MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[ding]

Crick furthermore, this graphic you keep posting shows that the planet is at about the same temperature as it was 10,000 years ago with atmospheric CO2 that is 120 ppm higher than 10,000 years ago.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given the facts, there is nothing to debate.

Glad you could admit your error.

 

[Crick]

I do admit my errors. Not there, but when I make them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Crick furthermore, this graphic you keep posting shows that the planet is at about the same temperature as it was 10,000 years ago with atmospheric CO2 that is 120 ppm higher than 10,000 years ago.

View attachment 645518

What's the blue blade of the "hockey stick"?
1.0 C? Over what period of time?

 

[ding]

What's the blue blade of the "hockey stick"?
1.0 C? Over what period of time?

I'm assuming 200 to 300 years. From the coldest point in 10,000 years to the warmest point which just so happened to be about what it was 10,000 years ago.

But what they don't tell you is that it happened all the time over the last 400,000 years and it wasn't due to CO2 or orbital forcings. It's total bullshit.

 

[Crick]

What's the blue blade of the "hockey stick"?
1.0 C? Over what period of time?

The graph has a legend. The proxy work was done in two studies, one by Shaun Marcotte (the latter 11,300 years) and one by Jeremy Shakun (from 22,000 years to 11,000 years. The uptick consists of HadCrut data to the present followed by an A18 scenario climate model to the year 2100. So, neither of you noticed the legend at the top? I think now is where I'm supposed to make some crack about your ability to read graphs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The graph has a legend. The proxy work was done in two studies, one by Shaun Marcotte (the latter 11,300 years) and one by Jeremy Shakun (from 22,000 years to 11,000 years. The uptick consists of HadCrut data to the present followed by an A18 scenario climate model to the year 2100. So, neither of you noticed the legend at the top? I think now is where I'm supposed to make some crack about your ability to read graphs.

I saw the legend. So fucking what?

Is it 1.0 C? Over what period of time?

 

[ding]

The graph has a legend. The proxy work was done in two studies, one by Shaun Marcotte (the latter 11,300 years) and one by Jeremy Shakun (from 22,000 years to 11,000 years. The uptick consists of HadCrut data to the present followed by an A18 scenario climate model to the year 2100. So, neither of you noticed the legend at the top? I think now is where I'm supposed to make some crack about your ability to read graphs.

The only person I've seen that is more desperate to look smart than you is PV Systems.

The funny thing is that you still don't understand his question. I did and I answered it.

 

[westwall]

Soylent Green was about overpopulation, not climate change and it was NOT a mockumentary.

You clearly haven't watched it.

 

[westwall]

The primary cause of the currently observed warming is the Greenhouse Effect acting on human GHG emissions.

So provide some evidence.

So far you have provided nothing but opinion, and computer models, which equals squadoosh.

 

[Crick]

So provide some evidence.

So far you have provided nothing but opinion, and computer models, which equals squadoosh.

www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis.

99% of the world's climate scientists find this more than enough evidence. Besides, what evidence have you presented?

 

[westwall]

www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis.

99% of the world's climate scientists find this more than enough evidence. Besides, what evidence have you presented?

That is opinion. Not evidence.

Do you know the difference?

 

[Sunsettommy]

To ignore the radically increased warming of the last century is behavior worthy of an ostrich with its head in the sand. Here is the latest reconstruction of global temperatures over the Holocene. 1) The world has not consistently been warming over that period and 2) If you think that uptick at the end falls in with the trend of the rest of the Holocene, you're delusional

View attachment 645047




I'm afraid that simply isn't so.

View attachment 645048



If Mars and Earth were both undergoing the same temperature variation, the obvious cause would have to be the sun. Data on total solar irradiance does NOT support the sun being a cause for warming. The origin of the idea you present is a 2005 paper by Fenton. He compared photographs of the surface from 1977 and 1999. Interpolating between these two rather distant endpoints led him to mistake weather for climate. A broader study of conditions on the planet since human observations began show NO EVIDENCE of warming. See Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

Crick in the belly still lies using several discredited papers of Marcott and Shakun for that dishonest chart that graft yearly temperature data onto proxy data.

You have been shown repeatedly why they are no good and you continue to use them anyway.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You're beginning to make me think you have no interest in actual debate.

View attachment 645494

Your chart is a giant pile of shit!

I posted hard evidence many times why it is garbage, but you persist in posting anyway because you can't find anything else, and you are determined to lie about a non-problem.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I do admit my errors. Not there, but when I make them.

You make easy to prove errors every day that is why so many here are all over your bullshit.

 

[Crick]

Crick in the belly still lies using several discredited papers of Marcott and Shakun for that dishonest chart that graft yearly temperature data onto proxy data.

You have been shown repeatedly why they are no good and you continue to use them anyway.

Show us ONE LINK to anything even vaguely resembling a refutation of Marcotte or Shakun's Holocene work.

 

[ding]

Show us ONE LINK to anything even vaguely resembling a refutation of Marcotte or Shakun's Holocene work.

You mean other than the fact that they only looked at one climate fluctuation when in reality the geologic record is littered with them?

Congratulations, they have proven the climate of a bipolar world fluctuates. What they failed to show was this was just one of many and that it is perfectly natural to have warming and cooling trends in interglacial cycles.

The saw tooth behavior of temperature changes over the past 400,000 years can be seen with your own eyes.

 

[Crick]

Show us ONE LINK to anything even vaguely resembling a refutation of Marcotte or Shakun's Holocene work.

Still waiting.

 

[ding]

I just did.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Show us ONE LINK to anything even vaguely resembling a refutation of Marcotte or Shakun's Holocene work.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You can't remember shit!

I QUOTED Marcott own words and posted it over a DOZEN times and here you are asking for a link...... again!



Here it is again!

Post 59 and just 10 weeks ago.

I guess I should have pointed out that "reliable source" would be another peer reviewed study by Marcott's peers or betters (something like the 136 papers that cited Marcott et al 2013), not a denier blog. Roger Pielke Jr. has a bachelor's in math. The rest of his education is in public policy and political science. He lacks any qualification to judge Marcott's work and this article is nothing but a critique of Marcott's presentations.

You haven't got shit.
Click to expand...

"You as usual didn't bother to read Bobs SOURCE link where it shows what Marcott himself states about that uptick:

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 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."

===

Marcott's ORIGINAL chart:

===

3 1/2 years ago YOU saw this at Post 21.

Marcott ADMITTED that the Instrumental part of his chart is NO GOOD!

Shakun's paper is junk science since he did some serious statistical malpractice as shown in detail HERE and failed to be honest about the CO2 data as shown HERE.

Number of citations are irrelevant, reproducibility with full data access is.

=====

and Post 65 you saw 9 weeks ago,

"The Shakun paper has been exposed as nonsense, in a series of 4 posts here is the last one of the four:

Shakun The Last, I Hope​

"In three previous posts here, here, and here, I discussed problems with the paper by Shakun et al., “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” (PDF, hereinafter S2012)"

===

Post 32 3 1/2 years ago YOU saw this,


"This is why you are so gosh darn ignorant!

You didn't even try to see what Willis exposed with the CO2 deception and the temperature proxy data that was all over the map. It was played out in his 4 postings using Shakun's own data and additional data, Shakun deliberately left out. Since you continue to refuse to see what he presents, you have no idea what he exposed, which is why you are a fool for being so closeminded.

Here is a key part in why Willis effectively destroyed the Shakun paper:

"Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.

Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.

Figure 2 shows the surprise …



Figure 2. As in Figure 1. Black circles show Shakun2012 CO2. Additional colored dots show the ice core CO2 records which have data from 26,000 BC to the present.

Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …

I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight millennia …"

Meanwhile your education and Authority fallacy is a truly stupid argument to make since it doesn't prove anything. It is all about the efficacy of the argument that matters, which you are losing very badly here since you REFUSE to see the valid criticism laid against DR. Shakun's garbage paper. I am sure you will ignore DR. Easterbrook's TWO PART review of the Shakun paper since he finds serious problems with it.

HERE

HERE

Your deflection has failed since you NEVER have answered several questions I posed for you, that Polar Bears are NOT in decline even with that significant drop in ice cover extent. That you ignore research showing that Polar Bears get most of their calories for the year from March-July when there are ALWAYS sufficient sea ice cover. You keep ignoring published research of little to NO sea ice cover in the Summer for centuries, while Polar Bears and Eskimos survived and the world was not devasated.

You make clear you prefer far into the future models over valid research and ignore inconvenient research that destroys your warmist/alarmist claims."

===

You can't remember shit and you never address what I posted either just ignore or deny it.

You are one of the few warmist/alarmist idiots left who continues use those long discredited papers today.