doing that will give you the full picture of the past and it has to tell you what has been and not what you want the past to be.

what do you think the mainstream and important 'Denialistas' are denying? cherry picking!!!!!!!!!!! and invalid methodologies that lead to massive overweighting of outliers. unsubstantiated claims of certainty.

I thought it was very interesting when the mathematician Lohle decided to do a temp reconstruction by simply collecting non-treering proxy data available that had already been measured and standardized. when his reconstruction was practically a twin of Lamb's graph in the first IPCC report the CAGW crowd screamed in fury. then both the skeptics and warmers suggested improvements, and like a good scientist he incorporated the criticisms and reworked the graph.

I am not saying that Lohle's graph is the 'correct' one. but because it agrees with written history I give its shape more credence than Mann's hockeystick generating methodologies. and I appreciate Lohle's accountability to criticism rather than Mann's stonewalling and outright lying. when the NAS panel asked Mann if he had calculated the r2 values he said no. but his code had a subroutine specifically to find them. who in their right mind would believe that he never ran the common validation method? if the r2 values werent close to zero he would have used them instead of hiding behind CE scores that few people had even heard of.

 

[Dubya]

What we have are Denialistas wanting to have warm periods in the past to discount global warming now. They point to things like GISP2 and pick out peaks on charts with the wrong dates. They make claims that it proves how the whole world was, but they ignore there is no GISP1, but there is GRIP the first study a little north that doesn't show those peaks on it's data. How can the data represent the world, if it can't represent an area a little further north? Cherry picking is phony science, you have to include all evidence if the evidence is valid. Only doing that will give you the full picture of the past and it has to tell you what has been and not what you want the past to be.

what do you think the mainstream and important 'Denialistas' are denying? cherry picking!!!!!!!!!!! and invalid methodologies that lead to massive overweighting of outliers. unsubstantiated claims of certainty.

I thought it was very interesting when the mathematician Lohle decided to do a temp reconstruction by simply collecting non-treering proxy data available that had already been measured and standardized. when his reconstruction was practically a twin of Lamb's graph in the first IPCC report the CAGW crowd screamed in fury. then both the skeptics and warmers suggested improvements, and like a good scientist he incorporated the criticisms and reworked the graph.

I am not saying that Lohle's graph is the 'correct' one. but because it agrees with written history I give its shape more credence than Mann's hockeystick generating methodologies. and I appreciate Lohle's accountability to criticism rather than Mann's stonewalling and outright lying. when the NAS panel asked Mann if he had calculated the r2 values he said no. but his code had a subroutine specifically to find them. who in their right mind would believe that he never ran the common validation method? if the r2 values werent close to zero he would have used them instead of hiding behind CE scores that few people had even heard of.

Why is reality, reality?

Lamb's work wasn't scientific in the sense of proxies. He used historical records to determine the LIA, so the MWP was just a conclusion that it was warmer before the LIA.

That isn't saying anything bad about Lamb, because I'm nearly 61 years old and know what it was like back then. We didn't have the things we have today. In 1970, I went to college using a slide rule as a chemistry major. Calculators existed in the sense of Wang units, these large boxes giving off heat and connected to a large typewriter for input. The ones I had to use were located in a rather small room in the Biology Hall. Just going there you had to notice all these cats meowing with electrodes inplanted in their brains and listen to them when you had the chance to use a calculator in a room heated by the units. That's reality!

My college career that I paid for by working in a corn cannery was interrupted by two years in the Marine Corps, because I didn't get a student deferment and my draft number came up 13. My older brother in the Navy was already in Vietnam. To avoid being drafted in the Army, I join the Marines in August 1971. All this time, I have the love of my life that I want to live with, which eventually we had six kids with, but reality is always reality.

I go into the Marine Corps at PI, January 14, 1972 and about half way through my training they offer me Annapolis, with the option of graduating as a Marine or Navy. I decline the offer, because I'm engaged to a girl who eventually became my wife, but I didn't for my own reasons. The war interrupted my first love life and I'm sure they didn't do it intentionally, because I'm not that important. Reality is things aren't just about me and I have to consider my brother in the Navy serving in Vietnam.

I'm glad today, we've developed elite forces from all the branches of the services, because we'll come in there and kill your ass, quickly, if it needs to be done. That isn't a threat, but reality to deny the benevolent power of humanity is to deny the resources we've developed.

I've been through hell and back and I'll be damned if punks are taking away my world. If you want to do battle, start shit where we debate! There is a forum where we can actually debate. If all your kind doesn't go there, they are FOOLS. I know how to deal with fools, so, bring it on FOOL!

Look, I have problems with my eyes and we can discuss brain problems later. (That's called bait)

I'm tired and I'm not even check what I said to fools, who won't put there shit on record. Make it so!

 

[westwall]

Let's try basic science! Isn't the first rule of scientific discovery called observation? Do you need pictures of glaciers retreating, sea ice melting or homes falling apart as permafrost melts to know something is happening? If I go to Patagonia and find a glacier retreating leaving the remains of wood (and can date it), can't I conclude there was once a forest that the glacier overtook after it was warmer, then the area became cooler and warmer now to leave those remains behind? If I find remains of forests near the arctic and mammoths, can't I conclude it was warmer and became cooler, but now the remains are being exposed due to warming? Are there elephants visiting the Arctic Ocean yet?

The Holocene Climatic Optimum is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and that was coined by scientific evidence, long before global warming concerns. I remember reports years ago about people eating mammoth meat in Siberia, but whether true or false, we have dug up mammoths with flesh. There is also evidence of using mammoth tusks to build dwellings. Is the evidence that it was warmer around 8,000+ years ago, then became cooler in dispute? Is there evidence of it now becoming warmer than before?

Oh, it's cycles, because the world gets warmer and cooler, but where is the evidence to support such claims? Yes, there is evidence to support minor changes in recent past global temperature, but where are the elephant remains in Siberia from recent times? Elephants are smart enough to take advantage of an opportunity, if the opportunity exists. If the opportunity for an elephant to exist in Siberia presented itself, the elephant would have taken it. There weren't many people there and it just became too cold for an elephant to exist even during yearly migration for food resources.

So let's get back to the most basic principles of scientific inquiry, called observation! Way back in the '50s, a little after I was born, we put nuclear submarines with nuclear cruise missiles under the arctic ice cap. Obviously, they had to surface to deliver their weapons and the next subs after the first that visited that area did exactly that, plus develop sonar technology. I think the second sub surfaced around 10 times. So we have been there many years before satellite observation. The problem with sonar is it sends a signal and subs need stealth.

I've talked to people in the navy and they claim to have mapped polynias or openings in the sea ice. The point is, the exact thickness of that arctic sea ice has been a strategic concern, because it's necessary to launch nuclear weapons. Since '79 we have data about sea ice extent or area from satellites. I've heard people bitch about the data for weather and the sea ice, but do you know all that data comes from the Commerce Department of the United States or the United States Navy? It's just reprocessed in universities, because they do it cheaply. The only other data comes from NASA assisting them and they reprocess the weather data down in Alabama. That data is available to the public and the world only because our nation doesn't perceive a strategic threat. The commerce data has been available since it was started to aid commerce.

Now, back to observation! Do you really think governments give that much of a damn to environmentalists, to build satellites for their purposes? Why in hell did we build satellites to map gravitational changes of the Earth and monitor ice caps and sea ice, if they didn't know there was a problem and it isn't just one country doing it? Scientifically speaking, the governments I know about in this world aren't going to waste much resource for any concern not in their interests. Try using common sense, if scientific reasoning evades you!

Where to begin, oh yeah, let's talk about Greenland. You want recent evidence that it was warmer in the recent past just look to Greenland. The Vikings had a colony there that lasted for over 500 years, it supported at least 10,000 Vikings and was wealthy enough to support one cathedral, one monastery, one nunnery and 12 churches. It also was able to send out colonisation efforts of its own to New Foundland and there is a Viking burial site on Baffin Island where some archeologists believe the Vikings had a trading post.

Then the Little Ice Age hit them and they died out. It took until the year 1900 to reach the population level of the Vikings again. More recently, with the retreat of the glaciers, tree stumps that grew during the HTM have been revealed and they show that Greenland was indeed green during the HTM.

Melting Glacier Reveals Ancient Tree Stumps | LiveScience

Running your mouth about Vikings isn't proving anything, except you can't distinguish fact from fiction. Vikings liked to tell stories too, but they didn't claim to be scientists. I've studied the settlements in Greenland and you are making all kinds of claims and pretending they are facts. Is you mind so far gone you never can get back to reality? Can't you ever focus on exactly what is known and distinguish it from speculation?

We don't know if the LIA caused the Viking settlements in Greenland to end. People have been living in Greenland for a long time and it seems they've been living better than the Vikings. I've seen some recent videos of how the climate in Greenland has changed. If you want to learn something, go to the source. You listen to people who actually live in Greenland tell you how things have changed and what they expect the future to bring. There were people there benefiting from global warming, but still concerned that things are changing. One guy pointed out where the ice sheet was in the past and now he has to use a helicopter to round up his reindeer, because the ice has melting and they move away. There were farmers there planting things they couldn't plant in the past. There were some fisherman who said things were good, but many said it was bad, perhaps the currents have changed. As the ice melts it reveals resources, so town struggle to decide if they will mine rare earth metals and put up with the radiation in the runoff that goes through their town.

I can tell by what you say you get your material from Denialista propaganda sites. The stuff has been refuted, so why do you keep pretending it's fact? There is no data supporting the MWP and LIA were global during the same time period, there isn't even dates for the events. There is simply evidence from historical records that it became colder in Europe, like problems making wine. If it became colder, then it had to be warmer before then and that's all we know about it. We don't have proxies all over the world to tell us about the past and the ones we have aren't that accurate.

What we have are Denialistas wanting to have warm periods in the past to discount global warming now. They point to things like GISP2 and pick out peaks on charts with the wrong dates. They make claims that it proves how the whole world was, but they ignore there is no GISP1, but there is GRIP the first study a little north that doesn't show those peaks on it's data. How can the data represent the world, if it can't represent an area a little further north? Cherry picking is phony science, you have to include all evidence if the evidence is valid. Only doing that will give you the full picture of the past and it has to tell you what has been and not what you want the past to be.

You post a link about finding tree stumps in Canada that are about 7000 years old. Well, no shit! The treeline during the Holocene Climatic Optimum was further north all around the arctic. It's possible there could still have been mammoths alive then. That time is also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum and it was suppose to be the time that was the warmest. Those trees didn't get that far north in a hundred years, it takes time to expand a treeline, regardless of the present temperature. If we maintain our present temperatures, we are going to have forests bordering the Arctic Ocean. We already have tundra areas that are getting brush, when once there was low lying sparse vegetation. Those changes in vegetation also cause warming. A snow covered forest has a different albedo than a snow covered tundra. The point about that past warm period is it was suppose to slowly get colder until the next ice age maximum and it hasn't. The slow cooling has been reversed significantly and perhaps enough to prevent a future ice age.

You make a lot of claims and then can't support them. No one knows how long it takes for a ice age to descend. No on knows how long it took for the warming to occur. We only know that over a period of hundreds of years it was warmer than during the previous few hundred years, and before it was cold it was warm etc etc. etc.

The planet and its atmosphere is governed by cycles that last hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of years. You take a snapshot of a decade or two and claim that is indicative of global warming all the while ignoring the previous 50 years that expose your claims to be the ludicrous nonsense they are.

You clowns are as anti-science as they come.

 

[IanC]

here are the thumbnails of the proxies-

The variety in the shapes of these graphs is quite surprising. Yes, they’re all vaguely alike … but that’s about all.
The main curiosity about these, other than the wide variety of amounts of warming, is the different timing of the warming. In some proxies it starts in 25,000 BC, in others it starts in 15,000 BC. Sometimes the warming peaks as early as 14,000 BC, and sometimes around 5,000 BC or later. Sometimes the warming continues right up to the present.

but Shakur will be credited with getting rid of the lag, just like Mann was credited with getting rid of the MWP. it will work until the IPCC report after next year's anyways

Abe- I am assuming you will continue to duck my straightforward request to identify which Marcott or Shakun paper you were refering to, so I will bump up two of my threads that discussed them at the time. here are thumbnails of the proxies used. isnt it amazing how such wildly different shapes can be combined to form a nice smooth line with so little uncertainty?

 

[Abraham3]

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

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.

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.

I was under the impression that Shakun 2012's analysis STOPPED at 11,000 BCE. He was studying our exit from the last glacial. I saw no data in his plots younger than 6,500 years. Why would you criticize him for not having examined data outside the scope of his study? Gee, I wonder.

 

[polarbear]

Where to begin, oh yeah, let's talk about Greenland. You want recent evidence that it was warmer in the recent past just look to Greenland. The Vikings had a colony there that lasted for over 500 years, it supported at least 10,000 Vikings and was wealthy enough to support one cathedral, one monastery, one nunnery and 12 churches. It also was able to send out colonisation efforts of its own to New Foundland and there is a Viking burial site on Baffin Island where some archeologists believe the Vikings had a trading post.

Then the Little Ice Age hit them and they died out. It took until the year 1900 to reach the population level of the Vikings again. More recently, with the retreat of the glaciers, tree stumps that grew during the HTM have been revealed and they show that Greenland was indeed green during the HTM.

Melting Glacier Reveals Ancient Tree Stumps | LiveScience

I had in mind and just sit back to see where this is going, but after I seen this bullshit I could not resist:

Vikings liked to tell stories too, but they didn't claim to be scientists. I've studied the settlements in Greenland and you are making all kinds of claims and pretending they are facts. Is you mind so far gone you never can get back to reality? Can't you ever focus on exactly what is known and distinguish it from speculation?

I've seen some recent videos of how the climate in Greenland has changed. If you want to learn something, go to the source. You listen to people who actually live in Greenland tell you how things have changed and what they expect the future to bring.

One guy pointed out where the ice sheet was in the past and now he has to use a helicopter to round up his reindeer, because the ice has melting and they move away.

Here we got another "expert" who dresses all day in pajamas and slippers, eats pizza and "explores" the arctic in a 2 dimensional X by Y RGB pixel format on a video screen. When he gets off his ass it`s only to go to the fridge, the toilet and at the end of the day to his bed. How would he know beyond his Youtube videos and Tv what`s up there in Greenland ?
No way was he up there "talking to people".
That "guy" that "now has to use a helicopter to round up his reindeer" that`s the Isortoq Reindeer Station on the SE tip of Greenland..which we call the banana belt.
They got a permit to import reindeer and let them free range graze there.
They always used helicopters right from the beginning when it`s time to round them up and slaughter them.
This twit has no idea about Greenland or what`s buried just under a few inches under the sand all along the Nares Strait and all the way up to where AFB Thule is.