Narrative Fail: 20 Year Ice Field Expansion in Antarctica Continues

What Marcott and Shakun might give as an answer to a question about their work is NOT their conclusions. Their conclusion as stated in their paper reads:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.

Do you disagree?
 
I have not gone dark and I did not fuck up Marcott and Shakun's conclusions. For the current conditions to be a repeat and not show in their data, temperatures would have to rise AND FALL within their temporal resolution. No known mechanism could cause such an event.

But you keep ignoring what they say about their research which Ding graciously provided.

He states that the 120 year proxy resolution doesn't allow making such assertions of todays warming trend which isn't a big deal anyway.
 
What Marcott and Shakun might give as an answer to a question about their work is NOT their conclusions. Their conclusion as stated in their paper reads:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.

Do you disagree?
And yet you keep saying the recent warming trend is unprecedented. It's an idiotic statement. You can say the increase in CO2 is unprecedented, but you can't say that for temperature. First of all it would be impossible to prove unless you had the data had the appropriate resolution and you examined every single warming trend in the history of the earth. Which you have neither. Secondly we know from D-O events that that is a false statement anyway.
 
All events have causes. And "trend" is not the right term there. Transition, excursion, spike... but not trend.

Lol...lecturing on the use of terms :gay:

For the guy who routinely throws out massive amounts of loose association terms...a trade for progressives.


Forum members take note how frequently the AGW crowd use terms like "hotter", "warmer", "increase", "higher", "more"....when you see it....red flag for here comes the fakery.:up:
 
Suggesting that AGW is not taking place globally because isolated regions are trending in the opposite direction is disingenuous. The world as a whole is getting warmer. As a result, the world's ice is tending to melt. As a result, the ocean's level is rising, both from thermal expansion and from added meltwater.



We suggest AGW isn't occurring because it actually isn't. You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim.
 
We suggest AGW isn't occurring because it actually isn't. You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim.
Copied from your other thread where you make the same ignorant claim

More importantly there is zero evidence to support the claim that AGW even exists.
Chuckle chuckle chuckle

Here are a few articles that you will not read but that you will dismiss out-of-hand without providing an iota of evidence to refute any of their contentions.





 
Last edited:
Copied from your other thread where you make the same ignorant claim


Chuckle chuckle chuckle

Here are a few articles that you will not read but that you will dismiss out-of-hand without providing an iota of evidence to refute any of their contentions.





Correlation doesn't prove causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming trends that were not cause by CO2 or orbital forcing.
 
Copied from your other thread where you make the same ignorant claim


Chuckle chuckle chuckle

Here are a few articles that you will not read but that you will dismiss out-of-hand without providing an iota of evidence to refute any of their contentions.








Notice how everything you posted is computer model derived?

I did. Computer models are fiction.

Dummy.
 
Notice how everything you posted is computer model derived?

I did. Computer models are fiction.

Dummy.
Amen. I just raised the roof this morning because the weather channel showed a radar map of a lot of rain coming up I-95.

Turns out it was all a total lie!! There was no radar, just a "projection" they made up of blobs on a map!! They totally made it up! It was supposed to be about some 24--48 hours from now!

There is so much of this kind of thing these days. Prediction with computers is no better than any prediction anywhere, anywhen. Any sentence containing the word "will" is a lie, because no one knows the future.
 
Notice how everything you posted is computer model derived?

I did. Computer models are fiction.

Dummy.
What I notice is that you are a LYING SACK OF SHIT. The conclusions of every one of those articles is based on observations and direct measurements. The title of one of them even told you it was based completely on empirical data. Asshole.
 

Forum List

Back
Top