Lifting the Skirt of Climate Change Censorship..

[flacaltenn]

Looks like a lot of new Climate Science is blossoming in the open these days. The NYTimes is copping to 12,000 year old -- RAPID warming being part of a mass extinction.. How the hell did THAT get thru review and Phil Jones and crew??

So much for unprecendented rates of warming eh? Wasn't a single microscopic dit in those MarCott proxy studies to indicate anything like this..

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/s...l-warming.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

The authors of the study from the University of Adelaide in Australia, with help from scientists from South America and elsewhere, found that the presence of humans in Patagonia was not enough to drive extinction, but the one-two punch of humans and a warmer climate led to the collapse of many species.

Humans had been in Patagonia for at least 1,000 years before this mass extinction, and they overlapped with megafauna during a cold period known as the Antarctic Cold Reversal. After that climatic period, a rapid warming phase followed, and much of the ice that carpeted the region began to melt, allowing for a beech tree forest to creep across the land, reducing their original habitat.

And it all happened pretty quickly: The scientists found that the extinction of these big animals occurred within a relatively narrow time frame — about 300 years. Of the area’s large mammal species, 83 percent died out, including some that the scientists discovered in the course of their work. The researchers also identified a species of puma related to some cats still around today.

I have virtually no confidence that the got magnitude or duration of the climate warming correct here. But it sure is fun to watch how the "debate" has opened up recently...

 

[Crick]

I would suggest it got through because there is no censorship beyond the requirements of good science.

 

[Olde Europe]

The NYTimes is copping to 12,000 year old -- RAPID warming being part of a mass extinction.. How the hell did THAT get thru review and Phil Jones and crew??

So much for unprecendented rates of warming eh?

Yeah, there is a report on the end of a cold spell in Patagonia, and that's why global warming today cannot be "unprecendented" (SIC). Once integrity has gone overboard, there no longer is any use for logic, and so it's just consistent to give it the over-the-shoulder-toss as well.

The denialingdongs are particularly desperate these days. That may well be because some more of their patron saints, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, have been shown to be paid stooges and propagandists for the FF industry. Serves them right.

 

[flacaltenn]

The NYTimes is copping to 12,000 year old -- RAPID warming being part of a mass extinction.. How the hell did THAT get thru review and Phil Jones and crew??

So much for unprecendented rates of warming eh?

Yeah, there is a report on the end of a cold spell in Patagonia, and that's why global warming today cannot be "unprecendented" (SIC). Once integrity has gone overboard, there no longer is any use for logic, and so it's just consistent to give it the over-the-shoulder-toss as well.

The denialingdongs are particularly desperate these days. That may well be because some more of their patron saints, such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer, have been shown to be paid stooges and propagandists for the FF industry. Serves them right.

Can't imagine how uninformed on the topic you must be if you did not get the reference to all the exaggerated claims that came out of the "hockey stick" studies about how "UNPRECEDENTED" our modern warming rate and magnitude has been.. When in reality -- the authors full well knew that their data lacked the resolution to determine most ANYTHING about "rate". AND --- uninformed because you couldn't go more than a sentence ON THE TOPIC without reverting to political slime and spin..

 

[Crick]

The instrumented data certainly do not lack resolution. The historical data, showing similar rises over thousands or millions of years - reflecting actual, natural chemical and geological processes that are understood to take that long to produce those changes do NOT show such events. The denier supposition that rapid spikes of temperature such as those we see now, occurred repeatedly in the past, would have a touch more significance had deniers ever come up with a natural process that could have produced the current event, much less unseen and unevidenced hypotheticals in the distant past.

 

[jc456]

The instrumented data certainly do not lack resolution. The historical data, showing similar rises over thousands or millions of years - reflecting actual, natural chemical and geological processes that are understood to take that long to produce those changes do NOT show such events. The denier supposition that rapid spikes of temperature such as those we see now, occurred repeatedly in the past, would have a touch more significance had deniers ever come up with a natural process that could have produced the current event, much less unseen and unevidenced hypotheticals in the distant past.

WTF does this even mean? Can you see spikes in historical data yes or no?

 

[Crick]

Can you explain why you think there ought to be spikes there? If you're going to assume that anything that can't be seen in the data must be there, you need to apply for citizenship to La-La Land.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can you explain why you think there ought to be spikes there? If you're going to assume that anything that can't be seen in the data must be there, you need to apply for citizenship to La-La Land.

Read the fucking OP.. Go find out how they determined the RAPID WARMING 12,000 years ago occurred over just 300 years. NOT ONE of the hockey stick proxy studies would have FOUND a 300 event capable of extinctions. Was never a possibility with the sketchy data sets that were used.

You're hopeless. Round and round and you STILL don't get that all those hockey sticks are NO BETTER than just graphs of long-term AVERAGE temps or CO2 or whatever. They have no ability to show events accurately shorter than 400 or 500 year duration..

Not doing this with you again. Because you're not getting it..

 

[Crick]

Abstract
The causes of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions (60,000 to 11,650 years ago, hereafter 60 to 11.65 ka) remain contentious, with major phases coinciding with both human arrival and climate change around the world. The Americas provide a unique opportunity to disentangle these factors as human colonization took place over a narrow time frame (~15 to 14.6 ka) but during contrasting temperature trends across each continent. Unfortunately, limited data sets in South America have so far precluded detailed comparison. We analyze genetic and radiocarbon data from 89 and 71 Patagonian megafaunal bones, respectively, more than doubling the high-quality Pleistocene megafaunal radiocarbon data sets from the region. We identify a narrow megafaunal extinction phase 12,280 ± 110 years ago, some 1 to 3 thousand years after initial human presence in the area. Although humans arrived immediately prior to a cold phase, the Antarctic Cold Reversal stadial, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until the stadial finished and the subsequent warming phase commenced some 1 to 3 thousand years later. The increased resolution provided by the Patagonian material reveals that the sequence of climate and extinction events in North and South America were temporally inverted, but in both cases, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until human presence and climate warming coincided. Overall, metapopulation processes involving subpopulation connectivity on a continental scale appear to have been critical for megafaunal species survival of both climate change and human impacts.

The paper is freely available, though the graphics are not. The paper shows a warming period that begins appproximate 12,800 years bp and peaks approximatey 14,300. So no one is claiming to have seen a 300 year warming pulse.

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

 

[Olde Europe]

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

I thought that was pretty obvious.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate climate science (climate is not really analyzed in the article, just the background for a multifactorial extinction event), but, delicately put, to "Lift[] the Skirt of Climate Change Censorship". As our reactionary denialingdongs know - know! - whenever they lift a skirt, there is filth to be discovered underneath.

And that is why a regional warming event spanning 1,500+ years proves (!) that global warming events of 300 years cannot be detected, which in turn proves (!) that the current global warming cannot be unprecedented in scale and speed, and that in turn proves (!) that the whole "hockeyshtick" is as fraudulent as is all of climate science. Neat argument, that. It makes no sense, but if a denialingdong wills it, so it has to be.

You nailed it, perfectly, methinks, here:

The denier supposition that rapid spikes of temperature such as those we see now, occurred repeatedly in the past, would have a touch more significance had deniers ever come up with a natural process that could have produced the current event, much less unseen and unevidenced hypotheticals in the distant past.

Precisely, because talking in terms of science, cause and effect, requires a cause to effect changes, but the denialingdongs are perfectly happy with imagining an undetected effect that mysteriously came to pass, uncaused. All in the service of the denial hucksterism.

 

[jc456]

Can you explain why you think there ought to be spikes there? If you're going to assume that anything that can't be seen in the data must be there, you need to apply for citizenship to La-La Land.

how else do you compare spikes now with historical records then? Can you pull up studies that show monthly temperatures, or yearly temperatures, or hundreds of year temperatures? What is the current length of the hockey stick, 30 years? So do you have ice cores or tree rings that can show a 30 year breakdown? Spikes is what this entire fking argument is about and there is absolutely no way for you to show there weren't spikes during a thousand year core or ring. Or, are you saying they are there? please enlighten us.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Abstract
The causes of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions (60,000 to 11,650 years ago, hereafter 60 to 11.65 ka) remain contentious, with major phases coinciding with both human arrival and climate change around the world. The Americas provide a unique opportunity to disentangle these factors as human colonization took place over a narrow time frame (~15 to 14.6 ka) but during contrasting temperature trends across each continent. Unfortunately, limited data sets in South America have so far precluded detailed comparison. We analyze genetic and radiocarbon data from 89 and 71 Patagonian megafaunal bones, respectively, more than doubling the high-quality Pleistocene megafaunal radiocarbon data sets from the region. We identify a narrow megafaunal extinction phase 12,280 ± 110 years ago, some 1 to 3 thousand years after initial human presence in the area. Although humans arrived immediately prior to a cold phase, the Antarctic Cold Reversal stadial, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until the stadial finished and the subsequent warming phase commenced some 1 to 3 thousand years later. The increased resolution provided by the Patagonian material reveals that the sequence of climate and extinction events in North and South America were temporally inverted, but in both cases, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until human presence and climate warming coincided. Overall, metapopulation processes involving subpopulation connectivity on a continental scale appear to have been critical for megafaunal species survival of both climate change and human impacts.

The paper is freely available, though the graphics are not. The paper shows a warming period that begins appproximate 12,800 years bp and peaks approximatey 14,300. So no one is claiming to have seen a 300 year warming pulse.

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

Like a parrot, they can repeat but have zero understanding of what they repeat.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

I thought that was pretty obvious.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate climate science (climate is not really analyzed in the article, just the background for a multifactorial extinction event), but, delicately put, to "Lift[] the Skirt of Climate Change Censorship". As our reactionary denialingdongs know - know! - whenever they lift a skirt, there is filth to be discovered underneath.

And that is why a regional warming event spanning 1,500+ years proves (!) that global warming events of 300 years cannot be detected, which in turn proves (!) that the current global warming cannot be unprecedented in scale and speed, and that in turn proves (!) that the whole "hockeyshtick" is as fraudulent as is all of climate science. Neat argument, that. It makes no sense, but if a denialingdong wills it, so it has to be.

You nailed it, perfectly, methinks, here:

The denier supposition that rapid spikes of temperature such as those we see now, occurred repeatedly in the past, would have a touch more significance had deniers ever come up with a natural process that could have produced the current event, much less unseen and unevidenced hypotheticals in the distant past.

Precisely, because talking in terms of science, cause and effect, requires a cause to effect changes, but the denialingdongs are perfectly happy with imagining an undetected effect that mysteriously came to pass, uncaused. All in the service of the denial hucksterism.

Holy Moose Crick -- You are such a HUGE WASTE OF TIME.. It's in the NY Times quote in the OP.....

I already READ the abstract and it didn't explain HOW they found a 300 year temperature event serious enough to melt FUCKING CONTINENTS full of ice and contribute to an extinction.. Did the NYTimes get that wrong????

But you were no help --- you made it worse by taking swings at me..

 

[Crick]

I didn't address a single comment at you. Show us data showing a 300 year warming pulse. From the abstract I posted, 300 years would refer to the period of colonization. Warming went from 11,800 BP to 14,400 BP. See: Synergistic roles of climate warming and human occupation in Patagonian megafaunal extinctions during the Last Deglaciation | Science Advances

 

[Crick]

Abstract
The causes of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions (60,000 to 11,650 years ago, hereafter 60 to 11.65 ka) remain contentious, with major phases coinciding with both human arrival and climate change around the world. The Americas provide a unique opportunity to disentangle these factors as human colonization took place over a narrow time frame (~15 to 14.6 ka) but during contrasting temperature trends across each continent. Unfortunately, limited data sets in South America have so far precluded detailed comparison. We analyze genetic and radiocarbon data from 89 and 71 Patagonian megafaunal bones, respectively, more than doubling the high-quality Pleistocene megafaunal radiocarbon data sets from the region. We identify a narrow megafaunal extinction phase 12,280 ± 110 years ago, some 1 to 3 thousand years after initial human presence in the area. Although humans arrived immediately prior to a cold phase, the Antarctic Cold Reversal stadial, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until the stadial finished and the subsequent warming phase commenced some 1 to 3 thousand years later. The increased resolution provided by the Patagonian material reveals that the sequence of climate and extinction events in North and South America were temporally inverted, but in both cases, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until human presence and climate warming coincided. Overall, metapopulation processes involving subpopulation connectivity on a continental scale appear to have been critical for megafaunal species survival of both climate change and human impacts.

The paper is freely available, though the graphics are not. The paper shows a warming period that begins appproximate 12,800 years bp and peaks approximatey 14,300. So no one is claiming to have seen a 300 year warming pulse.

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

Like a parrot, they can repeat but have zero understanding of what they repeat.

Have you all been LaDexterized? Show me something in that abstract, Mr Weatherman, that my comments indicate I've misunderstood

 

[Weatherman2020]

Abstract
The causes of Late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions (60,000 to 11,650 years ago, hereafter 60 to 11.65 ka) remain contentious, with major phases coinciding with both human arrival and climate change around the world. The Americas provide a unique opportunity to disentangle these factors as human colonization took place over a narrow time frame (~15 to 14.6 ka) but during contrasting temperature trends across each continent. Unfortunately, limited data sets in South America have so far precluded detailed comparison. We analyze genetic and radiocarbon data from 89 and 71 Patagonian megafaunal bones, respectively, more than doubling the high-quality Pleistocene megafaunal radiocarbon data sets from the region. We identify a narrow megafaunal extinction phase 12,280 ± 110 years ago, some 1 to 3 thousand years after initial human presence in the area. Although humans arrived immediately prior to a cold phase, the Antarctic Cold Reversal stadial, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until the stadial finished and the subsequent warming phase commenced some 1 to 3 thousand years later. The increased resolution provided by the Patagonian material reveals that the sequence of climate and extinction events in North and South America were temporally inverted, but in both cases, megafaunal extinctions did not occur until human presence and climate warming coincided. Overall, metapopulation processes involving subpopulation connectivity on a continental scale appear to have been critical for megafaunal species survival of both climate change and human impacts.

The paper is freely available, though the graphics are not. The paper shows a warming period that begins appproximate 12,800 years bp and peaks approximatey 14,300. So no one is claiming to have seen a 300 year warming pulse.

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

Like a parrot, they can repeat but have zero understanding of what they repeat.

Have you all been LaDexterized? Show me something in that abstract, Mr Weatherman, that my comments indicate I've misunderstood

How about its bullshit to link a few thousand primatives to the extinction of species over two continents.

 

[mamooth]

I already READ the abstract and it didn't explain HOW they found a 300 year temperature event serious enough to melt FUCKING CONTINENTS full of ice and contribute to an extinction.. Did the NYTimes get that wrong???

Flac thinks southern Patagonia is "continents", and that it went from full ice to full melt.

It's amusing, how badly he misunderstands what he "reads". That's what happens when you let denier blogs tell you what a study supposedly says.

And even more amusing is how he's clinging to his "You can't absolutely disprove my magic, so my magic must be true!" reasoning.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why does it seem to be so hard for you people to click a few links to get to a study; seemingly preferring to content yourself with an article ABOUT a study

I thought that was pretty obvious.

The purpose of this thread is not to debate climate science (climate is not really analyzed in the article, just the background for a multifactorial extinction event), but, delicately put, to "Lift[] the Skirt of Climate Change Censorship". As our reactionary denialingdongs know - know! - whenever they lift a skirt, there is filth to be discovered underneath.

And that is why a regional warming event spanning 1,500+ years proves (!) that global warming events of 300 years cannot be detected, which in turn proves (!) that the current global warming cannot be unprecedented in scale and speed, and that in turn proves (!) that the whole "hockeyshtick" is as fraudulent as is all of climate science. Neat argument, that. It makes no sense, but if a denialingdong wills it, so it has to be.

You nailed it, perfectly, methinks, here:

The denier supposition that rapid spikes of temperature such as those we see now, occurred repeatedly in the past, would have a touch more significance had deniers ever come up with a natural process that could have produced the current event, much less unseen and unevidenced hypotheticals in the distant past.

Precisely, because talking in terms of science, cause and effect, requires a cause to effect changes, but the denialingdongs are perfectly happy with imagining an undetected effect that mysteriously came to pass, uncaused. All in the service of the denial hucksterism.

Wow -- nice rant. But I'm concerned your gonna pull a cranial hernia with all that juggling of 1500 yrs and 300 yrs without actually READING the article.. Crick for some odd reason said there were no illustrations --- but that's just Crick.. Let's see what this "THEORY" actually states..

In the paper they announce the BEGINNING of the extinctions occurs at the VERY BEGINNING of the warming trend after the Cold Snap. And from the chart -- you can see that period from the bottom of the cold snap to the beginning of the extinctions is LESS THAN 500 yrs -- maybe 300 to 500 with their temporal uncertainties. So the 1500 year duration is irrelevant to their theory. Since there needed to be sufficient warming in a 300 to 500 year period to trigger all those enviro changes that they imagine happened. I find all of this very unconvincing for several reasons.

1) At the mean time period of the extinctions, the 18 01 proxy is not even to the same level it was PRIOR to the ACR.. The ACR was a short departure from the Holocene trend of warming. And the extinctions occurred at temperatures BELOW what is suggested by the peak at 14,500 BCE..

2) There is no consideration of OTHER pressures on those species other than mankind and a thermometer. And I find it hard to believe that a couple thousand humans or 4 or 5 degrees in very cold lands were the ONLY evolutionary pressures.

So YES --- their theory REQUIRES extraordinary warming over a VERY SHORT (climatologically speaking) period of time. And you should stop making yourself look completely FOOLISH by spending 80% of your posts guessing about about what I know and what I mangled. You'll turn into an babbling retard like Mammy if you keep that up.. And nobody will want to play with you...

 

[Crick]

So your 300 year warm pulse is suppositional. Got it.

I'm curious how you got that graphic. It was in a protected PDF when I found it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can you explain why you think there ought to be spikes there? If you're going to assume that anything that can't be seen in the data must be there, you need to apply for citizenship to La-La Land.

Read the fucking OP.. Go find out how they determined the RAPID WARMING 12,000 years ago occurred over just 300 years. NOT ONE of the hockey stick proxy studies would have FOUND a 300 event capable of extinctions. Was never a possibility with the sketchy data sets that were used.

You're hopeless. Round and round and you STILL don't get that all those hockey sticks are NO BETTER than just graphs of long-term AVERAGE temps or CO2 or whatever. They have no ability to show events accurately shorter than 400 or 500 year duration..

Not doing this with you again. Because you're not getting it..

First, none of the hockey stick studies went back further than 2000 years. Second, the proxies used that determined the cooling and warming event known as the Younger Dryas were the fossils of large mammals, and the cessation of any of them being found above certain levels. And, yes, we can date many events of that magnitude of age accurately by dating volcanic ash layers.