Narrative Fail: 20 Year Ice Field Expansion in Antarctica Continues

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you actually think that the global temperature could have risen 1.2C in one century, immediately dropped 1.2C in the next century and not shown in more than one of the 73 proxies they used?

Depends. What's the error bar for those proxies? How strong is the signal? What's the resolution?

There has been nothing like the last century at any point in the entire Holocene.

You can't prove that.

because too many people like you have decided to ignore the science and do nothing about it, it is going to fuck us up.

Right. Me and 1.3 billion Chinese.

 

[Crick]

Depends. What's the error bar for those proxies? How strong is the signal? What's the resolution?

The original work provides error ranges for each and every proxy.

There has been nothing like the last century at any point in the entire Holocene.

You can't prove that.

None of us can prove anything here. It's the natural sciences. There are no proofs. But the best evidence says there's been nothing like the last century at any point in the entire Holocene.

because too many people like you have decided to ignore the science and do nothing about it, it is going to fuck us up.

Right. Me and 1.3 billion Chinese.

I'll get to them. For now I'm talking to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

None of us can prove anything here. It's the natural sciences. There are no proofs. But the best evidence says there's been nothing like the last century at any point in the entire Holocene.

None of us can prove anything here. It's the natural sciences.

So why did you make the claim?

But the best evidence says there's been nothing like the last century at any point in the entire Holocene.

Is that real evidence or evidence that Michael Mann was touching?

 

[Crick]

None of us can prove anything here. It's the natural sciences.

So why did you make the claim?

But the best evidence says there's been nothing like the last century at any point in the entire Holocene.

Is that real evidence or evidence that Michael Mann was touching?

Because that's how the natural sciences are done Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because that's how the natural sciences are done Todd.

By claiming nothing like this century has happened before, but being unable to prove it. Cool!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The original work provides error ranges for each and every proxy.

Look at all these low resolution proxies we have!
We know they work really well. I mean, they probably kinda work, some of the time.

We're so confident that we think you should waste...err...invest $76 trillion in green energy.

Because, I mean, they're the best evidence we have. Of course we can't explain why some of them very recently stopped working. That probably never happened before. I mean, what are the odds?
We have 73!!!

And if you don't agree to waste...err...invest the money, your grandkids will curse your name.

 

[skookerasbil]

Given that the first paragraph of your article accepts that ice loss from Antarctica has raised sea levels, the net movement of ice from Antarctica is into the ocean. Did you actually think this article refuted AGW?

Lol....watch come election day how many in the voting public care about AGW

My suggestion?

Get a good stock of this while you still can or sitting for Thanksgiving dinner this year gonna be a hot and stingy affair.....

Btw...go with the UNSALTED variety

 

[skookerasbil]

Btw....regarding Antarctica...

The recent history of the continent train wrecks AGW theory. Exceedingly well documented in this thread...

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

Note how Antarctica routinely crushes Old Rocks crackpot jibberish...the guy has no answers

 

[Crick]

Look at all these low resolution proxies we have!
We know they work really well. I mean, they probably kinda work, some of the time.

We're so confident that we think you should waste...err...invest $76 trillion in green energy.

Because, I mean, they're the best evidence we have. Of course we can't explain why some of them very recently stopped working. That probably never happened before. I mean, what are the odds?
We have 73!!!

And if you don't agree to waste...err...invest the money, your grandkids will curse your name.

Todd, you're not keeping up with the level of discourse I had come to expect from you. The conclusion of the work of Shakun and Marcott was that the current warming is unprecedented in the Holocene. THEY did not conclude that we should spend $76 trillion dollars and no one ELSE is suggesting that we should, based solely on their findings. That makes your comment a strawman. And I'm afraid it's too late for you Todd. Your grandchildren will already curse your name and I don't think there's anything you can do about it. Except may ice cream sandwiches and pony rides.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, you're not keeping up with the level of discourse I had come to expect from you. The conclusion of the work of Shakun and Marcott was that the current warming is unprecedented in the Holocene. THEY did not conclude that we should spend $76 trillion dollars and no one ELSE is suggesting that we should, based solely on their findings. That makes your comment a strawman. And I'm afraid it's too late for you Todd. Your grandchildren will already curse your name and I don't think there's anything you can do about it. Except may ice cream sandwiches and pony rides.

You're whining more than usual.
Don't cry.

 

[ding]

The conclusion of the work of Shakun and Marcott was that the current warming is unprecedented in the Holocene.

Incorrect. Here's what they said.

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.

Summary and FAQ’s related to the study by Marcott et al. (2013, Science)

Prepared by Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, and Alan C. Mix

 

[ding]

Of course ice core data shows there have been many warming and cooling trends over the last 10,000 years that were totally unrelated to CO2 or orbital forcing.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

So it is common for warming trends to occur without being caused by CO2.

 

[bodecea]

LOL, it is obvious you didn't read the paper.

That's annual ice.

 

[Crick]

Of course ice core data shows there have been many warming and cooling trends over the last 10,000 years that were totally unrelated to CO2 or orbital forcing.

View attachment 648931
δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

So it is common for warming trends to occur without being caused by CO2.

All events have causes. And "trend" is not the right term there. Transition, excursion, spike... but not trend.

 

[ding]

All events have causes. And "trend" is not the right term there. Transition, excursion, spike... but not trend.

Yes, all events do have causes and CO2 and orbital forcing were not one of them. Which leaves the sun and albedo.

Seriously? You are quibbling over wording. You think time was not involved? Everyone of those so called "spikes" involved a warming trend over a period of time and a cooling trend over a period of time. Every single one.

That you would quibble over the wording shows how damaging you believe this graphic is to your "cause".

 

[ding]

The conclusion of the work of Shakun and Marcott was that the current warming is unprecedented in the Holocene.

Do you still believe that is a true statement given the following?

Summary and FAQ’s related to the study by Marcott et al. (2013, Science)​

​

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.​

​

Prepared by Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, and Alan C. Mix​

 

[ding]

Guess Crick is going dark cause he doesn't want to admit he fucked up Marcott and Shakun's conclusions.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's annual ice.

It is obvious you didn't read several papers let alone one.

You have nothing.

 

[Crick]

Guess Crick is going dark cause he doesn't want to admit he fucked up Marcott and Shakun's conclusions.

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.

 

[ding]

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 using Marcott and Shakun's work as your basis for saying the curent warming trend is unprecedented when they explicitly said their work can't be used for that because the paleotemperature records used in their study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, that precluded them from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.