It ain't an April Fool joke, 15 inches of snow in Vt.

[flacaltenn]

What do you THINK "we learned" from the past 10,000 years of GLOBAL proxy evidence is what's in question. Why don't you state it? So that there's no CHANCE of me misrepresenting your position.

It looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene -- after the end of the last Ice Age -- global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)
(From: The Hockey Stick Graph Reality)

I KNOW what it looks like. Duh.. Tell me 2 things. What does it "prove" about sub 500 year temperature transients in the past, and #2 -- how come it doesn't reflect distinct periods for the Minoan Warming, MWPeriod and the Little Ice Age as well as SEVERAL dozen other individual high resolution proxies from all over the globe.

You KNOW the answers. Marcott explained all this to you.. I've posted it 14 times. But YOU tell ME exactly what "it proves"...

Check out the fuzzier "LIGHT blue" parts of the variance for clues.

 

[RollingThunder]

What do you THINK "we learned" from the past 10,000 years of GLOBAL proxy evidence is what's in question. Why don't you state it? So that there's no CHANCE of me misrepresenting your position.

It looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene -- after the end of the last Ice Age -- global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)
(From: The Hockey Stick Graph Reality)

Duh..

You should really begin and end all of your posts like that, fecalhead.....it would save a lot of time for anyone who might foolishly imagine they contain anything meaningful.

Tell me 2 things. What does it "prove" about sub 500 year temperature transients in the past, and #2 -- how come it doesn't reflect distinct periods for the Minoan Warming, MWPeriod and the Little Ice Age as well as SEVERAL dozen other individual high resolution proxies from all over the globe.

You KNOW the answers. Marcott explained all this to you.. I've posted it 14 times. But YOU tell ME exactly what "it proves"...

Check out the fuzzier "LIGHT blue" parts of the variance for clues.

Everything you post "proves" that you are a delusional troll, fecalhead.

The trend Marcott's study revealed "doesn't reflect the Minoan Warming, MWPeriod and the Little Ice Age as well as SEVERAL dozen other individual high resolution proxies from all over the globe" for the most part because those temperature change events were not global in extent....as has been pointed out to you many times but you would rather cling to your fraudulent denier cult myths on that topic.

As for the rest of your clueless confusion, Marcott explained it pretty well....

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

Q: Is your paleotemperature reconstruction consistent with reconstructions based on the tree-ring data and other archives of the past 2,000 years?

A: Yes, in the parts where our reconstruction contains sufficient data to be robust, and acknowledging its inherent smoothing. For example, our global temperature reconstruction from ~1500 to 100 years ago is indistinguishable (within its statistical uncertainty) from the Mann et al. (2008) reconstruction, which included many tree-ring based data. Both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a relatively warm interval (~1500 to 1000 years ago) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 years ago, approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age).
(from : Response by Marcott et al. - 31 March 2013)

 

[flacaltenn]

Duh..

You should really begin and end all of your posts like that, fecalhead.....it would save a lot of time for anyone who might foolishly imagine they contain anything meaningful.

All I can say in my defense is -- that's a forum rule violation by changing the entire meaning of my quote in the quote box. But -- WTH -- you're a moron..

Tell me 2 things. What does it "prove" about sub 500 year temperature transients in the past, and #2 -- how come it doesn't reflect distinct periods for the Minoan Warming, MWPeriod and the Little Ice Age as well as SEVERAL dozen other individual high resolution proxies from all over the globe.

You KNOW the answers. Marcott explained all this to you.. I've posted it 14 times. But YOU tell ME exactly what "it proves"...

Check out the fuzzier "LIGHT blue" parts of the variance for clues.

Everything you post "proves" that you are a delusional troll, fecalhead.

The trend Marcott's study revealed "doesn't reflect the Minoan Warming, MWPeriod and the Little Ice Age as well as SEVERAL dozen other individual high resolution proxies from all over the globe" for the most part because those temperature change events were not global in extent....as has been pointed out to you many times but you would rather cling to your fraudulent denier cult myths on that topic.

As for the rest of your clueless confusion, Marcott explained it pretty well....

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

Q: Is your paleotemperature reconstruction consistent with reconstructions based on the tree-ring data and other archives of the past 2,000 years?

A: Yes, in the parts where our reconstruction contains sufficient data to be robust, and acknowledging its inherent smoothing. For example, our global temperature reconstruction from ~1500 to 100 years ago is indistinguishable (within its statistical uncertainty) from the Mann et al. (2008) reconstruction, which included many tree-ring based data. Both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a relatively warm interval (~1500 to 1000 years ago) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 years ago, approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age).
(from : Response by Marcott et al. - 31 March 2013)

What would it REALLY matter if you and Mann were correct about NONE of those climatic events being "global". (although you're not and several dozen studies and about 50 authors say you are).. Any HEMISPHERICAL change of a more than 0.5degC lasting for a couple centuries or MORE -- is "climate change" by the standards of the climate gurus. Wouldn't surprise me, since the Earth does not have just one climate zone. But you're IGNORING not only the HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence for these climate periods and their efffects, but also the dozens of paleo studies from around the globe with sufficient RESOLUTIONS to show less than 300 year events.

And you put up the correct Marcott quote but failed to UNDERSTAND IT.. He tells you STRAIGHT OUT -- his study can not determine if the CURRENT rate of temperature is greater than at any time in past. Yet, Mann jumped on the Marcott 2013 paper announcement and MADE that claim for him. And THAT is how the press, media and history was written. No retractions yet. Just Marcotts' basic HONESTY --- that it was not shown in his work.

Also what you missed by just cut/paste and not THINKING about what was said was the resultant RESOLUTION of the work -- either in the TIME axis or the Temperature axis would not FULLY RESOLVE any climate variabilities that occurred faster than TWO FUCKING THOUSAND YEARS. And events shorter than 500 hundred years would only be 1/2 the amplitude of the ACTUAL temperature extremes. And any events shorter than 300 years -- would NOT be seen at all.

As a result of that recognition, this does not PROVE -- there was no (global) Minoan Period, MWPeriod or Little Ice Age. So debating whether all those were GLOBAL or not --- this paper contributes NOTHING to that task.. It IS just a heavily filtered mean value of temperature as a crude estimate.

Those quotes are not the FULL extent of Marcotts honest disclosures. He DOES address the alternate choices of proxies that he COULD HAVE made that are higher resolution. And by using those -- he can say that the Modern Era blip that y'all are panicked about is HIGHER than (IIRC) 73% of the Holocene that his study covered. But WHHHHAAAT?? Including those higher resolutions says conversely that (IIRC) 27% of his 10,000 yr period was WARMER than the period 1960 to 1999.. (or some bracket like that)..

WHY did he NOT include those proxies? Because they added to the "confidence bounds" of his final graph product. Too much VARIANCE in the data and too few points compared to the other proxies.

So -- again I ask --- What ASSERTIONS are to made from this work? And what are you CLAIMING that it proves in terms of the "modern era" temperature blip that we've accurately measured and recorded? Bottom line... It just paints the long term trend in 10,000 years of temperature and is INCAPABLE of saying anything about 100 year blips or sub-decadal variability, or rates of rise..

So fucking what? As with ALL proxy studies. They are what they are. And it's not ever completely satisfying. The mistake most warmers MAKE -- is they assume that ANY proxy study is equal in importance and content to any other.

 

[flacaltenn]

You know where the Indo-Pac Warm Pool is? Isn't in the Northern Hemi is it?

New Temperature Reconstruction from Indo-Pacific Warm Pool

A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.

The IPWP is the largest body of warm water in the world, and, as a result, it is the largest source of heat and moisture to the global atmosphere, and an important component of the planet’s climate. Climate models suggest that global mean temperatures are particularly sensitive to sea surface temperatures in the IPWP. Understanding the past history of the region is of great importance for placing current warming trends in a global context.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties.

Oppo comments, “Although there are significant uncertainties with our own reconstruction, our work raises the idea that perhaps even the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions need to be looked at more closely.”

Oppo cautions that the reconstruction contains some uncertainties. Information from three different cores was compiled in order to reconstruct a 2,000-year-long record. In addition sediment data have an inherent uncertainty associated with accurately dating samples

You live and DIE by proxy studies. It's not very satisfying at all. EXCEPT to get fleeting glimpses of the ancient climates. Can't LEAP to conclusions and pound the fucking table for ANY of them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Not one snow flake here this winter and very warm. Unheard of in the Midwest. Last year, one snow storm of less than two inches.

I see the willfully ignorant ^^^ still don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Climate change is real and humans are the cause. We could choose to work together with the rest of the world but many in the US take pride in their own lack of "snobby, elitist" education. Worse, they simply do not care enough about their own children, country or planet to get off their their fat, diabetic butts and ACT.

While we fight about race, homosexuality, and who to bomb tomorrow, our planet is dying. If we don't address that fact, none of the rest matters.

Because the right always votes for big money, big business, big pharma and against the working class, I have absolutely no hope fo the future of our big blue marble.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

It's not one of those things I spend a lot of time thinking about either.

As I am working on a degree in geology, at 73, it is something I think about a lot. And having banged around in the mountains, Cascades, North Cascades, Blues, Wallowas, Rockies, Sierra Nevadas, and even the Canadian Rockies, I have seen, since the 1960's, the snow fields and glaciers in those mountains steadily decline. And, decade by decade, the snows get later and melt earlier. Agriculture in many places depend in the late summer on the snow melt for water. And that is disappearing.

Small family farms here are having a hard time. Really sad is that some have signed with Monsanto, Butterball and other mega-farming corps who then control every breath they draw for ever.

They're promised a workable plan to keep The Family Farm but it's a lot like the reverse mortgage scam. The 1% makes a fat profit while the little ends up in a de facto serfdom.

And of course, the cheeto loves it. Check the WH site for his raving about how being owned by the wealthy benefits the working class.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[CeeCee]

Thanks for the info OldLady, I just haven't really researched this subject too much and I know as a conservative what my views should be, lol but I don't follow the left or right agenda to a T.

If it's true, I will admit it...I'm not there yet though.

It's not one of those things I spend a lot of time thinking about either.

As I am working on a degree in geology, at 73, it is something I think about a lot. And having banged around in the mountains, Cascades, North Cascades, Blues, Wallowas, Rockies, Sierra Nevadas, and even the Canadian Rockies, I have seen, since the 1960's, the snow fields and glaciers in those mountains steadily decline. And, decade by decade, the snows get later and melt earlier. Agriculture in many places depend in the late summer on the snow melt for water. And that is disappearing.

Small family farms here are having a hard time. Really sad is that some have signed with Monsanto, Butterball and other mega-farming corps who then control every breath they draw for ever.

They're promised a workable plan to keep The Family Farm but it's a lot like the reverse mortgage scam. The 1% makes a fat profit while the little ends up in a de facto serfdom.

And of course, the cheeto loves it. Check the WH site for his raving about how being owned by the wealthy benefits the working class.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Sorry but I won't even bother reading something when I see it refers to the President as "the cheeto", I didn't vote for Obama but never called him anything except his name.

 

[mamooth]

You're still not getting this. One of 2 probable reasons for that. Either you're denser than Uranium OR you're pretending to be to troll me because you refute what I ACTUALLY said.

You can't speak to anyone who disagrees with you without melting down and hurling abuse. As none of us here have that problem with other people, clearly the problem is ...you. Any conversation you enter turns to shit. You have a talent for shutting down intelligent discussion.

YOU cannot actually comprehend that Climate variability shows up in paleo studies all over the world, like the Greenland higher resolution ice cores and dozens others that I've shown you from New Zealand and S. America and Indian Ocean. But it's MISSING from the HIGHLY FILTERED and lower resolution GLOBAL studies.

Of course it's smoother, because that's how statistics work when you take an average. You being unable to comprehend basic statistics and science doesn't mean there's a global conspiracy to commit fraud.

In that sense -- you're WORST than SDDS with his rejection of GH physics. Because I've TOLD you why that is. And you don't WANT to even discuss it. EVERYONE should be very careful about providing PROOF of ANYTHING from paleo proxy temp studies..

I've consistently been discussing the flaws in your logic, and you don't want to acknowledge it. Why? My guess is that you can't justify your position, and you know it.

Whatever shit you spewed as my position above is just nonsense. I didn't EVER say it..
Not wasting time on your "hobby" of trolling me personally..

Let me summarize your standard argument.

"BWAKBWAKBWAKBWAKBWAKBWAKBWAKBWAK".

You're just a chickenshit. You can't address the takedowns of your shit cult pseudoscience, so you run , screaming "Waa! I didn't say that!" to cover your retreat.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene -- after the end of the last Ice Age -- global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)
(From: The Hockey Stick Graph Reality)

It has been discredited and Marcott admitted:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Warmist/alarmists have a very hard time letting go of useless papers long shown to flawed.