Let's see the evidence

[Crick]

You have not explained to me how he tried to hide anything. The only discussion I recall regarded chronological resolution and whether or not it was honest for he and Marcott to have verbally tacked instrument records onto the tail end of their proxy numbers.

 

[IanC]

Shakun 2012-

proxy temps in blue, CO2 from Monnin 2001. why did Shakun only graph from 22,000BP to 6,000BP? that was the time frame he was interested in. what happens if you show the data up to the present?

add in some more CO2 proxy results (I dont know why he didnt add the rest of Monnin, it follows the same pattern)

temps go down, CO2 goes up. how inconvenient, let's just leave it out. if you find it hard to see the downward trend in the proxy temps, well, that's because they dont have very good resolution even if most proxy graphs are presented with skinny little lines. the Shakun graph is +/- 1SD, I think. edit- the red line is an Antarctic ice core, so it is more legitimately a narrow line, you can even see the spikes.

 

[Politico]

I want to see the Warmer's data depicting society in 2080 after having been deprived of hydrocarbons for 65 years.

That is with the data from 1980 that said Florida would be underwater 10 years ago.

 

[IanC]

I want to see the Warmer's data depicting society in 2080 after having been deprived of hydrocarbons for 65 years.

That is with the data from 1980 that said Florida would be underwater 10 years ago.

too bad they took away the 'funny' icon! your comment was

 

[Politico]

Agreed. They are hilarious!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick lame excuses:

1. The 800,000 year data set is local and never once reflected global conditions, not once
2. The 800,000 year data set is in error because Shankun used proxies accurate only to within 100,000 years to clearly demonstrate how CO2 drove the climate that was improperly reflected in the immediate and side by side temperature/CO2 readings from the Ice cores
3. DENIER!!! JUST FUCKING DIE!!!!

No Frank, that was not the fact to which I was referring, though #1 is correct.

The point is there were no humans burning fossil fuel prior to about 1750. So how CO2 in the atmosphere behaved and related to temperatures prior to that point has no bearing on how CO2, being released by the human combustion of fossil fuels, at a rate that hasn't been seen on this planet for 20 million years, will behave. It's the same point Mamooth was just trying to make with "Frank believes humans can't cause forest fires".

800,000 years and it was always exclusively local and never once reflected global temperatures

You are truly insane

Can you not read?

I can read, that's how I know you're a pathological liar

 

[Crick]

Shakun 2012-

proxy temps in blue, CO2 from Monnin 2001. why did Shakun only graph from 22,000BP to 6,000BP? that was the time frame he was interested in. what happens if you show the data up to the present?

add in some more CO2 proxy results (I dont know why he didnt add the rest of Monnin, it follows the same pattern)

temps go down, CO2 goes up. how inconvenient, let's just leave it out. if you find it hard to see the downward trend in the proxy temps, well, that's because they dont have very good resolution even if most proxy graphs are presented with skinny little lines. the Shakun graph is +/- 1SD, I think. edit- the red line is an Antarctic ice core, so it is more legitimately a narrow line, you can even see the spikes.

Shakun's entire study was aimed at the early Holocene. The second portion was covered in the work he did jointly with Marcott.

 

[IanC]

Shakun 2012-

proxy temps in blue, CO2 from Monnin 2001. why did Shakun only graph from 22,000BP to 6,000BP? that was the time frame he was interested in. what happens if you show the data up to the present?

add in some more CO2 proxy results (I dont know why he didnt add the rest of Monnin, it follows the same pattern)

temps go down, CO2 goes up. how inconvenient, let's just leave it out. if you find it hard to see the downward trend in the proxy temps, well, that's because they dont have very good resolution even if most proxy graphs are presented with skinny little lines. the Shakun graph is +/- 1SD, I think. edit- the red line is an Antarctic ice core, so it is more legitimately a narrow line, you can even see the spikes.

Shakun's entire study was aimed at the early Holocene. The second portion was covered in the work he did jointly with Marcott.

yes, we discussed that paper too. I recently actually took a look at Marcott's thesis paper. before that I was under the assumption that it was just a proxy reconstruction. unfortunately it also had Mann's abortion pasted on to it. I originally just thought Marcott got suckered in by Shakun and Mann but I see now he is just as bad as the rest of them.

BTW, I was brought back to Marcott because his graph was one of the reconstructions that was used to show how modeled data gives the wrong shape in hindcasts.

 

[Crick]

If you believe his reconstruction is faulty, how can you criticize modelers for failing to match it?

Mann's work is not an abortion. It is correct. Shakun's and Marcott's and Mann's work are the best Holocene paleo-reconstructions in existence. When you've got better work that shows something different, come and talk to us.

 

[IanC]

If you believe his reconstruction is faulty, how can you criticize modelers for failing to match it?

Mann's work is not an abortion. It is correct. Shakun's and Marcott's and Mann's work are the best Holocene paleo-reconstructions in existence. When you've got better work that shows something different, come and talk to us.

the general shape of Holocene temperature reconstructions has been around for a long time, so we are not talking about the controversy of the last few hundred years. models get the shape wrong. I got the information from one of your graphs. didnt you read the article it came from?

 

[Crick]

What information? I want to see on what you base your opinion of the work of Mann, Shakun and Marcott.