A discussion on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its consequences

[flacaltenn]

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

Unless you're a cartoonist from skepticalscience that equates a 3W/m2 increase to the equivalent of so many atomic bombs a day.. Just saying.

You CAN do that. It's dishonest and stupid. But no one reading the site is smart enough to call them on it.

I wonder what the Atom bomb count/day is for asphalt highways or outdoor Christmas lights or warm blooded animal life on the planet... Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[flacaltenn]

Note that I didn't make this thread all about personal attacks. You did. You always do when I show up.

Those who can debate, do. Those who can't, they ... well, they do what you always do.

Now, your meltdowns on this thread are the worst I've ever seen from you. Why is that?

Then let's go. Move this question of whether ANY hockey stick of ancient temperatures has the temporal resolution and spatial resolution to SEE ANY climate change in temperature over periods of LESS than 400 years.. This is what you SAY IS TRUE. Marcott spilled the beans. And Mann and the others all USED SIMILAR proxies and methods.

You should be able to contradict Marcott RIGHT? Why are you a chicken-shit to do that in Clean Debate?

In THAT forum, I believe 80% of what you post HERE -- would be illegal.. RIGHT?
(including your entire post that I'm responding to here -- which some USMB mod ought to delete for rules.)

BTW -- off the top of your head, without PEEKING --- HOW MANY Proxies were used to geographically represent the ENTIRE PLANET in the Marcott study? Think you can ACCURATELY represent a GLOBAL mean change with that few "thermometers"?

Think MAYBE -- that's why they had to run a 300 yr filter over the processed data to get ANYTHING representing a trend line????

 

[Crick]

Then let's go. Move this question of whether ANY hockey stick of ancient temperatures has the temporal resolution and spatial resolution to SEE ANY climate change in temperature over periods of LESS than 400 years.. This is what you SAY IS TRUE. Marcott spilled the beans. And Mann and the others all USED SIMILAR proxies and methods.

You should be able to contradict Marcott RIGHT? Why are you a chicken-shit to do that in Clean Debate?

In THAT forum, I believe 80% of what you post HERE -- would be illegal.. RIGHT?
(including your entire post that I'm responding to here -- which some USMB mod ought to delete for rules.)

BTW -- off the top of your head, without PEEKING --- HOW MANY Proxies were used to geographically represent the ENTIRE PLANET in the Marcott study? Think you can ACCURATELY represent a GLOBAL mean change with that few "thermometers"?

Think MAYBE -- that's why they had to run a 300 yr filter over the processed data to get ANYTHING representing a trend line????

Do you think the MBH hockey sticks had resolution of greater than 400 years?

73 proxies. How many do you have?

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you think the MBH hockey sticks had resolution of greater than 400 years?

73 proxies. How many do you have?

ALL GLOBAL hockey sticks -- INCLUDING the one you posted years ago from some unknown physicist -- have NO fast event resolution under 100 yrs, SOME resolution under about 300 years (but the amplitude of the temps wont be accurate.) -- and at about 400 yr long events -- only the MEAN temperature is left and the mean starts being accurate.

That's because the proxies SUCK at being thermometers and dont respond at the same times or in the same amounts between types. The INDIVIDUAL proxies have LOTS of variance in them. MULTIPLE DegC of variance over time - but they "lag" one another in timing (aging). So the only HONEST way to crush them into agreement is to heavily filter and fit them.

That's why MBH and the others SHOW some WIDE disagreement between their averaged "stick" and the variance of the selected individual proxies. Essentially STRIPPING any "rapid changes in temperature" right out from under ALL their proxies.

 

[mamooth]

Go play in the cat's sandbox kid.

SInce causing you publicly wet yourself never gets old, I'll repeat what made you run. Again.

Here's a challenge. In your own words, without a link, tell us what the problem with Marcott's paper is.

This is where you run away weeping again. All you're capable of is a mass cut-and-paste of links that you very obviously don't understand. I've proven that over and over. You shouldn't be bothering the adults here, given your complete inability to understand or discuss any topic.

Now, do what you always do when you're called out on your cult BS. Deflect with insults, soil yourself, then run far and fast. If we need you, we can track you down by the smell.

 

[mamooth]

You should be able to contradict Marcott RIGHT? Why are you a chicken-shit to do that in Clean Debate?

Over and over, you keep demanding I make a thread to back a claim that I've never made or implied in any way.

That makes you look totally bonkers. And that's being charitable, being the only other possibility I see is that you're being deliberately dishonest.

 

[Sunsettommy]

SInce causing you publicly wet yourself never gets old, I'll repeat what made you run. Again.

Here's a challenge. In your own words, without a link, tell us what the problem with Marcott's paper is.

This is where you run away weeping again. All you're capable of is a mass cut-and-paste of links that you very obviously don't understand. I've proven that over and over. You shouldn't be bothering the adults here, given your complete inability to understand or discuss any topic.

Now, do what you always do when you're called out on your cult BS. Deflect with insults, soil yourself, then run far and fast. If we need you, we can track you down by the smell.

Go play in the sandbox where you belong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Over and over, you keep demanding I make a thread to back a claim that I've never made or implied in any way.

That makes you look totally bonkers. And that's being charitable, being the only other possibility I see is that you're being deliberately dishonest.

Then why do you stalk and harass me every time I state that we dont have proxy studies with enough spatial or temporal resolution TO STATE that our 30,000 thermometer and fleet of satellites modern record cannot be COMPARED to the ancient GLOBAL proxy records in terms of "fastest temperature rise" or "biggest" little 70 year temperature blips like ours?

You telling me you suddenly understand this? I sure hope so. Otherwise, you're hopelessly lost trying to fathom the statement and reconciling against how Marcott described the "value" of his hockey stick.

 

[mamooth]

Then why do you stalk and harass me

It's a discussion board. If you're too scared to discuss, then don't post.

every time I state that we dont have proxy studies with enough spatial or temporal resolution TO STATE that our 30,000 thermometer and fleet of satellites modern record cannot be COMPARED to the ancient GLOBAL proxy records in terms of "fastest temperature rise" or "biggest" little 70 year temperature blips like ours?

A few posts back, you screamed "liar" at me for stating how that was your viewpoint. No matter. At least I finally managed to pin you down.

You say that the current fast warming is nothing to worry about, since we can't be 100% certain the past wasn't the same.

That's shit logic.

Let me try some of it. "We can't be certain aliens don't live inside the sun ... after all, we can't see inside the sun ... therefore, it's wrong to proceed as if aliens don't live inside the sun."

You're making an extraordinary claim, that climate often goes into sudden violent changes. That claim therefore requires extraordinary evidence. You haven't provided any.

 

[ding]

It's a discussion board. If you're too scared to discuss, then don't post.


A few posts back, you screamed "liar" at me for stating how that was your viewpoint. No matter. At least I finally managed to pin you down.

You say that the current fast warming is nothing to worry about, since we can't be 100% certain the past wasn't the same.

That's shit logic.

Let me try some of it. "We can't be certain aliens don't live inside the sun ... after all, we can't see inside the sun ... therefore, it's wrong to proceed as if aliens don't live inside the sun."

You're making an extraordinary claim, that climate often goes into sudden violent changes. That claim therefore requires extraordinary evidence. You haven't provided any.

I think you got that backwards. It's anyone who believes the recent warming trend is unprecedented in earth's history that can't be certain aliens don't live in the sun because they are the ones who haven't look at every past warming trend.

Whereas I just point to D-O events during the last glacial to show that the recent warming trend isn't unprecedented.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's a discussion board. If you're too scared to discuss, then don't post.

Not a possibility to "not post". Interesting that you equate "stalking/harassing" with "discussion" tho..

A few posts back, you screamed "liar" at me for stating how that was your viewpoint. No matter. At least I finally managed to pin you down.

You say that the current fast warming is nothing to worry about, since we can't be 100% certain the past wasn't the same.

That's shit logic.

See -- you ARE changing my words. I dont NEED to prove that ancient GLOBAL proxies CAN measure fast rises or variances. YOU DO.. And that's pretty much an impossible task since THEY DONT.

DO THEY OR DO THEY NOT measure quick events like ours AND fast rise times? If so HOW fast and with WHAT ACCURACY?

Answer this...

 

[Crick]

ALL GLOBAL hockey sticks -- INCLUDING the one you posted years ago from some unknown physicist -- have NO fast event resolution under 100 yrs, SOME resolution under about 300 years (but the amplitude of the temps wont be accurate.) -- and at about 400 yr long events -- only the MEAN temperature is left and the mean starts being accurate.

That's because the proxies SUCK at being thermometers and dont respond at the same times or in the same amounts between types. The INDIVIDUAL proxies have LOTS of variance in them. MULTIPLE DegC of variance over time - but they "lag" one another in timing (aging). So the only HONEST way to crush them into agreement is to heavily filter and fit them.

That's why MBH and the others SHOW some WIDE disagreement between their averaged "stick" and the variance of the selected individual proxies. Essentially STRIPPING any "rapid changes in temperature" right out from under ALL their proxies.

That's NOT what you said. I quote: "Move this question of whether ANY hockey stick of ancient temperatures has the temporal resolution and spatial resolution to SEE ANY climate change in temperature over periods of LESS than 400 years..". MBH 98 and 99 qualify and definitely have better than 400 year resolution.

And I think 73 proxies is enough to provide valuable, global temperature data. Do you have some study that concludes otherwise or are you just showing us your uninformed opinion?

 

[mamooth]

Not a possibility to "not post". Interesting that you equate "stalking/harassing" with "discussion" tho..

Don't project. You were the one who tried to define 'discussion' as 'harrassment'. Don't worry, it's not the lowest you've ever stooped, so it didn't shock anyone.

See -- you ARE changing my words. I dont NEED to prove that ancient GLOBAL proxies CAN measure fast rises or variances. YOU DO..

Notice how all of science disagrees with you? That's because you're babbling nonsense.

Climate doesn't wildly swing to and fro. It's never done that in human history, barring a few megavolcanoes, and those always leave distinctive evidence. Yet you're claiming the past was different ... with no evidence. That's why your theory is ignored. You can keep howling here, but it will still be ignored.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate doesn't wildly swing to and fro. It's never done that in human history, barring a few megavolcanoes, and those always leave distinctive evidence. Yet you're claiming the past was different ... with no evidence. That's why your theory is ignored. You can keep howling here, but it will still

Human history is a wart on the frog's back compared to 20,000 years of proxy data and pretending that they have the same accuracy and resolution as MODERN history with the advantages of science.

I'm not claiming (again you purposely misrepresent) "the past history was different". I'm claiming it was the same. The Hockey Sticks take "sameness" to the extreme. And there's NO evidence that they even RECORD variability on centennial time scales matching our hundred years of having enough REAL thermometers to cover the globe. .

Climate was the same with 1 or 3DegC swings over multi-centuries intervals. The INDIVIDUAL PROXIES SHOW THIS !!!!! You deny this or dishonestly ignore this.

Greenland ice is a much better "thermometer" than Antarctic (which is a desert) ice. And THERE's your multi DegC swings with 100 year rate tracking or better. From 8000BCE to about 8300 BCE -- the variance was about 3.5DegC !!! Look at those sharp spikes with the FAST RATES of rise for the Warm periods.

You LIVE by proxies -- ypu go down with the ship by proxies. POLLEN proxies also have HIGH temporal resolution whenever you can get them. But MASHING all these together (the good and the bad)_ Ends up in a Hockey Stick graph.

So -- I say the past history probably has the climate history of what IS SEEN in the individual proxies. At LEAST the VARIANCE of temperature. DO NOT misquote this again.

But there is NO certainty that any of these GLOBAL proxies studies would be capable of finding our blip. In fact, Marcott says they cant.

So let it lie. There is NO evidence that our past 80 year experience has the FASTEST rise in 2000 years or 20,000 years. You deny all this of course because it violates the "Warmer bible" and the FAITH that you cling to.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's NOT what you said. I quote: "Move this question of whether ANY hockey stick of ancient temperatures has the temporal resolution and spatial resolution to SEE ANY climate change in temperature over periods of LESS than 400 years..". MBH 98 and 99 qualify and definitely have better than 400 year resolution.

And I think 73 proxies is enough to provide valuable, global temperature data. Do you have some study that concludes otherwise or are you just showing us your uninformed opinion?

You think 73 sample points on the Earth -- Mostly in the N. Hemi IS ENOUGH? Seriously? Do they cover the oceans and it's variance? How many in Africa or Asia were used? I'm SHOCKED you think that GLOBAL warming could be FOUND that way.

IF ANY paper today used just 73 sites on the globe to measure GW -- NOT well distributed -- would you believe that is ANYWHERE near as accurate as a satellite fleet or 30,000 ACTUAL thermometers that we use NOW? Are U KIDDING ME?

MBH 98 and 99 qualify and definitely have better than 400 year resolution.

First off show me where you got this assertion. Then -- how did they define resolution? Was it 25% of ACTUAL amplitude? 50%?? 100%?? And what is "BETTER"?? Do they have full fidelity at 100 years? 200? 50?

I dont ever recall ANY DETAILED specifics on resolution from those authors. I DO RECALL Mann, after he got tangled in "ClimateGate" emails ADMITTING much later that the resolution sucked.

Secondly,, MOST of the hockey sticks including Marcotts used MUCH the same proxies as Mann. And Marcott WAS HONEST about the processsing results which were also VERY similar.

THere is only SO MANY tree rings, ice cores mud bug sediments to go around. And that stuff is ONLY available in a few places where the DATES can go back that far.

 

[Crick]

So, apparently you have NO studies criticizing the number of proxies used by Marcotte. And if you think (again without any evidence) the MBH data has resolution worse than 25% of its entire span yet has still been published and cited repeatedly, I strongly suspect your conclusions are objective-based rather than having any reliance on actual facts or figures.

I recommend giving this paper a quick read.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225696860_Importance_of_the_geophysical_context_for_statistical_evaluation_of_climate_reconstruction_procedures#pf14

 

[ding]

Did the OP get off track in his own thread?


Again.

 

[Crick]

Did the OP get off track in his own thread?


Again.

Ding, I have put you on ignore. Find someone else.

 

[ding]

Ding, I have put you on ignore. Find someone else.

We'll see how long that lasts.

 

[g5000]

only 11 feet? No beach front property yet

Goodbye Miami.