Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[westwall]

Are you insane?

No, you?

Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges.

Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.

Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.

Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work? Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.

"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick"

- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick

 

[Abraham3]

Priceless man.. Just priceless. From "Quotable Liberals" no less.

REALITY ---- based on PhotoShop... Who's confused about reality here?

What makes you think that's been Photoshopped? Long before the Industrial Revolution, Arctic sea ice moved south and melted. Did you think the Huxley quote was referring to something into which you do not buy? Let me guess, you don't believe the Arctic ice extent is shrinking. Or is it the threat to the polar bear population?

 

[Abraham3]

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

That's an astoundingly well disguised education. And who is the "they" that uses an antiquted computer system? All climatologists? And where in a geology program do you study radiative heat transfer or atmospheric mechanics or even fluid dynamics?

I haven't seen a lot of your posts, but from those I have seen - I simply cannot accept your claim. I believe you're lying.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

This sort of puerile chest thumping is just more evidence that you don't have the education you say you've got. I suppose it's possible to get a PhD and still be that much of an asshole, but it's extremely unlikely.

As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work? Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.

"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick"

- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick

I would have thought a PhD would take the time to read the 100 or so words in that tricky article. Actually, I have a really hard time seeing anyone with a graduate education reading the Bishop Hill Blog, much less referencing it.

They didn't pull the article because of anything Marcott et al did wrong. The error was whatever Met Office editor put the hockey stick comment in the headline. Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix NEVER claimed to have produced superior or novel data for the 20th century.

Being a denier, you should certainly be familiar with zealous fans overstating the significance of some scientific revelation or two. It always seemed to me as if your side of this argument invented the practice.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you insane?

No, you?

Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges.

Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.

Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.

Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

That these proxies should show a relatively wide spread of temperatures is irrelevant as long as they RELATIVE behavior is similar. If all 73 proxies rise 2C over a millenia, we can be pretty certain that's what the actual temperature did.

"Pretty certain" may be a bit optimistic having looked at the tea leaves. Guaranteed, all 73 proxies don't rise 2degC.. Some of them are confused between temperature and food.

 

[Abraham3]

I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job. It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there. It's just good foundational work. I didn't need it to accept AGW. AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented. That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".

So, what's your opinion on Arctic sea ice extents?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Walleyes constantly flaunts the claim that he is a Phd Geologist. Yet, with all of that education and 'facts' concerning global warming, he cannot bring himself to stand on the podium at the annual AGU Convention and expose the fraud that he claims global warming is.

Now I am just an old millwright with 50 years in the craft under my belt. And about a 120 credits toward a BS in Geology. I often talk with geologists that are actually doing research. Not one of them makes the silly claims that Walleyes does. Not only that, when they referance something in an article, they referance articles in peer reviewed journals, not blogs by undegreed TV weathermen and others of equal education.

Ol' Walleyes constantly talks of his qualifications, yet also constantly disses those that should be his peers. To the point one begins to believe he has a problem with jeolosy of those that are truly successful in their academic pursuits, and are not dependent on prostituting their credentials for a living.

 

[gslack]

Priceless man.. Just priceless. From "Quotable Liberals" no less.

REALITY ---- based on PhotoShop... Who's confused about reality here?

What makes you think that's been Photoshopped? Long before the Industrial Revolution, Arctic sea ice moved south and melted. Did you think the Huxley quote was referring to something into which you do not buy? Let me guess, you don't believe the Arctic ice extent is shrinking. Or is it the threat to the polar bear population?

First it was photoshopped to get the writing on it at least.. ERGO photoshopped..

Second, there are more polar bears now then there were in the 50's. ANd who can say how many rather large predators are the "norm"? How many over ten foot long and several hundred pound predators do you think an ice covered expanse of cold northern seas should sustain?

LOL, you warmers never think beyond the headlines do you.. You are told the world is ending and YOU can and must save it, and your savior/hero complexes kick in and you want to don some tights and fly to the rescue but you must settle for rambling BS about polar bears in danger...

The polar bears and the world is fine. When the world grows weary of us, including you, it will shrug us off like so much nothing and keep right on going.

Polar bears hunt the arctic waters for food. Not a whole lot of options for much land-based hunting up there. That bear was most likely taking a break on one of it's usual hunting swims.. it wasn't there because the ice melted and stranded it, it swam there..

 

[gslack]

Ol' Walleyes constantly flaunts the claim that he is a Phd Geologist. Yet, with all of that education and 'facts' concerning global warming, he cannot bring himself to stand on the podium at the annual AGU Convention and expose the fraud that he claims global warming is.

Now I am just an old millwright with 50 years in the craft under my belt. And about a 120 credits toward a BS in Geology. I often talk with geologists that are actually doing research. Not one of them makes the silly claims that Walleyes does. Not only that, when they referance something in an article, they referance articles in peer reviewed journals, not blogs by undegreed TV weathermen and others of equal education.

Ol' Walleyes constantly talks of his qualifications, yet also constantly disses those that should be his peers. To the point one begins to believe he has a problem with jeolosy of those that are truly successful in their academic pursuits, and are not dependent on prostituting their credentials for a living.

No you're a solar panel salesman...

 

[flacaltenn]

based on PhotoShop[/B]... Who's confused about reality here?

What makes you think that's been Photoshopped? Long before the Industrial Revolution, Arctic sea ice moved south and melted. Did you think the Huxley quote was referring to something into which you do not buy? Let me guess, you don't believe the Arctic ice extent is shrinking. Or is it the threat to the polar bear population?

One can't be too careful with stranded polar bear pixs these days. At least 2 world famous "polar bears stranded on ice" pixs.. One retracted from Science Mag (no less) and the other part of the 1000 stop Al Gore road show.. Patently phoney..

nice retraction here ---> Correction

Yep --- Science mag fell for photoshopped... Even the ones that AREN'T are debunked by wildlife experts as normal summer polar behaviour..

As for THIS ONE --- my concerns are many.. Here's the uncropped -- non- poster version.

I'm concerned that although the shadow in directly in front -- the pix seems to be lit from the right side. Could be wrong..
But there's a ridge of ice behind the pedestal to the left. If it were lit from the back (instead of from the right side), that ridge should be lit exactly like the protrusions of ice behind and to the right. THOSE are lit correctly for a light coming from the right side. (Six years developing image processing gear for satellite earth resources and other apps)

LARGER ISSUE.. THe author of that pic is identified in the image properties (-polar-bear-clinging-melting-iceberg-polar-bear-carla-lombardo-ehrlich). This lady is only net mentioned in conjuction with the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) publicity publication (debuting this picture to the world) released just in time for the RIO Earth Summit. I personally wouldn't TAKE a used WWF shopping bag from those dirty lawyers. In fact -- I believe they own the rights to pic..

So with the world so polluted with bogus sad stranded polars and polars opening bottles of Coke and Al Gore shedding tears for said sad sacks of bears --- I'm skeptical.. Why shouldn't I be? Look at how fast the fakes multiply !!!

You figure out yet why the IPCC seems to under-rate Solar insolation so much yet? I'm working on a dual axis plot of temp vs shifted TSI for you.. Probably good for a new thread..

 

[flacaltenn]

I think Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did a fine job. It's not as if there were anything Earthshaking in there. It's just good foundational work. I didn't need it to accept AGW. AGW doesn't rely on being unprecedented. That was the deniers attempted claim: "It happened before, it can't be from humans!".

So, what's your opinion on Arctic sea ice extents?

And yet you JUMPED to trot out that study in your earliest posts..

Told you before -- I don't do ice.. I only do proxies for amusement. Sea Ice is a biased game. Any patch of ocean with 25% (i believe) sea ice is considered "TOTALLY iced" for Sea Ice Extent (SIE) calculations.. That's just a fools game watching ice CUBES melt. When summers get hot --- ice melts. Temp has no huge bearing on ice 9 months of the year up there.

 

[westwall]

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

That's an astoundingly well disguised education. And who is the "they" that uses an antiquted computer system? All climatologists? And where in a geology program do you study radiative heat transfer or atmospheric mechanics or even fluid dynamics?

I haven't seen a lot of your posts, but from those I have seen - I simply cannot accept your claim. I believe you're lying.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

This sort of puerile chest thumping is just more evidence that you don't have the education you say you've got. I suppose it's possible to get a PhD and still be that much of an asshole, but it's extremely unlikely.

As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work? Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.

"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick"

- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick

I would have thought a PhD would take the time to read the 100 or so words in that tricky article. Actually, I have a really hard time seeing anyone with a graduate education reading the Bishop Hill Blog, much less referencing it.

They didn't pull the article because of anything Marcott et al did wrong. The error was whatever Met Office editor put the hockey stick comment in the headline. Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix NEVER claimed to have produced superior or novel data for the 20th century.

Being a denier, you should certainly be familiar with zealous fans overstating the significance of some scientific revelation or two. It always seemed to me as if your side of this argument invented the practice.

Except it's not chest thumping. There are loads of geology 1st year students. Then the 2nd year starts to winnow the wheat from the chaff, third year and beyond those who can't do the math, physics, and chemistry switch to geography. Want to know what the VAST majority of Bachelors degrees are that are held by your precious climatologists? Yep, GEOGRAPHY.

Look up the requirements for a climatology PhD vs a geology PhD.

And seriously, you expect us to take you seriously when you don't even know that that picture is photo shopped? Get real....

 

[Old Rocks]

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

That's an astoundingly well disguised education. And who is the "they" that uses an antiquted computer system? All climatologists? And where in a geology program do you study radiative heat transfer or atmospheric mechanics or even fluid dynamics?

I haven't seen a lot of your posts, but from those I have seen - I simply cannot accept your claim. I believe you're lying.



This sort of puerile chest thumping is just more evidence that you don't have the education you say you've got. I suppose it's possible to get a PhD and still be that much of an asshole, but it's extremely unlikely.

As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work? Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.

"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick"

- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick

I would have thought a PhD would take the time to read the 100 or so words in that tricky article. Actually, I have a really hard time seeing anyone with a graduate education reading the Bishop Hill Blog, much less referencing it.

They didn't pull the article because of anything Marcott et al did wrong. The error was whatever Met Office editor put the hockey stick comment in the headline. Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix NEVER claimed to have produced superior or novel data for the 20th century.

Being a denier, you should certainly be familiar with zealous fans overstating the significance of some scientific revelation or two. It always seemed to me as if your side of this argument invented the practice.

Except it's not chest thumping. There are loads of geology 1st year students. Then the 2nd year starts to winnow the wheat from the chaff, third year and beyond those who can't do the math, physics, and chemistry switch to geography. Want to know what the VAST majority of Bachelors degrees are that are held by your precious climatologists? Yep, GEOGRAPHY.

Look up the requirements for a climatology PhD vs a geology PhD.

And seriously, you expect us to take you seriously when you don't even know that that picture is photo shopped? Get real....

As usual, Walleyes lies once again.

Dr. James Hansen
James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[2] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[3]

Dr. Micheal Mann
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mann was brought up in Amherst, Massachusetts, where his father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts. At school he was interested in math, science and computing. In 1983 he was prompted by seeing the film WarGames to write a rudimentary self-learning tic-tac-toe program which made random moves and listed losing moves which it would not repeat. Mann found a "trick" of using symmetry to reduce the number of unique moves to store so that the computer would not slow down so much.[3]

In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987 he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[4] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[1]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[8][9] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Dr. Richard Alley
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Alley_Vitae.pdf
Ph.D., 1987, University of Wisconsin (Geology, Minor Materials Science); M.Sc. 1983, B.Sc. 1989 (With Honors,
With Distinction, Summa cum Laude), Ohio State University (Geology and Mineralogy). Assistant Scientist, University
of Wisconsin, 1987-1988; Assistant Professor (1988-1992), Associate Professor (1992-1994), Professor (1994-2000)
and Evan Pugh Professor (2000-), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University.

And one can look at the most important figures in climate research today and find similiar credentials for each of them.

 

[gslack]

That's an astoundingly well disguised education. And who is the "they" that uses an antiquted computer system? All climatologists? And where in a geology program do you study radiative heat transfer or atmospheric mechanics or even fluid dynamics?

I haven't seen a lot of your posts, but from those I have seen - I simply cannot accept your claim. I believe you're lying.



This sort of puerile chest thumping is just more evidence that you don't have the education you say you've got. I suppose it's possible to get a PhD and still be that much of an asshole, but it's extremely unlikely.



I would have thought a PhD would take the time to read the 100 or so words in that tricky article. Actually, I have a really hard time seeing anyone with a graduate education reading the Bishop Hill Blog, much less referencing it.

They didn't pull the article because of anything Marcott et al did wrong. The error was whatever Met Office editor put the hockey stick comment in the headline. Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix NEVER claimed to have produced superior or novel data for the 20th century.

Being a denier, you should certainly be familiar with zealous fans overstating the significance of some scientific revelation or two. It always seemed to me as if your side of this argument invented the practice.

Except it's not chest thumping. There are loads of geology 1st year students. Then the 2nd year starts to winnow the wheat from the chaff, third year and beyond those who can't do the math, physics, and chemistry switch to geography. Want to know what the VAST majority of Bachelors degrees are that are held by your precious climatologists? Yep, GEOGRAPHY.

Look up the requirements for a climatology PhD vs a geology PhD.

And seriously, you expect us to take you seriously when you don't even know that that picture is photo shopped? Get real....

As usual, Walleyes lies once again.

Dr. James Hansen
James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[2] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[3]

Dr. Micheal Mann
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mann was brought up in Amherst, Massachusetts, where his father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts. At school he was interested in math, science and computing. In 1983 he was prompted by seeing the film WarGames to write a rudimentary self-learning tic-tac-toe program which made random moves and listed losing moves which it would not repeat. Mann found a "trick" of using symmetry to reduce the number of unique moves to store so that the computer would not slow down so much.[3]

In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987 he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[4] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[1]

Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[8][9] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

Dr. Richard Alley
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Alley_Vitae.pdf
Ph.D., 1987, University of Wisconsin (Geology, Minor Materials Science); M.Sc. 1983, B.Sc. 1989 (With Honors,
With Distinction, Summa cum Laude), Ohio State University (Geology and Mineralogy). Assistant Scientist, University
of Wisconsin, 1987-1988; Assistant Professor (1988-1992), Associate Professor (1992-1994), Professor (1994-2000)
and Evan Pugh Professor (2000-), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University.

And one can look at the most important figures in climate research today and find similiar credentials for each of them.

Do you really not understand what he said or is this you proving your dishonest nature again?

What in the world does the specific education of three individuals prove in regards to either what he said or the requirements of a geology PHD vs a Climatology PHD..

 

[orogenicman]

Are you insane?

No, you?



Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.

Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.

Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

I have a masters degree in geology and I never met a climatologist that taught ANY undergraduate level geology course. Now, maybe they teach geology that way at Liberty University where you probably went to school, I don't know, but they don't teach it here. Why would they? You wouldn't ask a climatologist to teach structural geology any more than you would ask a mineralogist to teach atmospheric physics. It is a silly argument, one that doesn't support your claim to be a PhD in geology.

All of that aside, Abe is right about the proxies. You are wrong. Marcott's proxies are all valid. Time to move on.

 

[westwall]

No, you?



Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.



Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

I have a masters degree in geology and I never met a climatologist that taught ANY undergraduate level geology course. Now, maybe they teach geology that way at Liberty University where you probably went to school, I don't know, but they don't teach it here. Why would they? You wouldn't ask a climatologist to teach structural geology any more than you would ask a mineralogist to teach atmospheric physics. It is a silly argument, one that doesn't support your claim to be a PhD in geology.

All of that aside, Abe is right about the proxies. You are wrong. Marcott's proxies are all valid. Time to move on.

I earned mine at Caltech before you were born. The point my good person is they COULDN'T teach the class. They are a soft science, whereas geology is a precise (or hard if you prefer) science. That's the difference. And it most certainly does support it which calls into question your claim to a Masters in geology.

I have taught (at various times) all the geology courses, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and meteorology. You teach what they ask you to teach when you are a freshly minted prof. Which you would know if you were who you claim you are.

Sad how olfraud has to create yet ANOTHER pathetic sock for support.

Edit: I just looked at this clowns posts and they ALL support olfraud. All six of them. How ******* obvious a sock do you have to be

 

[flacaltenn]

Wild ass guess. But I imagine our two most recent additions are probably GoldiRocks' professors. They couldn't believe there was a still of nest of resistance out there in a public forum.. Figured a couple posts and we'd just sue for peace..

 

[orogenicman]

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

I have a masters degree in geology and I never met a climatologist that taught ANY undergraduate level geology course. Now, maybe they teach geology that way at Liberty University where you probably went to school, I don't know, but they don't teach it here. Why would they? You wouldn't ask a climatologist to teach structural geology any more than you would ask a mineralogist to teach atmospheric physics. It is a silly argument, one that doesn't support your claim to be a PhD in geology.

All of that aside, Abe is right about the proxies. You are wrong. Marcott's proxies are all valid. Time to move on.

I earned mine at Caltech before you were born.

You don't know when I was born. And even if what you say is true, I assume then, being the old fart that you are, that you still subscribe to the expanding earth theory. That would not surprise me one bit.

The point my good person is they COULDN'T teach the class.

My point, my good person, is that whether or not you think they (who they are has not been established so perhaps you should be clear right at this point) could is irrelevant.

They are a soft science, whereas geology is a precise (or hard if you prefer) science.

Geology has until relatively recently, NOT been a precise science. And even today, only one law has come out of it. In fact, even today, there is a lot of interpretation going on in the geological sciences. Which is why it is most often referred to as a scientific discipline. It is not akin to chemistry and physics, though both of those hard sciences are heavily used in geology.

I have taught (at various times) all the geology courses, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and meteorology. You teach what they ask you to teach when you are a freshly minted prof. Which you would know if you were who you claim you are.

I never claimed to be a teacher. And I seriously doubt that you've taught a science class in your life.

 

[IanC]

No, you?



Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.



Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.

I won't even mention graduate level classes.

I have a masters degree in geology and I never met a climatologist that taught ANY undergraduate level geology course. Now, maybe they teach geology that way at Liberty University where you probably went to school, I don't know, but they don't teach it here. Why would they? You wouldn't ask a climatologist to teach structural geology any more than you would ask a mineralogist to teach atmospheric physics. It is a silly argument, one that doesn't support your claim to be a PhD in geology.

All of that aside, Abe is right about the proxies. You are wrong. Marcott's proxies are all valid. Time to move on.

I bumped the Marcott2013 proxies up for you and Abe in the Marcott thread. Are they all you imagined them to be?

 

[westwall]

I have a masters degree in geology and I never met a climatologist that taught ANY undergraduate level geology course. Now, maybe they teach geology that way at Liberty University where you probably went to school, I don't know, but they don't teach it here. Why would they? You wouldn't ask a climatologist to teach structural geology any more than you would ask a mineralogist to teach atmospheric physics. It is a silly argument, one that doesn't support your claim to be a PhD in geology.

All of that aside, Abe is right about the proxies. You are wrong. Marcott's proxies are all valid. Time to move on.

I earned mine at Caltech before you were born.

You don't know when I was born. And even if what you say is true, I assume then, being the old fart that you are, that you still subscribe to the expanding earth theory. That would not surprise me one bit.



My point, my good person, is that whether or not you think they (who they are has not been established so perhaps you should be clear right at this point) could is irrelevant.

They are a soft science, whereas geology is a precise (or hard if you prefer) science.

Geology has until relatively recently, NOT been a precise science. And even today, only one law has come out of it. In fact, even today, there is a lot of interpretation going on in the geological sciences. Which is why it is most often referred to as a scientific discipline. It is not akin to chemistry and physics, though both of those hard sciences are heavily used in geology.

I have taught (at various times) all the geology courses, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and meteorology. You teach what they ask you to teach when you are a freshly minted prof. Which you would know if you were who you claim you are.

I never claimed to be a teacher. And I seriously doubt that you've taught a science class in your life.

Ahhhh good old olfraud, you expose yourself......

 

[orogenicman]

I earned mine at Caltech before you were born.

You don't know when I was born. And even if what you say is true, I assume then, being the old fart that you are, that you still subscribe to the expanding earth theory. That would not surprise me one bit.



My point, my good person, is that whether or not you think they (who they are has not been established so perhaps you should be clear right at this point) could is irrelevant.



Geology has until relatively recently, NOT been a precise science. And even today, only one law has come out of it. In fact, even today, there is a lot of interpretation going on in the geological sciences. Which is why it is most often referred to as a scientific discipline. It is not akin to chemistry and physics, though both of those hard sciences are heavily used in geology.

I have taught (at various times) all the geology courses, mineralogy, crystallography, physics, chemistry and meteorology. You teach what they ask you to teach when you are a freshly minted prof. Which you would know if you were who you claim you are.

I never claimed to be a teacher. And I seriously doubt that you've taught a science class in your life.

Ahhhh good old olfraud, you expose yourself......

I expose myself? By being truthful that I am not a teacher? Yeah, what a terrible thing for me to do. I could have just lied, like you did. But I thought, naw! People deserve better than that. Not everyone with advanced degrees gets stuck in academia. Some of us actually go out and make a real living with what we've learned. Any more questions?