More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[westwall]

Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover | Mail Online




peer reviewed FTMFW

So you counter with a daily mail article about waves and models?

Those might be right or they might be wrong! They are inconsequential.

The simple fact is, AGW or not, natural cycle or not, skeptics right or wrong, models right or wrong:

IF THE ARCTIC TEMPERATURE GOES UP 2 DEGREES CENTIGRADE

The permafrost melts, the methane is released, and we're up shit creek!

The Russian expert on the Siberian side of tundra has said REPEATEDLY that the bulk of the reserve frozen deposits is locked under shallow water and not likely to ever be "unfrozen" unless the WORST temp scenarios are realized. HOWEVER --- he's also cautioned that the far greater threat to a massive release would be the hefty SEISMIC faults that run right thru the area..

Wouldn't that be a *****?? Gives you somethiing new and more likely to worry about for awhile while you prepare plans to leave this junker of a planet that you inherited from the Romulans..

I know, have you ever noticed how these guys can never look at the Earth and just appreciate how beautiful it is? Everything is doom and gloom with these silly people. They must be a real blast to hang out with

 

[PMZ]

So you counter with a daily mail article about waves and models?

Those might be right or they might be wrong! They are inconsequential.

The simple fact is, AGW or not, natural cycle or not, skeptics right or wrong, models right or wrong:

IF THE ARCTIC TEMPERATURE GOES UP 2 DEGREES CENTIGRADE

The permafrost melts, the methane is released, and we're up shit creek!

The Russian expert on the Siberian side of tundra has said REPEATEDLY that the bulk of the reserve frozen deposits is locked under shallow water and not likely to ever be "unfrozen" unless the WORST temp scenarios are realized. HOWEVER --- he's also cautioned that the far greater threat to a massive release would be the hefty SEISMIC faults that run right thru the area..

Wouldn't that be a *****?? Gives you somethiing new and more likely to worry about for awhile while you prepare plans to leave this junker of a planet that you inherited from the Romulans..

I know, have you ever noticed how these guys can never look at the Earth and just appreciate how beautiful it is? Everything is doom and gloom with these silly people. They must be a real blast to hang out with

We'd like to keep it beautiful.

 

[Impenitent]

That's funny. There's zero evidence that that occurred during the Holocene Thermal Maximum which was MUCH warmer than the present day. Your little prognostications seem to be not too accurate based on events in the not too distant past.

No, thankfully, that didn't happen in Holocene maximum, when temps were approx 1 degree c. warmer than they are now.
Although you say "much" warmer. Is that empirical data?

But at temps 2 degrees higher than now, the permafrost will melt. *We're that close! *

And there is evidence that the maximum didn't bring that high temps to the Arctic in the past, and that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than other parts of the globe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/321121-study-shows-unprecedented-warmth-in-arctic.html

There is 1200 Gton of methane in the Arctic permafrost, compared to 5 Gton in the atmosphere. *The potential threat is real.

Get ready prepper!

Oh, they were much warmer than that... You need to get your facts straight there mister.



"Abstract

We analyze the global variations in the timing and magnitude of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and their dependence on various forcings in transient simulations covering the last 9000 years (9 ka), performed with a global atmosphere-ocean-vegetation model. In these experiments, we consider the influence of variations in orbital parameters and atmospheric greenhouse gases and the early-Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice sheet (LIS). Considering the LIS deglaciation, we quantify separately the impacts of the background melt-water fluxes and the changes in topography and surface albedo.

In the analysis we focus on the intensity of the maximum temperature deviation relative to the preindustrial level, its timing in the Holocene, and the seasonal expression. In the model, the warmest HTM conditions are found at high latitudes in both hemispheres, reaching 5 °C above the preindustrial level, while the smallest HTM signal is seen over tropical oceans (less than 0.5 °C). This latitudinal contrast is mostly related to the nature of the orbitally-forced insolation forcing, which is also largest at high latitudes, and further enhanced by the polar amplification. The Holocene timing of the HTM is earliest (before 8 ka BP) in regions not affected by the remnant LIS, particularly NW North America, E Asia, N Africa, N South America, the Middle East, NE Siberia and Australia. Compared to the early Holocene insolation maximum, the HTM was delayed by 2–3 ka over NE North America, and regions directly downwind from the LIS. A similar delay is simulated over the Southern Ocean, while an intermediate lag of about 1 ka is found over most other continents and oceans. The seasonal timing of the HTM over continents generally occurs in the same month as the maximum insolation anomaly, whereas over oceans the HTM is delayed by 2–3 months. Exceptions are the oceans covered by sea ice and North Africa, were additional feedbacks results in a different seasonal timing. The simulated timing and magnitude of the HTM are generally consistent with global proxy evidence, with some notable exceptions in the Mediterranean region, SW North America and eastern Eurasia."




Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum

And....
The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia






Salonen, JS; Seppa, H; Valiranta, M; Jones, VJ; Self, A; Heikkila, M; ... Yang, HD; + view all (2011) The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia. QUATERNARY RES , 75 (3) 501 - 511. 10.1016/j.yqres.2011.01.007.


Full text not available from this repository.


Abstract

To investigate the Holocene climate and treeline dynamics in the European Russian Arctic, we analysed sediment pollen, conifer stomata, and plant macrofossils from Lake Kharinei, a tundra lake near the treeline in the Pechora area. We present quantitative summer temperature reconstructions from Lake Kharinei and lake Tumbulovaty, a previously studied lake in the same region, using a pollen-climate transfer function based on a new calibration set from northern European Russia. Our records suggest that the early-Holocene summer temperatures from 11,500 cal yr BP onwards were already slightly higher than at present, followed by a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) at 8000-3500 cal yr BP when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3 degrees C above present-day values. A Picea forest surrounded Lake Kharinei during the HTM, reaching 150 km north of the present taiga limit. The HIM ended with a temperature drop at 3500-2500 cal yr BP associated with permafrost initiation in the region. Mixed spruce forest began to disappear around lake Kharinei at ca. 3500 cal yr BP, with the last tree macrofossils recorded at ca. 2500 cal yr BP. suggesting that the present wide tundra zone in the Pechora region formed during the last ca. 3500 yr. (C) 2011 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.



UCL Discovery - The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia

There are plenty more should you choose to educate yourself properly.

Dueling links. Do you have graphs of Arctic Holocene temperatures?

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

This shows only a 1 degree. C variationfr high to low.

Do you have an explanation why the permafrost methane was not released in the early Holocene?

 

[flacaltenn]

As a trigger mechanism,, CO2 is MAYBE good for a total 1degC until we reach about 600ppm.. If you believe that 1degC trigger is gonna explode the planet and accelerate into runaway climate destruction --- you need to seek medication..

Termites create more methane than is leaking from the tundra today.. And when most of N. America was covered in mile deep ice --- FAR MORE permafrost melting then than is available today.

You just need a sturdier planet to live on I reckon..

It's produced very close to 1C already, going from 280 to 400 ppm.

You keep forgetting the novelty of the current situation. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere has not risen this fast since the KT impact. Temperatures haven't risen this fast in likely just as long. That means the tundra will outgas faster than it ever has and, given the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, it will have more effect than it's ever had.

The amount the termites produce is large. But it's not changing. The melting tundra will be a significant change.

Let's work thru this repeated assertion of yours (calmly and cordially) that we know with great certainty what the RATES of temp. change were all the way to the KT.. I don't know where you got the impression that we can compare a 60yr ComEra period with a GLOBAL multi-proxy study of ANY type..

The time res of any kind of sediment sample is on the order of CENTURIES. Because the little buggers they are studying in the mud would BURROW thru that much mud and compression makes the time res WORSE the more ancient you go.

OTH -- tree rings have an IMPLIED annual resolution, but really suck at preserving and correlating the LOW freq. temp changes on the scale of 50 to 100 years or longer.

So -- when you set out to COMPARE rates of temp. changes over the globe, you are forced to MERGE all that crappy data because you cant drill ice cores in Burma and you can't get tree rings in the middle of the pac ocean.. ((BIG PROBLEM eh?? )) That's why trying to do A GLOBAL ancient temp record is such a stupid task. IMO -- the proxies are great for assessing consistent LOCAL temp records to give you glimpes of LOCAL temperature trends.

The most recent COMPREHENSIVE multi-proxy GLOBAL temp study was Marcott (2010 -- 2013?). And here's what THEY SAY about the time res of their "GLOBAL" proxies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

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.

That's pretty dam definitive --- dontcha think? Global studies are NOT gonna show rates at less than maybe 500 year temporal resolution..

So where the hell have you gotten the impression that we have complete faith in comparing our piddling little 60 year record of RATES to ANY of the Global multi-proxy studies?

You can point to SINGLE proxy studies (usually isotope ratios) that MIGHT give rates back a couple THOUSAND of years --- but that's about the limit.

 

[PMZ]

As a trigger mechanism,, CO2 is MAYBE good for a total 1degC until we reach about 600ppm.. If you believe that 1degC trigger is gonna explode the planet and accelerate into runaway climate destruction --- you need to seek medication..

Termites create more methane than is leaking from the tundra today.. And when most of N. America was covered in mile deep ice --- FAR MORE permafrost melting then than is available today.

You just need a sturdier planet to live on I reckon..

It's produced very close to 1C already, going from 280 to 400 ppm.

You keep forgetting the novelty of the current situation. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere has not risen this fast since the KT impact. Temperatures haven't risen this fast in likely just as long. That means the tundra will outgas faster than it ever has and, given the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, it will have more effect than it's ever had.

The amount the termites produce is large. But it's not changing. The melting tundra will be a significant change.

Let's work thru this repeated assertion of yours (calmly and cordially) that we know with great certainty what the RATES of temp. change were all the way to the KT.. I don't know where you got the impression that we can compare a 60yr ComEra period with a GLOBAL multi-proxy study of ANY type..

The time res of any kind of sediment sample is on the order of CENTURIES. Because the little buggers they are studying in the mud would BURROW thru that much mud and compression makes the time res WORSE the more ancient you go.

OTH -- tree rings have an IMPLIED annual resolution, but really suck at preserving and correlating the LOW freq. temp changes on the scale of 50 to 100 years.

So -- when you set out to COMPARE rates of temp. changes over the globe, you are forced to MERGE all that crappy data because you cant drill ice cores in Burma and you can't get tree rings in the middle of the pac ocean.. ((BIG PROBLEM eh?? )) That's why trying to do A GLOBAL ancient temp record is such a stupid task. IMO -- the proxies are great for assessing consistent LOCAL temp records to give you glimpes of temperature trends.

The most recent COMPREHENSIVE multi-proxy GLOBAL temp study was Marcott (2010 -- 2013?). And here's what THEY SAY about the time res of their "GLOBAL" proxies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

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.

That's pretty dam definitive --- dontcha think? Global studies are NOT gonna show rates at less than maybe 500 year temporal resolution..

So where the hell have you gotten the impression that we have complete faith in comparing our piddling little 60 year record of RATES to ANY of the Global multi-proxy studies?

You can point to SINGLE proxy studies (usually isotope ratios) that MIGHT give rates back a couple THOUSAND of years --- but that's about the limit.

You still hang on to your delusion that you are a world class scientist with access to world class resources and thereby can go head to head with the IPCC and Marcotte et al.

I don't know you but, to tell you the truth, it seems delusional.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, thankfully, that didn't happen in Holocene maximum, when temps were approx 1 degree c. warmer than they are now.
Although you say "much" warmer. Is that empirical data?

But at temps 2 degrees higher than now, the permafrost will melt. *We're that close! *

And there is evidence that the maximum didn't bring that high temps to the Arctic in the past, and that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than other parts of the globe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/321121-study-shows-unprecedented-warmth-in-arctic.html

There is 1200 Gton of methane in the Arctic permafrost, compared to 5 Gton in the atmosphere. *The potential threat is real.

Get ready prepper!

Oh, they were much warmer than that... You need to get your facts straight there mister.



"Abstract

We analyze the global variations in the timing and magnitude of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and their dependence on various forcings in transient simulations covering the last 9000 years (9 ka), performed with a global atmosphere-ocean-vegetation model. In these experiments, we consider the influence of variations in orbital parameters and atmospheric greenhouse gases and the early-Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice sheet (LIS). Considering the LIS deglaciation, we quantify separately the impacts of the background melt-water fluxes and the changes in topography and surface albedo.

In the analysis we focus on the intensity of the maximum temperature deviation relative to the preindustrial level, its timing in the Holocene, and the seasonal expression. In the model, the warmest HTM conditions are found at high latitudes in both hemispheres, reaching 5 °C above the preindustrial level, while the smallest HTM signal is seen over tropical oceans (less than 0.5 °C). This latitudinal contrast is mostly related to the nature of the orbitally-forced insolation forcing, which is also largest at high latitudes, and further enhanced by the polar amplification. The Holocene timing of the HTM is earliest (before 8 ka BP) in regions not affected by the remnant LIS, particularly NW North America, E Asia, N Africa, N South America, the Middle East, NE Siberia and Australia. Compared to the early Holocene insolation maximum, the HTM was delayed by 2–3 ka over NE North America, and regions directly downwind from the LIS. A similar delay is simulated over the Southern Ocean, while an intermediate lag of about 1 ka is found over most other continents and oceans. The seasonal timing of the HTM over continents generally occurs in the same month as the maximum insolation anomaly, whereas over oceans the HTM is delayed by 2–3 months. Exceptions are the oceans covered by sea ice and North Africa, were additional feedbacks results in a different seasonal timing. The simulated timing and magnitude of the HTM are generally consistent with global proxy evidence, with some notable exceptions in the Mediterranean region, SW North America and eastern Eurasia."




Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum

And....
The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia






Salonen, JS; Seppa, H; Valiranta, M; Jones, VJ; Self, A; Heikkila, M; ... Yang, HD; + view all (2011) The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia. QUATERNARY RES , 75 (3) 501 - 511. 10.1016/j.yqres.2011.01.007.


Full text not available from this repository.


Abstract

To investigate the Holocene climate and treeline dynamics in the European Russian Arctic, we analysed sediment pollen, conifer stomata, and plant macrofossils from Lake Kharinei, a tundra lake near the treeline in the Pechora area. We present quantitative summer temperature reconstructions from Lake Kharinei and lake Tumbulovaty, a previously studied lake in the same region, using a pollen-climate transfer function based on a new calibration set from northern European Russia. Our records suggest that the early-Holocene summer temperatures from 11,500 cal yr BP onwards were already slightly higher than at present, followed by a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) at 8000-3500 cal yr BP when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3 degrees C above present-day values. A Picea forest surrounded Lake Kharinei during the HTM, reaching 150 km north of the present taiga limit. The HIM ended with a temperature drop at 3500-2500 cal yr BP associated with permafrost initiation in the region. Mixed spruce forest began to disappear around lake Kharinei at ca. 3500 cal yr BP, with the last tree macrofossils recorded at ca. 2500 cal yr BP. suggesting that the present wide tundra zone in the Pechora region formed during the last ca. 3500 yr. (C) 2011 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.



UCL Discovery - The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia

There are plenty more should you choose to educate yourself properly.

Dueling links. Do you have graphs of Arctic Holocene temperatures?

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

This shows only a 1 degree. C variationfr high to low.

Do you have an explanation why the permafrost methane was not released in the early Holocene?

We don't know for sure that some of it wasn't released before do we? PermaFrost has depth to it. And perhaps in Early Holocene the sea level was different on the Arctic shelves.

What we DO KNOW is that the Ice Sheets that covered most of the globe during the Ice Ages previous --- DID thaw. And HAD to release massive amounts of GHGases. Yet in between Ice Ages --- we see only a couple hundred ppm diff of CO2. (Don't remember about the methane variation -- but we can look it up)

 

[PMZ]

From
http://epic.awi.de/18166/

Abstract:
Permafrost environments within the Siberian Arctic are natural sources of the climate relevant trace gas methane. In order to improve our understanding of the present and future carbon dynamics in high latitudes, we studied the methane concentration, the quantity and quality of organic matter, and the activity and biomass of the methanogenic community in permafrost deposits. For these investigations a permafrost core of Holocene age was drilled in the Lena Delta (72°22N, 126°28E). The organic carbon of the permafrost sediments varied between 0.6% and 4.9% and was characterized by an increasing humification index with permafrost depth. A high CH4 concentration was found in the upper 4m of the deposits, which correlates well with the methanogenic activity and archaeal biomass (expressed as PLEL concentration). Even the incubation of core material at -3 and -6°C with and without substrates showed a significant CH4 production (range: 0.040.78 nmol CH4 h-1 g-1). The results indicated that the methane in Holocene permafrost deposits of the Lena Delta originated from modern methanogenesis by cold-adapted methanogenic archaea. Microbial generated methane in permafrost sediments is so far an underestimated factor for the future climate development.

 

[westwall]

No, thankfully, that didn't happen in Holocene maximum, when temps were approx 1 degree c. warmer than they are now.
Although you say "much" warmer. Is that empirical data?

But at temps 2 degrees higher than now, the permafrost will melt. *We're that close! *

And there is evidence that the maximum didn't bring that high temps to the Arctic in the past, and that the Arctic is warming at a faster rate than other parts of the globe.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/321121-study-shows-unprecedented-warmth-in-arctic.html

There is 1200 Gton of methane in the Arctic permafrost, compared to 5 Gton in the atmosphere. *The potential threat is real.

Get ready prepper!

Oh, they were much warmer than that... You need to get your facts straight there mister.



"Abstract

We analyze the global variations in the timing and magnitude of the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) and their dependence on various forcings in transient simulations covering the last 9000 years (9 ka), performed with a global atmosphere-ocean-vegetation model. In these experiments, we consider the influence of variations in orbital parameters and atmospheric greenhouse gases and the early-Holocene deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice sheet (LIS). Considering the LIS deglaciation, we quantify separately the impacts of the background melt-water fluxes and the changes in topography and surface albedo.

In the analysis we focus on the intensity of the maximum temperature deviation relative to the preindustrial level, its timing in the Holocene, and the seasonal expression. In the model, the warmest HTM conditions are found at high latitudes in both hemispheres, reaching 5 °C above the preindustrial level, while the smallest HTM signal is seen over tropical oceans (less than 0.5 °C). This latitudinal contrast is mostly related to the nature of the orbitally-forced insolation forcing, which is also largest at high latitudes, and further enhanced by the polar amplification. The Holocene timing of the HTM is earliest (before 8 ka BP) in regions not affected by the remnant LIS, particularly NW North America, E Asia, N Africa, N South America, the Middle East, NE Siberia and Australia. Compared to the early Holocene insolation maximum, the HTM was delayed by 2–3 ka over NE North America, and regions directly downwind from the LIS. A similar delay is simulated over the Southern Ocean, while an intermediate lag of about 1 ka is found over most other continents and oceans. The seasonal timing of the HTM over continents generally occurs in the same month as the maximum insolation anomaly, whereas over oceans the HTM is delayed by 2–3 months. Exceptions are the oceans covered by sea ice and North Africa, were additional feedbacks results in a different seasonal timing. The simulated timing and magnitude of the HTM are generally consistent with global proxy evidence, with some notable exceptions in the Mediterranean region, SW North America and eastern Eurasia."




Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum

And....
The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia






Salonen, JS; Seppa, H; Valiranta, M; Jones, VJ; Self, A; Heikkila, M; ... Yang, HD; + view all (2011) The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia. QUATERNARY RES , 75 (3) 501 - 511. 10.1016/j.yqres.2011.01.007.


Full text not available from this repository.


Abstract

To investigate the Holocene climate and treeline dynamics in the European Russian Arctic, we analysed sediment pollen, conifer stomata, and plant macrofossils from Lake Kharinei, a tundra lake near the treeline in the Pechora area. We present quantitative summer temperature reconstructions from Lake Kharinei and lake Tumbulovaty, a previously studied lake in the same region, using a pollen-climate transfer function based on a new calibration set from northern European Russia. Our records suggest that the early-Holocene summer temperatures from 11,500 cal yr BP onwards were already slightly higher than at present, followed by a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) at 8000-3500 cal yr BP when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3 degrees C above present-day values. A Picea forest surrounded Lake Kharinei during the HTM, reaching 150 km north of the present taiga limit. The HIM ended with a temperature drop at 3500-2500 cal yr BP associated with permafrost initiation in the region. Mixed spruce forest began to disappear around lake Kharinei at ca. 3500 cal yr BP, with the last tree macrofossils recorded at ca. 2500 cal yr BP. suggesting that the present wide tundra zone in the Pechora region formed during the last ca. 3500 yr. (C) 2011 University of Washington. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.



UCL Discovery - The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia

There are plenty more should you choose to educate yourself properly.

Dueling links. Do you have graphs of Arctic Holocene temperatures?

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

This shows only a 1 degree. C variationfr high to low.

Do you have an explanation why the permafrost methane was not released in the early Holocene?

Do you have a link for the source data for the graph? There are at least 15 different peer reviewed papers that show the HTM to be 3 to 5 degrees C higher than the present day. The reason why the methane didn't erupt is because the theory is faulty.

 

[Abraham3]

The reason why the methane didn't erupt is because the theory is faulty.

WHAT is "faulty" about the theory and what evidence do you have?

 

[skookerasbil]

New graph from the EIA of the Obama administration!!!!







Ask me if I laughed my balls off???




So much winning!!

 

[PMZ]

If you win, we do nothing about energy and when we run out and the planet is not capable of sustaining the population, we'll remember your cartoons and in your face blatant ignorance.

But, not to worry. You will lose before that happens.

 

[flacaltenn]

As a trigger mechanism,, CO2 is MAYBE good for a total 1degC until we reach about 600ppm.. If you believe that 1degC trigger is gonna explode the planet and accelerate into runaway climate destruction --- you need to seek medication..

Termites create more methane than is leaking from the tundra today.. And when most of N. America was covered in mile deep ice --- FAR MORE permafrost melting then than is available today.

You just need a sturdier planet to live on I reckon..

It's produced very close to 1C already, going from 280 to 400 ppm.

You keep forgetting the novelty of the current situation. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere has not risen this fast since the KT impact. Temperatures haven't risen this fast in likely just as long. That means the tundra will outgas faster than it ever has and, given the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, it will have more effect than it's ever had.

The amount the termites produce is large. But it's not changing. The melting tundra will be a significant change.

Let's work thru this repeated assertion of yours (calmly and cordially) that we know with great certainty what the RATES of temp. change were all the way to the KT.. I don't know where you got the impression that we can compare a 60yr ComEra period with a GLOBAL multi-proxy study of ANY type..

The time res of any kind of sediment sample is on the order of CENTURIES. Because the little buggers they are studying in the mud would BURROW thru that much mud and compression makes the time res WORSE the more ancient you go.

OTH -- tree rings have an IMPLIED annual resolution, but really suck at preserving and correlating the LOW freq. temp changes on the scale of 50 to 100 years or longer.

So -- when you set out to COMPARE rates of temp. changes over the globe, you are forced to MERGE all that crappy data because you cant drill ice cores in Burma and you can't get tree rings in the middle of the pac ocean.. ((BIG PROBLEM eh?? )) That's why trying to do A GLOBAL ancient temp record is such a stupid task. IMO -- the proxies are great for assessing consistent LOCAL temp records to give you glimpes of LOCAL temperature trends.

The most recent COMPREHENSIVE multi-proxy GLOBAL temp study was Marcott (2010 -- 2013?). And here's what THEY SAY about the time res of their "GLOBAL" proxies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

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.

That's pretty dam definitive --- dontcha think? Global studies are NOT gonna show rates at less than maybe 500 year temporal resolution..

So where the hell have you gotten the impression that we have complete faith in comparing our piddling little 60 year record of RATES to ANY of the Global multi-proxy studies?

You can point to SINGLE proxy studies (usually isotope ratios) that MIGHT give rates back a couple THOUSAND of years --- but that's about the limit.

So you don't do "calmly and cordially" Abraham?

Ever wonder why INDIVIDUAL proxy studies have no problem finding the LIA and MWP -- but every GLOBAL multi-proxy result looks like rough-cut straight edge? Marcott just told you...

 

[flacaltenn]

It's produced very close to 1C already, going from 280 to 400 ppm.

You keep forgetting the novelty of the current situation. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere has not risen this fast since the KT impact. Temperatures haven't risen this fast in likely just as long. That means the tundra will outgas faster than it ever has and, given the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, it will have more effect than it's ever had.

The amount the termites produce is large. But it's not changing. The melting tundra will be a significant change.

Let's work thru this repeated assertion of yours (calmly and cordially) that we know with great certainty what the RATES of temp. change were all the way to the KT.. I don't know where you got the impression that we can compare a 60yr ComEra period with a GLOBAL multi-proxy study of ANY type..

The time res of any kind of sediment sample is on the order of CENTURIES. Because the little buggers they are studying in the mud would BURROW thru that much mud and compression makes the time res WORSE the more ancient you go.

OTH -- tree rings have an IMPLIED annual resolution, but really suck at preserving and correlating the LOW freq. temp changes on the scale of 50 to 100 years.

So -- when you set out to COMPARE rates of temp. changes over the globe, you are forced to MERGE all that crappy data because you cant drill ice cores in Burma and you can't get tree rings in the middle of the pac ocean.. ((BIG PROBLEM eh?? )) That's why trying to do A GLOBAL ancient temp record is such a stupid task. IMO -- the proxies are great for assessing consistent LOCAL temp records to give you glimpes of temperature trends.

The most recent COMPREHENSIVE multi-proxy GLOBAL temp study was Marcott (2010 -- 2013?). And here's what THEY SAY about the time res of their "GLOBAL" proxies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

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.

That's pretty dam definitive --- dontcha think? Global studies are NOT gonna show rates at less than maybe 500 year temporal resolution..

So where the hell have you gotten the impression that we have complete faith in comparing our piddling little 60 year record of RATES to ANY of the Global multi-proxy studies?

You can point to SINGLE proxy studies (usually isotope ratios) that MIGHT give rates back a couple THOUSAND of years --- but that's about the limit.

You still hang on to your delusion that you are a world class scientist with access to world class resources and thereby can go head to head with the IPCC and Marcotte et al.

I don't know you but, to tell you the truth, it seems delusional.

The only thing this snotty fortune cookie deserves is what I learned on the playground ---

"I know you are, but what am I "

Get bent you asstroll.

 

[westwall]

It's produced very close to 1C already, going from 280 to 400 ppm.

You keep forgetting the novelty of the current situation. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere has not risen this fast since the KT impact. Temperatures haven't risen this fast in likely just as long. That means the tundra will outgas faster than it ever has and, given the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, it will have more effect than it's ever had.

The amount the termites produce is large. But it's not changing. The melting tundra will be a significant change.

Let's work thru this repeated assertion of yours (calmly and cordially) that we know with great certainty what the RATES of temp. change were all the way to the KT.. I don't know where you got the impression that we can compare a 60yr ComEra period with a GLOBAL multi-proxy study of ANY type..

The time res of any kind of sediment sample is on the order of CENTURIES. Because the little buggers they are studying in the mud would BURROW thru that much mud and compression makes the time res WORSE the more ancient you go.

OTH -- tree rings have an IMPLIED annual resolution, but really suck at preserving and correlating the LOW freq. temp changes on the scale of 50 to 100 years.

So -- when you set out to COMPARE rates of temp. changes over the globe, you are forced to MERGE all that crappy data because you cant drill ice cores in Burma and you can't get tree rings in the middle of the pac ocean.. ((BIG PROBLEM eh?? )) That's why trying to do A GLOBAL ancient temp record is such a stupid task. IMO -- the proxies are great for assessing consistent LOCAL temp records to give you glimpes of temperature trends.

The most recent COMPREHENSIVE multi-proxy GLOBAL temp study was Marcott (2010 -- 2013?). And here's what THEY SAY about the time res of their "GLOBAL" proxies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

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.

That's pretty dam definitive --- dontcha think? Global studies are NOT gonna show rates at less than maybe 500 year temporal resolution..

So where the hell have you gotten the impression that we have complete faith in comparing our piddling little 60 year record of RATES to ANY of the Global multi-proxy studies?

You can point to SINGLE proxy studies (usually isotope ratios) that MIGHT give rates back a couple THOUSAND of years --- but that's about the limit.

You still hang on to your delusion that you are a world class scientist with access to world class resources and thereby can go head to head with the IPCC and Marcotte et al.

I don't know you but, to tell you the truth, it seems delusional.

No, flac merely asserts (and proves on a regular basis) that he is well versed in science and the scientific method and has a mind that quests for knowledge.

You on the other hand prove beyond doubt that the fraudsters are required to seek out supporters and propagandists with intellects slightly greater than vegetables to spew their crap.

 

[westwall]

The reason why the methane didn't erupt is because the theory is faulty.

WHAT is "faulty" about the theory and what evidence do you have?

The "theory" called the "methane catastrophe". Notice how all of the theories you propagandize for always have some form of dire consequence in it? "catastrophe, global climate disruption, etc. the Boy Who Cried Wolf has got nothing on you guys. But, as happened to the Boy, you can only claim the sky is falling so many times till the people figure out you either don't know what you're talking about or are just plain criminals.

Your time is nigh.

And to go back to your question, what evidence do YOU have to support it? I can go back 55 million years to show it has never happened previously. What you got Willis?

 

[westwall]

If you win, we do nothing about energy and when we run out and the planet is not capable of sustaining the population, we'll remember your cartoons and in your face blatant ignorance.

But, not to worry. You will lose before that happens.

Yeah, I don't think so. You've ALREADY lost, you're just not bright enough to figure it out yet.

 

[westwall]

It's produced very close to 1C already, going from 280 to 400 ppm.

You keep forgetting the novelty of the current situation. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere has not risen this fast since the KT impact. Temperatures haven't risen this fast in likely just as long. That means the tundra will outgas faster than it ever has and, given the shorter lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, it will have more effect than it's ever had.

The amount the termites produce is large. But it's not changing. The melting tundra will be a significant change.

Let's work thru this repeated assertion of yours (calmly and cordially) that we know with great certainty what the RATES of temp. change were all the way to the KT.. I don't know where you got the impression that we can compare a 60yr ComEra period with a GLOBAL multi-proxy study of ANY type..

The time res of any kind of sediment sample is on the order of CENTURIES. Because the little buggers they are studying in the mud would BURROW thru that much mud and compression makes the time res WORSE the more ancient you go.

OTH -- tree rings have an IMPLIED annual resolution, but really suck at preserving and correlating the LOW freq. temp changes on the scale of 50 to 100 years or longer.

So -- when you set out to COMPARE rates of temp. changes over the globe, you are forced to MERGE all that crappy data because you cant drill ice cores in Burma and you can't get tree rings in the middle of the pac ocean.. ((BIG PROBLEM eh?? )) That's why trying to do A GLOBAL ancient temp record is such a stupid task. IMO -- the proxies are great for assessing consistent LOCAL temp records to give you glimpes of LOCAL temperature trends.

The most recent COMPREHENSIVE multi-proxy GLOBAL temp study was Marcott (2010 -- 2013?). And here's what THEY SAY about the time res of their "GLOBAL" proxies..

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

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.

That's pretty dam definitive --- dontcha think? Global studies are NOT gonna show rates at less than maybe 500 year temporal resolution..

So where the hell have you gotten the impression that we have complete faith in comparing our piddling little 60 year record of RATES to ANY of the Global multi-proxy studies?

You can point to SINGLE proxy studies (usually isotope ratios) that MIGHT give rates back a couple THOUSAND of years --- but that's about the limit.

So you don't do "calmly and cordially" Abraham?

Ever wonder why INDIVIDUAL proxy studies have no problem finding the LIA and MWP -- but every GLOBAL multi-proxy result looks like rough-cut straight edge? Marcott just told you...

Yeah, they seem to have a problem figuring out that when you choose crap for your global proxy study you get crap. That's a far cry from the goal of scientific enquiry.

 

[flacaltenn]

More proof that at least 50 percent of all Americans are retarded. The existence or non-existence of AGW is a scientific issue, so posting public opinion polls in the Daily Heil gets you a double fail grade. Among the qualified climatologists who are actively researching this topic, there is a 97 percent consensus that AGW is real.

Therefore, frankly, I don't give a shit what some fat Alabama lady with no teeth thinks.

Hey skinhead Barbie.. You're all about the science and your quoting a biased poll?

Looks like Abraham has another "enlightened" playmate on his side..

 

[PMZ]

More proof that at least 50 percent of all Americans are retarded. The existence or non-existence of AGW is a scientific issue, so posting public opinion polls in the Daily Heil gets you a double fail grade. Among the qualified climatologists who are actively researching this topic, there is a 97 percent consensus that AGW is real.

Therefore, frankly, I don't give a shit what some fat Alabama lady with no teeth thinks.

Hey skinhead Barbie.. You're all about the science and your quoting a biased poll?

Looks like Abraham has another "enlightened" playmate on his side..

What's the evidence that the poll is biased?

 

[flacaltenn]

More proof that at least 50 percent of all Americans are retarded. The existence or non-existence of AGW is a scientific issue, so posting public opinion polls in the Daily Heil gets you a double fail grade. Among the qualified climatologists who are actively researching this topic, there is a 97 percent consensus that AGW is real.

Therefore, frankly, I don't give a shit what some fat Alabama lady with no teeth thinks.

Hey skinhead Barbie.. You're all about the science and your quoting a biased poll?

Looks like Abraham has another "enlightened" playmate on his side..

What's the evidence that the poll is biased?

The 97% survey I've talking about was completely conceived and commissioned by that toxic waste dump blog known as skepticalscience.com.. AND they made that LEAP by chucking out the MAJORITY of the papers that they reviewed because they made no JUDGEMENTS on CO2 vis a vis Global Warming and got the 97% factoid from only climate papers that LEAPT to a conclusion. So -- the ACCURATE statement would be that --- the VAST MAJORITY of Climate Scientists -- expressed "no opinion" on the CO2 theory..

Furthermore --- Even in the case of just the studies that DID express opinions --- they counted ALL AUTHORS as agreeing. This is simply not factually documented. There is no rule that says ALL the authors of a paper agree with or ENDORSE the politically charged "opinions" in the Abstract or Conclusions sections.

In short asstroll --- for THREE good reasons --- it's pure litterbox material...
Why am i discussing this with an asstroll? Because you're constantly amazing me with your LACK OF RETENTION and STUPIDITY.. You were there when this was discussed before.