Reservoir found under Greenland's snow. What it means for shrinking glaciers.

[Old Rocks]

The warming we have been experiencing for the last 150 years is NOT natural. It is synthetic: a product of the greenhouse effect acting on the increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere: a result of human emissions of CO2 and releases from natural sequesters by the resultant warming.

His point is probably that we are at a greater risk of a collapse of the Greenland ice sheet than we had previously thought. That would lead to a very signficant increase in sea level.

How is it you didn't get that? Oh, yeah, you chose not to.

All based on AGW church scripture.

CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has.

Sorry you fail once again.

How many times are you going to repeat that lie, dumb fuck? Here is what a real scientist has to say;

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah --- that massive 0.6degC increase that you've seen during your lifetime. About the same effect as the ocean natural cycles. THAT'S how much you've witnessed. And all hell's breaking loose because of it.

Glaciers were doomed millenia ago.. The 1degC diff hardly matters.. Means they are gone in 80 years rather than 120....

Really?

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.

The hockey stick again?

Even the IPCC has not only omitted this once, but twice now.

I guess the cultists need their dogma to keep up the propaganda.

I guess that you have nothing but a very large mouth. Because the 'hockey stick graph' has been repeatedly vindicated by others. Such as the authors of this paper;

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.176.3465&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The paper by Li, Nychka and Ammann (2010) has exempli¯ed the power of Bayesian Hi-
erarchical Models to solve fundamental problems in paleoclimatology. However, much can also be learned by more elementary statistical methods. In this discussion, we use principal components analysis, regression, and time series analysis, to reconstruct the temperature signal since 1400 based on tree rings data. Although the \hockey stick" shape is less clear cut than in the original analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999), there is still substantial evidencethat recent decades are among the warmest of the past 600 years.

 

[polarbear]

Greenland's ice sheet hides 100 billion tons of water | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Big surprises still hide beneath the frozen surface of snowy Greenland. Despite decades of poking and prodding by scientists, only now has the massive ice island revealed a hidden aquifer.

In southeast Greenland, more than 100 billion tons of liquid water soaks a slushy snow layer buried anywhere from 15 to 160 feet (5 to 50 meters) below the surface. This snow aquifer covers more than 27,000 square miles (70,000 square kilometers) — an area bigger than West Virginia — researchers reported on Dec. 22 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

"We thought we had an understanding of how things work in Greenland, but here is this entire storage system of water we didn't realize was there," said Richard Forster, lead study author and a glaciologist at the University of Utah.

The discovery will help scientists better understand the fate of Greenland's annual surface melt, which contributes to sea level rise. When the summer sun warms the Arctic island, a giant water world of stunning blue lakes and streams appears atop the ice. Tracking this surface runoff helps scientists account for ice lost to melting each year. Until now, researchers thought most of this water went to the ocean or refroze on the ice. Now they've found a new hiding place.

"This throws an additional complexity into the system," Forster told LiveScience.

There is enough water in the snow aquifer to raise global sea level by 0.015 inches (0.4 millimeters), according to a separate study by the same team published Nov. 30 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). Every year, Greenland adds 0.03 inches (0.7 mm) of water to global sea level rise from melting snow and ice, Forster said. [Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming]

The strange thing is that it took researchers this long to inform the public about these huge water reservoirs.
I know for a fact that they knew about it for over 10 years because we flew supplies from Alert on Ellesmere to their glacier camps they had on the NE corner on Greenland.
They had 3km ground penetrating RADAR and were well aware of the water deep under the ice
I already posted pictures a couple of years ago how some of these water reservoirs drain.

These glaciers are like Swiss cheese, and you can follow these caverns uphill for miles

Not all of the water buried deep under the ice channels downhill.
Some of these reservoirs which are under extreme high pressure vent uphill like geysers. And some of the camps that were on high elevation shelves got flooded within a few hours in sub-zero temperatures.

Btw. Merry Christmas to you and your`s from us here in Canada
What are you serving up for X-mas dinner?
I`ll stick with the turkey, but my wife wants to know how you cooked that rattle snake.

 

[Abraham3]

We're having a dish consisting of chicken and spinach in a heavy cream sauce with a little chili powder. It's a gift for our cardiologist. Tomorrow, we have lasagna. My wife is Italian.

So, that water under the Greenland ice sheet: do you think it could have any bearing on the sheet's potential destabilization?

 

[Abraham3]

Yeah --- that massive 0.6degC increase that you've seen during your lifetime. About the same effect as the ocean natural cycles. THAT'S how much you've witnessed. And all hell's breaking loose because of it.

Glaciers were doomed millenia ago.. The 1degC diff hardly matters.. Means they are gone in 80 years rather than 120....

Really?

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.

Another skepticalscience penciled in chart eh? Nice that they took it out to 4000AD with "forecasts" only to 2100 AD.. And THAT is pure religious dogma. NOTHING on that chart could ever match reality.. Waste of time Bullwinkle...

Do you always have such problems reading graphs? What data do they display out to 4000 AD?

Show us better data covering those time spans.

 

[flacaltenn]

Really?

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.

Another skepticalscience penciled in chart eh? Nice that they took it out to 4000AD with "forecasts" only to 2100 AD.. And THAT is pure religious dogma. NOTHING on that chart could ever match reality.. Waste of time Bullwinkle...

Do you always have such problems reading graphs? What data do they display out to 4000 AD?

Show us better data covering those time spans.

Point is there IS NO DATA beyond 2013 but the chart goes out 4000 for scaling and dramatic effect. It is a simple skepticalscience cutandhatchet job. In crayon --- with no reason to exist other than for propaganda purposes....

Marcott himself says the time resolution in his study is on the order of CENTURIES.. Its THOROUGHLY INCAPABLE OF RECORDING 40 or 50 year thermal events.. YET --- there are enough fools around for skepticalscience to prey on. You arent one of those --- ARE YOU?

 

[polarbear]

We're having a dish consisting of chicken and spinach in a heavy cream sauce with a little chili powder. It's a gift for our cardiologist. Tomorrow, we have lasagna. My wife is Italian.

So, that water under the Greenland ice sheet: do you think it could have any bearing on the sheet's potential destabilization?

Italian Lasagna...mmmmh Sounds good.

Yes I do think that the water under the ice sheet is destabilizing it.
Not so much the water which is in these large pools, but more so the thin water triple point layer between the ice and the rock face which reduces friction.
I am not saying that there is no surface melt water getting down the crevices which also contributes to glaciers calving on sheets that are not thick enough to build a pressure high enough to get triple point conditions.
That is happening during the arctic melt season and I`m not denying that.
The rest of the water deep under the ice forms no matter how cold it is on the surface.
It`s hard to say if that river is mostly melt water or if it`s source is one of these reservoirs:

That`s the view from Ellesmere Island across the Nares near Fort Conger. That river has been mapped by the early explorers and has been there for a long long time.
It comes out of this ice cave:

 

[flacaltenn]

Merry Christmas PBear.. Had indian chicken curry. We will get more traditional tomorrow.. You better get the sleigh and reindeer ready to go to see family tomorrow.....

 

[Abraham3]

Another skepticalscience penciled in chart eh? Nice that they took it out to 4000AD with "forecasts" only to 2100 AD.. And THAT is pure religious dogma. NOTHING on that chart could ever match reality.. Waste of time Bullwinkle...

Do you always have such problems reading graphs? What data do they display out to 4000 AD?

Show us better data covering those time spans.

Point is there IS NO DATA beyond 2013 but the chart goes out 4000 for scaling and dramatic effect. It is a simple skepticalscience cutandhatchet job. In crayon --- with no reason to exist other than for propaganda purposes....

Marcott himself says the time resolution in his study is on the order of CENTURIES.. Its THOROUGHLY INCAPABLE OF RECORDING 40 or 50 year thermal events.. YET --- there are enough fools around for skepticalscience to prey on. You arent one of those --- ARE YOU?

If you would have cut that chart off at 2013 when the data ends in a nearly vertical line, I can only presume you haven't produced many charts. The axis goes to 4000 for READABILITY. Good grief.

The resolution of those data is sufficient to rule out a pulse like we are currently experiencing because the temperatures would have to get back down within the limits of the resolution he does have.

Shakun, as you will recall, was looking at the temperature-CO2 relationship and was not making comparisons to current day. Marcott was, but here is his abstract:

Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

Now where here do you believe he has spoken beyond his ken? And, again, what temperature reconstructions do you have for these periods, or even the current century, that you believe more accurate?

 

[polarbear]

Really?

I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the falling temperatures under Marcott's blue there match nicely with TSI.

Another skepticalscience penciled in chart eh? Nice that they took it out to 4000AD with "forecasts" only to 2100 AD.. And THAT is pure religious dogma. NOTHING on that chart could ever match reality.. Waste of time Bullwinkle...

Do you always have such problems reading graphs? What data do they display out to 4000 AD?

Show us better data covering those time spans.

Okay let`s take a closer look and I`m going to do it using the same sources where the graph that you posted came from.
The TinEye plug found that graph at "skepticalscience.com"
Let`s boil that down...they quoted the source who also said that:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/global-average-temperature/

Outgoing longwave radiation at TOA, Taylor (2005)
The energy under the curve is 239W/m2.
So if the atmosphere absorbed all of the surface radiation below 8&#956;m and above 14&#956;m the earth&#8217;s surface would heat up until it reached 50°C (323K).

Why? Because if the temperature was only 15°C the amount of energy radiated out would only be 141W/m2. More energy coming in than going out = earth heats up. The surface temperature would keep heating up until eventually 239W/m2 made it out through the atmospheric window (and the temp= at +50 C)
In total, the energy leaving the top of atmosphere (outside of the atmospheric window) is 98W/m2

If you Google "Outgoing longwave radiation at TOA, Taylor 2005"
You`ll find this, what they had for 2005:
Future Capability Product - Upward Longwave Radiation (TOA)

Upward Longwave Radiation (TOA)

The Upward Longwave Radiation product is a measure of the total Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere, and provides important information regarding the Earth&#8217;s outgoing energy and overall energy budget at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). It is one of three radiation budget parameters that determine the Earth radiation budget at the TOA.

Example of the Upward Longwave Radiation product (W/m**2) as generated by the GOES-R Upward Longwave Radiation algorithm for Meteosat-8 SEVIRI on 01 October 2005 at 0000 UTC

And as you can see there are only a few small (blue spots) where the OLR TOA was in the range of only 100 watts/m^2 while most of the rest of total OLR was in the 250 to 300 watts/m^2 OLR range...and not just the calculated 239 watts/m^2 as it were if the rest of the black body which had been heated from 15 to 50C in the process with the energy the CO2 had absorbed at 15 µm by CO2.
Back to your source again:

More energy coming in than going out = earth heats up. The surface temperature would keep heating up until eventually 239W/m2 made it out through the atmospheric window &#8211; which is 50°C.

According to their "calculations" that would mean that in 2005 most of the globe was above 50 Celsius (!) ...in order to see an OLR like the one NASA & NOAA posted for 2005
I`m pretty sure that wasn`t the 2005 "average global " temperature, but that`s what you would need to explain the AGW CO2 effect.

 

[Abraham3]

Wow, you've bested the world's scientists. Thousands of them. No one ever thought this through as carefully and diligently as you have; bringing your unmatched depth of knowledge and experience to the problem. I am sure that as soon as they see this, they will all do one massive group face-slap before dropping AGW like a hot potato.

Right...

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you always have such problems reading graphs? What data do they display out to 4000 AD?

Show us better data covering those time spans.

Point is there IS NO DATA beyond 2013 but the chart goes out 4000 for scaling and dramatic effect. It is a simple skepticalscience cutandhatchet job. In crayon --- with no reason to exist other than for propaganda purposes....

Marcott himself says the time resolution in his study is on the order of CENTURIES.. Its THOROUGHLY INCAPABLE OF RECORDING 40 or 50 year thermal events.. YET --- there are enough fools around for skepticalscience to prey on. You arent one of those --- ARE YOU?

The resolution of those data is sufficient to rule out a pulse like we are currently experiencing because the temperatures would have to get back down within the limits of the resolution he does have.

You are not just ignorant. You're LYING.. Because I've posted Marcotts own description of the lack of temporal resolution in that metastudy..

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 &#8220;upticks&#8221; or &#8220;downticks&#8221; in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

You literally have NO EVIDENCE of rates in a metastudy of varying global proxies.. Crap statistical exercises that ATTEMPT to divine a MULTI-MILLENIAL GLOBAL AVG --- from just 78 samples around the global of wood, bugs, and ice.
So the chart is comparing highly FILTERED GARBAGE to a BRIEF AND ACCURATE modern 60 yr temperature record.. You REFUSE to learn ANY FACT that contradicts your brainwashing at skepticalscience..

If you would have cut that chart off at 2013 when the data ends in a nearly vertical line, I can only presume you haven't produced many charts. The axis goes to 4000 for READABILITY. Good grief.

And pal --- You don't have any ocean engineering credentials.. Not with misunderstanding the ups and downs of temporal resolution in a study and your ridiculous claim of catching spikes "because the data has to come back down".. But your quote immediately above just nails your credibility shut --- when you argue that the empty graphs with extended time scales "improve the readibility".. That penciled in distorted GUESS at temperature would be EVEN MORE VERTICAL if you had taken the empty data out to 8000 AD.. The kinda thing that skepticalscience does to add drama to their indoctrinations. You fall for this trash --- right down the chute.. Not even REMOTELY POSSIBLE that you have a hefty engineering background..

 

[Abraham3]

Point is there IS NO DATA beyond 2013 but the chart goes out 4000 for scaling and dramatic effect. It is a simple skepticalscience cutandhatchet job. In crayon --- with no reason to exist other than for propaganda purposes....

Marcott himself says the time resolution in his study is on the order of CENTURIES.. Its THOROUGHLY INCAPABLE OF RECORDING 40 or 50 year thermal events.. YET --- there are enough fools around for skepticalscience to prey on. You arent one of those --- ARE YOU?

The resolution of those data is sufficient to rule out a pulse like we are currently experiencing because the temperatures would have to get back down within the limits of the resolution he does have.

You are not just ignorant. You're LYING.. Because I've posted Marcotts own description of the lack of temporal resolution in that metastudy..

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.

You literally have NO EVIDENCE of rates in a metastudy of varying global proxies.. Crap statistical exercises that ATTEMPT to divine a MULTI-MILLENIAL GLOBAL AVG --- from just 78 samples around the global of wood, bugs, and ice.
So the chart is comparing highly FILTERED GARBAGE to a BRIEF AND ACCURATE modern 60 yr temperature record.. You REFUSE to learn ANY FACT that contradicts your brainwashing at skepticalscience..

If you would have cut that chart off at 2013 when the data ends in a nearly vertical line, I can only presume you haven't produced many charts. The axis goes to 4000 for READABILITY. Good grief.

And pal --- You don't have any ocean engineering credentials.. Not with misunderstanding the ups and downs of temporal resolution in a study and your ridiculous claim of catching spikes "because the data has to come back down".. But your quote immediately above just nails your credibility shut --- when you argue that the empty graphs with extended time scales "improve the readibility".. That penciled in distorted GUESS at temperature would be EVEN MORE VERTICAL if you had taken the empty data out to 8000 AD.. The kinda thing that skepticalscience does to add drama to their indoctrinations. You fall for this trash --- right down the chute.. Not even REMOTELY POSSIBLE that you have a hefty engineering background..

From the Marcott FAQ:

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.

So, the point is that for any thing remotely like the current situation to have occurred during the period of Marcott's examination, it would have to have come AND GONE in less time than their temporal resolution. And given the magnitude of the temperature change you're talking about, the period involved would have to be on his lower end. Do you really want to suggest that what we have going on now could return to 1880 levels in another 150 years? Before you answer that, you might want to have a look at the CO2 lifetime data.

And what IS your point? Do you have some evidence that such an event DID take place?

 

[flacaltenn]

The resolution of those data is sufficient to rule out a pulse like we are currently experiencing because the temperatures would have to get back down within the limits of the resolution he does have.

You are not just ignorant. You're LYING.. Because I've posted Marcotts own description of the lack of temporal resolution in that metastudy..



You literally have NO EVIDENCE of rates in a metastudy of varying global proxies.. Crap statistical exercises that ATTEMPT to divine a MULTI-MILLENIAL GLOBAL AVG --- from just 78 samples around the global of wood, bugs, and ice.
So the chart is comparing highly FILTERED GARBAGE to a BRIEF AND ACCURATE modern 60 yr temperature record.. You REFUSE to learn ANY FACT that contradicts your brainwashing at skepticalscience..

If you would have cut that chart off at 2013 when the data ends in a nearly vertical line, I can only presume you haven't produced many charts. The axis goes to 4000 for READABILITY. Good grief.

And pal --- You don't have any ocean engineering credentials.. Not with misunderstanding the ups and downs of temporal resolution in a study and your ridiculous claim of catching spikes "because the data has to come back down".. But your quote immediately above just nails your credibility shut --- when you argue that the empty graphs with extended time scales "improve the readibility".. That penciled in distorted GUESS at temperature would be EVEN MORE VERTICAL if you had taken the empty data out to 8000 AD.. The kinda thing that skepticalscience does to add drama to their indoctrinations. You fall for this trash --- right down the chute.. Not even REMOTELY POSSIBLE that you have a hefty engineering background..

From the Marcott FAQ:

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 &#8220;upticks&#8221; or &#8220;downticks&#8221; in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

So, the point is that for any thing remotely like the current situation to have occurred during the period of Marcott's examination, it would have to have come AND GONE in less time than their temporal resolution. And given the magnitude of the temperature change you're talking about, the period involved would have to be on his lower end. Do you really want to suggest that what we have going on now could return to 1880 levels in another 150 years? Before you answer that, you might want to have a look at the CO2 lifetime data.

And what IS your point? Do you have some evidence that such an event DID take place?

If you had ANY engineering chops, you'd know that events smaller than the resolution drop off in magnitude as they approach the temporal resolution of the time record. Marcott TELLS YOU above what the Nyquist criterion does. The temporal resolution is 150 years. Therefore (by nyquist) there is NO RESOLUTION left at 300 yrs. And furthermore, "temperature spikes" that "come and go" in a 1000 yrs would only have 50% of the actual temperature height.

So why are you babbling on about the 1880s?? These proxy reconstructions couldn't even differentiate the 1880s from the 1580s !!!!!! (( or the 2180s !!!!)) Could have missed the Little Ice Age and the Med Warm Period if not for sheer luck of WHEN the center of sample occurred. ((or a little fiddling with the proxies))

What is MY POINT?? Just made it. Marcott, Shakun, Mann --- ALL THOSE METASTUDIES are useless in terms of making statements about RATES of climate change over even 300 or 500 year periods. Their is no information to be found for events shorter than about 400 years.

Do I have evidence that such events DID take place? Yup.. Have told you MANY MANY MANY times, but not penetrated your skepticalscience brain damage..

THINK IT WILL WORK THIS TIME?? ((anybody want to place odds?? The house has it at 25:1 against))

The INDIVIDUAL PROXIES that are centered on a SINGLE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION and a single TYPE of proxy --- have higher resolutions and are NOT subject to the crappy effects of trying to extend 75 surface samples to cover the entire fucking globe.

So the INDIVIDUAL PROXIES DO SHOW --- considerably more detail in the temp records. And MANY of those CLEARLY show evidence that -- for instance -- the MWPeriod WAS higher in temperature and WIDER in geography than your lying heroes have asserted.

Making general bullshit statements about Global Averages of ancient climates based on proxy studies is a political neccessity. Because the AGW Church has to tie that into the ONLY NUMBER that John Q Moron knows.. And that is the Mean Global Annual Surface Temperature. These folks are not interested in ancient climate studies. They need to supply BS for skepticalscience to pencil in the message. And to keep YOU as a believer.

 

[itfitzme]

You are not just ignorant. You're LYING.. Because I've posted Marcotts own description of the lack of temporal resolution in that metastudy..



You literally have NO EVIDENCE of rates in a metastudy of varying global proxies.. Crap statistical exercises that ATTEMPT to divine a MULTI-MILLENIAL GLOBAL AVG --- from just 78 samples around the global of wood, bugs, and ice.
So the chart is comparing highly FILTERED GARBAGE to a BRIEF AND ACCURATE modern 60 yr temperature record.. You REFUSE to learn ANY FACT that contradicts your brainwashing at skepticalscience..




And pal --- You don't have any ocean engineering credentials.. Not with misunderstanding the ups and downs of temporal resolution in a study and your ridiculous claim of catching spikes "because the data has to come back down".. But your quote immediately above just nails your credibility shut --- when you argue that the empty graphs with extended time scales "improve the readibility".. That penciled in distorted GUESS at temperature would be EVEN MORE VERTICAL if you had taken the empty data out to 8000 AD.. The kinda thing that skepticalscience does to add drama to their indoctrinations. You fall for this trash --- right down the chute.. Not even REMOTELY POSSIBLE that you have a hefty engineering background..

From the Marcott FAQ:

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 &#8220;upticks&#8221; or &#8220;downticks&#8221; in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

So, the point is that for any thing remotely like the current situation to have occurred during the period of Marcott's examination, it would have to have come AND GONE in less time than their temporal resolution. And given the magnitude of the temperature change you're talking about, the period involved would have to be on his lower end. Do you really want to suggest that what we have going on now could return to 1880 levels in another 150 years? Before you answer that, you might want to have a look at the CO2 lifetime data.

And what IS your point? Do you have some evidence that such an event DID take place?

If you had ANY engineering chops, you'd know that events smaller than the resolution drop off in magnitude as they approach the temporal resolution of the time record. Marcott TELLS YOU above what the Nyquist criterion does. The temporal resolution is 150 years. Therefore (by nyquist) there is NO RESOLUTION left at 300 yrs. And furthermore, "temperature spikes" that "come and go" in a 1000 yrs would only have 50% of the actual temperature height.

So why are you babbling on about the 1880s?? These proxy reconstructions couldn't even differentiate the 1880s from the 1580s !!!!!! (( or the 2180s !!!!)) Could have missed the Little Ice Age and the Med Warm Period if not for sheer luck of WHEN the center of sample occurred. ((or a little fiddling with the proxies))

What is MY POINT?? Just made it. Marcott, Shakun, Mann --- ALL THOSE METASTUDIES are useless in terms of making statements about RATES of climate change over even 300 or 500 year periods. Their is no information to be found for events shorter than about 400 years.

Do I have evidence that such events DID take place? Yup.. Have told you MANY MANY MANY times, but not penetrated your skepticalscience brain damage..

THINK IT WILL WORK THIS TIME?? ((anybody want to place odds?? The house has it at 25:1 against))

The INDIVIDUAL PROXIES that are centered on a SINGLE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION and a single TYPE of proxy --- have higher resolutions and are NOT subject to the crappy effects of trying to extend 75 surface samples to cover the entire fucking globe.

So the INDIVIDUAL PROXIES DO SHOW --- considerably more detail in the temp records. And MANY of those CLEARLY show evidence that -- for instance -- the MWPeriod WAS higher in temperature and WIDER in geography than your lying heroes have asserted.

Making general bullshit statements about Global Averages of ancient climates based on proxy studies is a political neccessity. Because the AGW Church has to tie that into the ONLY NUMBER that John Q Moron knows.. And that is the Mean Global Annual Surface Temperature. These folks are not interested in ancient climate studies. They need to supply BS for skepticalscience to pencil in the message. And to keep YOU as a believer.

events smaller than the resolution drop off in magnitude as they approach the temporal resolution of the time record.

What a load of crap.

You really should stop doing meth and reading random wikipedia articles, it's making you manic.

 

[flacaltenn]

You want go one on one over that statement you call Bulllshit? Before you volunteer for ridicule --- you might look right up there in the Marcott quote.. hes explaining EXACTLY how filtering and sampling processes affect the FRQUENCY CONTENT of events.. Frequencies closer to the Nyquist point will be the most attenuated...

Take another shot grasshpper. See if I even CARE.

 

[flacaltenn]

After further review Grasshopper -- you are corrrect. I was uncharacteristically sloppy in my post at #34..

If you had ANY engineering chops, you'd know that events smaller than the resolution drop off in magnitude as they approach the temporal resolution of the time record.

Replace that with ....
"...... you'd know that events with time spans approaching the resolution limit drop off in magnitude as they near the temporal resolution of the time record."

Other than that -- you're pretty much hosed.. Because that's a true statement.
Pretty damn picky to ignore the bulk of that post just to take a cheap shot. But that's all ya got...

Hard to ignore the truthiness of that post.. But you managed to avoid being deprogrammed...

 

[Abraham3]

I'd like to add that you know ocean engineering as well as the back of your ass.

 

[Abraham3]

You knew nothing about that point till you read Marcott - the man you've called every form of idiot - explain it to you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Flat makes a big deal of what he thinks he knows, then gets bent when it is pointed out that he has the facts totally wrong. He is a knownothing ass. Little knowledge of science, and less of research.