Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

[BartW]

Oh Lord Bart you really do believe your right don't you? This statement just proves how little you actually know.

What about my right?

A creationist would say that

 

[BartW]

But, you still haven't answered what caused the temperature to be higher. You can't answer the question without admitting that CO2 does not drive temperature change. I think you're confused. Please no more non-sense about CO2 levels oscillating. They were lower than they are now and the temperature was higher.

I’ve answered this twice. The temperature was higher because Earth received more insolation. Milankovitch cycles and whatnot. You should know this stuff by now. I can point you to the relevant literature but I doubt you’d read it.

The Earth doesn't warm and cool uniformly. Really? It's irrelevant in this context. The Greenland data is still approximately reflective of the global temperature change. You can't say we're going to research tree rings and ice core as an approximate for past temperature record and when it gives results you don't like claim global =/= local. Now that's Mannish. But typical.

Do you seriously not get that the temperature in Greenland isn’t representative of global average temperature? Or are you just being purposefully obtuse? For example, here’s the regional temperature anomaly for the MWP relative to the 1961-1990 average:

Notice how globally the MWP was cooler. Here's recent times relative to the 1961-1990 average:

Notice how they're not uniform? Ever heard of polar amplification? I've mentioned it a few times. It was predicted by climate scientists back in the ‘70s.

You must not understand. Dr. Alley's data has been published. So, he doesn't get to control who uses it or how it is used. And, I presented it exactly as he presented it. But, thank God it wasn't fudged data like Mann's. We still don't know what Mann's original data looked like. Claiming now that GISP2 data is not an approximate for global temperature especially in the context in which it is being used is nonsense. Your rebuttal is really lame.

You did not present the data as Alley did. Your figure is deceiving. The site you got it from is either dumb or intentionally dishonest.

Mann’s result has withstood the test of time. Denying the hockey stick is, well, denial.

 

[BartW]

Since I’m on a mind blowing roll, here’s some more food for thought. If you clicked over to the wiki you’d see Arctic amplification has been linked to extreme weather in mid-latitudes, another prediction that appears to be coming true:

California Drought/Polar Vortex Jet Stream Pattern Linked to Global Warming

Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be ‘Even More Dire’

What drought looks like

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

What about my right?

A creationist would say that

Stupid auto correct

 

[BartW]

 

[FLVOL69]

$$

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Fast food ain't ruining the planet... just America

:crazy: She needs that tumor in her pants cut out.

 

[BartW]

$$

I love me some HAARP :loco:

Interestingly the first government literature on global warming was from a 1964 NRC/NAS committee led by Gordon Macdonald (who served on the PSAC for Johnson and Nixon). It was called Scientific Problems of Weather Modification, A report on the Panel on Weather and Climate Modifaction, Committee on Atmospheric Sciences. The point of the research was to determine if we could deliberately change weather for agricultural or military purposes, but it also warned of “inadvertent weather modification” from CO2 emissions.

Coincidence or… conspiracy?!?!

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I love me some HAARP :loco:

Interestingly the first government literature on global warming was from a 1964 NRC/NAS committee led by Gordon Macdonald (who served on the PSAC for Johnson and Nixon). It was called Scientific Problems of Weather Modification, A report on the Panel on Weather and Climate Modifaction, Committee on Atmospheric Sciences. The point of the research was to determine if we could deliberately change weather for agricultural or military purposes, but it also warned of “inadvertent weather modification” from CO2 emissions.

Coincidence or… conspiracy?!?!

So you have some concrete, irrefutable evidence that HAARP has no effect on the weather? Oops I guess since I asked that question it means I am a "conspiracy theorist" right? I am sure because the government says it has no effect that you will agree with them. But I was curious anyway.

 

[Sandvol]

I’ve answered this twice. The temperature was higher because Earth received more insolation. Milankovitch cycles and whatnot. You should know this stuff by now. I can point you to the relevant literature but I doubt you’d read it.

Do you seriously not get that the temperature in Greenland isn’t representative of global average temperature? Or are you just being purposefully obtuse? For example, here’s the regional temperature anomaly for the MWP relative to the 1961-1990 average:

Notice how globally the MWP was cooler. Here's recent times relative to the 1961-1990 average:

Nice little meaningless copy paste from your Skeptical Science-geez. (Please don't source Wiki again even though Skeptical not much better. As you well know any idiot can put anything on Wiki. If you think any of us are going to chase down your Wiki sources you're more full of yourself than I thought which would be hard to be.)

Here's a real study:

Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
Yair Rosenthal1,*, Braddock K. Linsley2,
Delia W. Oppo3

Author Affiliations
1Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences and Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, 71 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
2Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.
3Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
↵*Corresponding author. E-mail: rosentha@imcs.rutgers.edu

Abstract


Editor's Summary

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

Here's Bart and his buddies thinking:
Oh, s**t, must be something wrong with the study. Because if MWP were warmer it would render Mann's hockey stick meaningless. Oh, s**t, it is meaningless. Oh wait yeah Artic Polarization yeah that's the ticket. We'll use Arctic Polarization.

You obviously need some more classes and don't understand. Central Greenland temperature changes are not identical to global temperature changes but, they do reflect global temperature changes with a decadal-scale delay (Box et al. 2009), with the exception of the Antarctic region and adjoining parts of the Southern Hemisphere, which is more or less in opposite phase (Chylek et al. 2010) for variations shorter than ice-age cycles (your friend Alley 2003). Not anti phase or anti correlated or what ever other BS terminology you want to use.

Notice how they're not uniform? Ever heard of polar amplification? I've mentioned it a few times. It was predicted by climate scientists back in the ‘70s.

You did not present the data as Alley did. Your figure is deceiving. The site you got it from is either dumb or intentionally dishonest.

Mann’s result has withstood the test of time. Denying the hockey stick is, well, denial.

Mann is a known fudge man. No respectable scientist would ever cite his work.

 

[BartW]

So you have some concrete, irrefutable evidence that HAARP has no effect on the weather? Oops I guess since I asked that question it means I am a "conspiracy theorist" right? I am sure because the government says it has no effect that you will agree with them. But I was curious anyway.

Yeah the government is no doubt using ELF for mind/weather control that causes earthquakes around the world :crazy:

You continue to prove my point. People that believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others.

A sociologist surveyed climate science bloggers and published this article in Psychological Sciences:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing,Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

In response to ‘skeptic’ complaints of self-selection bias, he repeated the experiment with a third-party professional survey firm who queried a sample representative of the US population (getting the same results):

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Ironically ‘skeptics’ responded by claiming that it’s all part of a conspiracy involving university executives, the media, and the Australian government. This prompted the follow up:

Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation

So which is it? Do you acknowledge the correlation between radical free-market fundamentalism, climate denial, and conspiracy theorizing (a trend we see in this thread), or is it all part of a conspiracy?

Bump

 

[BartW]

Give it up Sandvol, you've been exposed. You’re embarrassing the other “skeptics”. How many times are you going to misrepresent papers you haven’t read? I thought you’d stop that after I called you out the first few times, but it appears I overestimated you.

Nice little meaningless copy paste from your Skeptical Science-geez. (Please don't source Wiki again even though Skeptical not much better. As you well know any idiot can put anything on Wiki. If you think any of us are going to chase down your Wiki sources you're more full of yourself than I thought which would be hard to be.)

Here's a real study:

Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years, Rosenthal et al.

Abstract

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

Here's Bart and his buddies thinking:
Oh, s**t, must be something wrong with the study. Because if MWP were warmer it would render Mann's hockey stick meaningless. Oh, s**t, it is meaningless. Oh wait yeah Artic Polarization yeah that's the ticket. We'll use Arctic Polarization.

“Here’s a real study” :lolabove: Remember what I said about confirmation bias? Do you realize this study cites Mann? You said no respectable scientist would ever cite his work, right? You’ve discredited your own article!

If you knew the first thing about coring (especially marine sediment) you’d know sediment core tops are notoriously bad estimates of… well, anything. They can easily be disturbed by geologic processes, bioturbation, and the drilling itself. And since sedimentation is a slow process, these upper few cm represent decades. Which is why, if you’d seen Table 1, you’d know that only 4/7 cores extended into the 1900’s and only 2/7 past 1950. So “recent decades” is a relative term. And again, you’re just looking at one location. Let’s look at some quotes:

“Earth’s obliquity exerts the dominant influence on high-latitude temperatures and that OHC is highly sensitive to the changes at these latitudes.”

“Over a long time, the ocean’s interior acts like a capacitor and builds up large (positive and negative) heat anomalies that reflect and, more importantly, affect the global climate.”

“With no additional IWT records, it is difficult to assess the global extent of the trends we have reconstructed.”

“The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time. However, on longer time scales the oceanic response is likely different, as seen in our records where past changes in IWT were much larger than variations in global surface temperatures. The large variations in IWT and inferred OHC during the Holocene and Common era, when global temperature anomalies were relatively small, imply elevated sensitivity to climate conditions in the high latitudes, which, on a multidecadal scale, likely enables the ocean to mediate perturbations in Earth’s energy budget.”

So no, OHC doesn’t tell us average global surface temperature was higher during the MWP.

You obviously need some more classes and don't understand. Central Greenland temperature changes are not identical to global temperature changes but, they do reflect global temperature changes with a decadal-scale delay (Box et al. 2009), with the exception of the Antarctic region and adjoining parts of the Southern Hemisphere, which is more or less in opposite phase (Chylek et al. 2010) for variations shorter than ice-age cycles (your friend Alley 2003). Not anti phase or anti correlated or what ever other BS terminology you want to use.

Mann is a known fudge man. No respectable scientist would ever cite his work.

I need some more classes? That's rich. I’m the geologist here bub. And don’t pretend you’re actually reading the literature. This is another copypaste from climate4you.

If you’d read it you’d know the Box et al. paper does not say anything about global temperatures. And "reflects" =/= "equals". Let’s look at some quotes:

“Trends above 1500-m elevation tend to be somewhat larger in magnitude than those below 1500 m.” [GISP2 is at 3200m]

“During the 1881–2006 period, Greenland ice sheet temperature anomalies are in phase with NH anomalies the majority of the time (R 5 0.658; see Fig. 14). The time correlation of the two series would be higher were it not for apparent decadal-scale lags between the two. Noteworthy phase exceptions are that Greenland temperatures were still cooling during the 1970s and 1980s, years after NH temperatures began warming, highlighting the relatively strong influence of volcanic cooling on Greenland versus the NH.”

“High-latitude warming is simulated by global climate models to be amplified by the ice albedo feedback.”

“Greenland ice sheet annual temperature anomalies are more than a factor of 2 greater than Northern Hemisphere anomalies.”

Figure 14

Notice the Polar Amplification? I didn't make that ish up. Go read a book

 

[BartW]

Btw here's Columbia press release on the OHC paper.

"A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth’s surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000."

"Many scientists note that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year even by modern standards, and so any average rise using it as a starting point would downplay the longer-term warming trend."

“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said study lead author, Yair Rosenthal, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”

"One explanation for the recent slowdown in global warming is that a prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases. In a study in the journal Nature in August, climate modelers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography showed that La Niña cooling in the Pacific seemed to suppress global average temperatures during northern hemisphere winters but allowed temperatures to rise during northern hemisphere summers, explaining last year’s record U.S. heat wave and the ongoing loss of Arctic sea ice.

When the La Niña cycle switches, and the Pacific reverts to a warmer than usual El Niño phase, global temperatures may likely shoot up again, along with the rate of warming. “With global warming you don’t see a gradual warming from one year to the next,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the research. “It’s more like a staircase. You trot along with nothing much happening for 10 years and then suddenly you have a jump and things never go back to the previous level again.”

The study’s long-term perspective suggests that the recent pause in global warming may just reflect random variations in heat going between atmosphere and ocean, with little long-term importance, says Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with joint appointments at Columbia’s Earth Institute and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a lead author on the latest IPCC report. “Surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change,” he said. “Looking at the total energy stored by the climate system or multiple indicators--glacier melting, water vapor in the atmosphere, snow cover, and so on—may be more useful than looking at surface temperature alone.”

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Yeah the government is no doubt using ELF for mind/weather control that causes earthquakes around the world :crazy:

You continue to prove my point. People that believe in one conspiracy theory are more likely to believe in others.

Bump

More straw man from you. When did I say that I believed anything? I was just asking if you had any proof that HAARP has no effect on the weather. I really don't see the issue with asking questions. That's how science progresses, by asking questions. I figured you knew that.

So asking questions=conspiracy theorists. Got it. You have the audacity to tell others they have been exposed? You obviously do not even know how science actually works. I mean on one hand people bring up scientists to refute your argument. You berate them and say they are not credible. Then you say all scientists are credible in some way. Then scientists who disagree with what you think are not credible and are frauds. Dude you need to stop. You commit logical fallacies constantly, you fail to answer questions, you flip flop on your posts, you don't really understand how science works and anyone who might offer a different opinion is automatically a conspiracy theorists and scientific denialist.

 

[BartW]

More straw man from you. When did I say that I believed anything? I was just asking if you had any proof that HAARP has no effect on the weather. I really don't see the issue with asking questions. That's how science progresses, by asking questions. I figured you knew that.

So asking questions=conspiracy theorists. Got it. You have the audacity to tell others they have been exposed? You obviously do not even know how science actually works. I mean on one hand people bring up scientists to refute your argument. You berate them and say they are not credible. Then you say all scientists are credible in some way. Then scientists who disagree with what you think are not credible and are frauds. Dude you need to stop. You commit logical fallacies constantly, you fail to answer questions, you flip flop on your posts, you don't really understand how science works and anyone who might offer a different opinion is automatically a conspiracy theorists and scientific denialist.

So much irony. Your question was dumb to begin with. "So you have some concrete, irrefutable evidence that HAARP has no effect on the weather?" Lol. Do you have concrete evidence the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

Misrepresenting other people's work =/= 'people bringing up scientists to refute my argument'. Sandvol's BS has been exposed. The very authors he cites say the denialist spin on their work is bullhonky, and I showed why in my post(s) above.

 

[Sandvol]

Give it up Sandvol, you've been exposed. You’re embarrassing the other “skeptics”. How many times are you going to misrepresent papers you haven’t read? I thought you’d stop that after I called you out the first few times, but it appears I overestimated you.

“Here’s a real study” :lolabove: Remember what I said about confirmation bias? Do you realize this study cites Mann? You said no respectable scientist would ever cite his work, right? You’ve discredited your own article!

If you knew the first thing about coring (especially marine sediment) you’d know sediment core tops are notoriously bad estimates of… well, anything. They can easily be disturbed by geologic processes, bioturbation, and the drilling itself. And since sedimentation is a slow process, these upper few cm represent decades. Which is why, if you’d seen Table 1, you’d know that only 4/7 cores extended into the 1900’s and only 2/7 past 1950. So “recent decades” is a relative term. And again, you’re just looking at one location. Let’s look at some quotes:

“Earth’s obliquity exerts the dominant influence on high-latitude temperatures and that OHC is highly sensitive to the changes at these latitudes.”

“Over a long time, the ocean’s interior acts like a capacitor and builds up large (positive and negative) heat anomalies that reflect and, more importantly, affect the global climate.”

“With no additional IWT records, it is difficult to assess the global extent of the trends we have reconstructed.”

“The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time. However, on longer time scales the oceanic response is likely different, as seen in our records where past changes in IWT were much larger than variations in global surface temperatures. The large variations in IWT and inferred OHC during the Holocene and Common era, when global temperature anomalies were relatively small, imply elevated sensitivity to climate conditions in the high latitudes, which, on a multidecadal scale, likely enables the ocean to mediate perturbations in Earth’s energy budget.”

So no, OHC doesn’t tell us average global surface temperature was higher during the MWP.

I need some more classes? That's rich. I’m the geologist here bub. And don’t pretend you’re actually reading the literature. This is another copypaste from climate4you.

If you’d read it you’d know the Box et al. paper does not say anything about global temperatures. And "reflects" =/= "equals". Let’s look at some quotes:

“Trends above 1500-m elevation tend to be somewhat larger in magnitude than those below 1500 m.” [GISP2 is at 3200m]

“During the 1881–2006 period, Greenland ice sheet temperature anomalies are in phase with NH anomalies the majority of the time (R 5 0.658; see Fig. 14). The time correlation of the two series would be higher were it not for apparent decadal-scale lags between the two. Noteworthy phase exceptions are that Greenland temperatures were still cooling during the 1970s and 1980s, years after NH temperatures began warming, highlighting the relatively strong influence of volcanic cooling on Greenland versus the NH.”

“High-latitude warming is simulated by global climate models to be amplified by the ice albedo feedback.”

“Greenland ice sheet annual temperature anomalies are more than a factor of 2 greater than Northern Hemisphere anomalies.”

Figure 14

Notice the Polar Amplification? I didn't make that ish up. Go read a book

I don't have access to the full work as you well know. I'm not still in school like you. Why don't you get a real job instead of an environmental whacko shill. But, here's what the editor said:

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

I'll accept his summary of the article over yours. And, nothing you cite above weakens the idea that the MWP wasn't warmer than now. Also, in what context did the article cite Mann? Oh, yeah, insolation must have been higher then right? Because if it wasn't your model would be crap. Oh wait, it is crap.

 

[Sandvol]

Isn't it amazing Bart how any research that doesn't support your and Mann's view of the temperature record like Yamal tree rings, or GISP2 or marine sediment core are notoriously bad? Isn't it just amazing how that works? Or the insolation during the last interglacial must have been higher because of that one study you keep citing? Because if it wasn't your view would be seriously flawed. Wouldn't it?

 

[MG1968]

Isn't it amazing Bart how any research that doesn't support your and Mann's view of the temperature record like Yamal tree rings, or GISP2 or marine sediment core are notoriously bad? Isn't it just amazing how that works? Or the insolation during the last interglacial must have been higher because of that one study you keep citing? Because if it wasn't your view would be seriously flawed. Wouldn't it?

That's because Bart's beloved peer review process is conducted in an echo chamber and any work that shows findings contrary to their established orthodoxy results in that scientist being labeled a "denier".

 

[BartW]

I don't have access to the full work as you well know. I'm not still in school like you. Why don't you get a real job instead of an environmental whacko shill.

If you worked in the sciences you’d have access too. We science folk don’t stop reading and learning after we graduate. And I do have a job, but not on the environmental side. Environmental stuff is arduous work and ****ty pay for cleaning up other people’s messes. Glad someone wants to do it…

But, here's what the editor said:

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

I'll accept his summary of the article over yours.

That doesn’t conflict with anything I said or quoted.

And, nothing you cite above weakens the idea that the MWP wasn't warmer than now. Also, in what context did the article cite Mann?

Nothing you've cited supports the idea that the MWP was warmer in the first place. The article uses Mann’s data in Figure 3. Though it’s odd, because on the figure it’s labeled Mann 2003 and in the references it’s Mann 2008. Anyway, focus on these quotes:

“Over a long time, the ocean’s interior acts like a capacitor and builds up large (positive and negative) heat anomalies that reflect and, more importantly, affect the global climate.”

“The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time… where past changes in IWT (intermediate water temperature) were much larger than variations in global surface temperatures.”

And from the university press release:

“In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.”

“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said study lead author, Yair Rosenthal, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”

The point is that oceans take longer to heat up and cool down than the atmosphere. They have a high thermal inertia. The absolute level of ocean heat content may not be as high yet recently (or rather, whenever their last data point is – 1980 for the youngest core) as in the MWP, but only because the ocean hasn’t had time to equilibrate. It's a big ocean...

That's also why "recent" ocean warming is occurring 15 times as fast as over the past 10,000 years. The ocean is equilibrating.

Isn't it amazing Bart how any research that doesn't support your and Mann's view of the temperature record like Yamal tree rings, or GISP2 or marine sediment core are notoriously bad? Isn't it just amazing how that works? Or the insolation during the last interglacial must have been higher because of that one study you keep citing? Because if it wasn't your view would be seriously flawed. Wouldn't it?

No paleoclimate proxies are “notoriously bad” altogether but they do each come with their own caveats and limitations. I haven’t cited a single study regarding insolation, but if you do want to dive into the literature you could start here or here. The temperature in the Eemian is inconsequential to today’s rapid warming. If you don’t “believe in” Milankovitch cycles, why do you think the Eemian was warmer? You should publish a paper. Maybe you’ll revolutionize climate science!

That's because Bart's beloved peer review process is conducted in an echo chamber and any work that shows findings contrary to their established orthodoxy results in that scientist being labeled a "denier".

Whatever helps you sleep at night bub

 

[BartW]

Drunken Trees: Dramatic Signs of Climate Change

:toast:

Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. But climate change has caused much of that ground to melt at an unprecedented rate. The ground buckles and sinks, causing trees to list at extreme angles.

It's not just trees. Slumping land caused by melting permafrost also cracks pavement, breaks pipelines, and opens holes, causing expensive damage to houses and roads. "We have whole families who have had to move because their houses are not safe anymore," says James.

Torre Jorgenson, a scientist in Fairbanks, Alaska, who studies permafrost, says melting of ice crystals below the ground can cause slumps as large as 10 meters (33 feet). That can "swallow a whole house," says Jorgensen, who heads Alaska Ecoscience, which does research for government agencies

With the impacts hitting home, the road that winds near his house has to be rebuilt every few years because of damage caused by slumping. This year, engineers are adding insulation to try to reduce the impact of the melting, but that's expensive.

In addition to collapsed trees, slumping land often leads to the formation of new thermokarst lakes, if enough meltwater collects in a depression. In that case, drunken trees are often found ringing the water.

"The melting permafrost as a process in the region is very, very serious," says Tero Mustonen, who leads the Snowchange Cooperative, a nonprofit organization in Finland. A warming north has "profound consequences for both the global system and the local human societies," he says, adding that the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from thawed ground is a particular worry.

 

[Sandvol]

If you worked in the sciences you’d have access too. We science folk don’t stop reading and learning after we graduate. And I do have a job, but not on the environmental side. Environmental stuff is arduous work and ****ty pay for cleaning up other people’s messes. Glad someone wants to do it…

That doesn’t conflict with anything I said or quoted.

Nothing you've cited supports the idea that the MWP was warmer in the first place. The article uses Mann’s data in Figure 3. Though it’s odd, because on the figure it’s labeled Mann 2003 and in the references it’s Mann 2008. Anyway, focus on these quotes:

“Over a long time, the ocean’s interior acts like a capacitor and builds up large (positive and negative) heat anomalies that reflect and, more importantly, affect the global climate.”

“The current response of surface temperatures to the ongoing radiative perturbation is substantially higher than the response of the ocean’s interior, due to the long whole-ocean equilibration time… where past changes in IWT (intermediate water temperature) were much larger than variations in global surface temperatures.”

And from the university press release:

“In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.”

“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said study lead author, Yair Rosenthal, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”

The point is that oceans take longer to heat up and cool down than the atmosphere. They have a high thermal inertia. The absolute level of ocean heat content may not be as high yet recently (or rather, whenever their last data point is – 1980 for the youngest core) as in the MWP, but only because the ocean hasn’t had time to equilibrate. It's a big ocean...

That's also why "recent" ocean warming is occurring 15 times as fast as over the past 10,000 years. The ocean is equilibrating.

No paleoclimate proxies are “notoriously bad” altogether but they do each come with their own caveats and limitations. I haven’t cited a single study regarding insolation, but if you do want to dive into the literature you could start here or here. The temperature in the Eemian is inconsequential to today’s rapid warming. If you don’t “believe in” Milankovitch cycles, why do you think the Eemian was warmer? You should publish a paper. Maybe you’ll revolutionize climate science!


Whatever helps you sleep at night bub

Ok, well I'm going to keep throwing them at you bub. (Is that your new term.) I guess its better than the one you used to used when you called us morons and unscientific. Of course since I'm not a scientist and don't have access maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this one.

Reference
Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617.
Description
The authors present a temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere that spans the past two millennia. It was produced from two different sources of paleoclimatic data: tree-rings, which capture very high frequency climate variations, and lake and ocean sediments, which Moberg et al. say "provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data." Using data provided by the authors, we have produced a graph of average decadal temperature anomalies, shown below, in which the Medieval Warm Period peaks just prior to AD 900 and is strongly expressed between about AD 650 and 1250. Peak temperatures during this time period are about 0.22�C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record. Instrumental data suggest significant subsequent warming; but the directly-measured temperatures cannot be validly compared with the reconstructed ones. Hence, it is not possible to determine if current temperatures have eclipsed those of a thousand years ago or whether they still fall below them; and the fairest thing to do, in our estimation, is to tentatively conclude (for this data set only) that the peak temperatures of both periods are approximately equivalent.

There's lots more by the way but take your time.

 

[Sandvol]

Drunken Trees: Dramatic Signs of Climate Change

:toast:

Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. But climate change has caused much of that ground to melt at an unprecedented rate. The ground buckles and sinks, causing trees to list at extreme angles.

It's not just trees. Slumping land caused by melting permafrost also cracks pavement, breaks pipelines, and opens holes, causing expensive damage to houses and roads. "We have whole families who have had to move because their houses are not safe anymore," says James.

Torre Jorgenson, a scientist in Fairbanks, Alaska, who studies permafrost, says melting of ice crystals below the ground can cause slumps as large as 10 meters (33 feet). That can "swallow a whole house," says Jorgensen, who heads Alaska Ecoscience, which does research for government agencies

With the impacts hitting home, the road that winds near his house has to be rebuilt every few years because of damage caused by slumping. This year, engineers are adding insulation to try to reduce the impact of the melting, but that's expensive.

In addition to collapsed trees, slumping land often leads to the formation of new thermokarst lakes, if enough meltwater collects in a depression. In that case, drunken trees are often found ringing the water.

"The melting permafrost as a process in the region is very, very serious," says Tero Mustonen, who leads the Snowchange Cooperative, a nonprofit organization in Finland. A warming north has "profound consequences for both the global system and the local human societies," he says, adding that the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from thawed ground is a particular worry.

That's what happens during interglacials. This one is called the Holocene. It will be over soon and then we'll have the next ice age to deal with and a lot more to worry about than a few slumping trees. Those slumping trees will be buried in about a half a mile of snow.

 

[BartW]

Ok, well I'm going to keep throwing them at you bub. (Is that your new term.) I guess its better than the one you used to used when you called us morons and unscientific. Of course since I'm not a scientist and don't have access maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this one.

Reference
Moberg, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M. and Karlen, W. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433: 613-617.
Description
The authors present a temperature history of the Northern Hemisphere that spans the past two millennia. It was produced from two different sources of paleoclimatic data: tree-rings, which capture very high frequency climate variations, and lake and ocean sediments, which Moberg et al. say "provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data." Using data provided by the authors, we have produced a graph of average decadal temperature anomalies, shown below, in which the Medieval Warm Period peaks just prior to AD 900 and is strongly expressed between about AD 650 and 1250. Peak temperatures during this time period are about 0.22�C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record. Instrumental data suggest significant subsequent warming; but the directly-measured temperatures cannot be validly compared with the reconstructed ones. Hence, it is not possible to determine if current temperatures have eclipsed those of a thousand years ago or whether they still fall below them; and the fairest thing to do, in our estimation, is to tentatively conclude (for this data set only) that the peak temperatures of both periods are approximately equivalent.

There's lots more by the way but take your time.

Actually Sandvol that paper is publicly available so you could have read it. If you had you'd know your little blurb is neither the abstract nor the editor’s summary, and the graph you attached is not present in the paper. Here’s their actual result:

And their conclusion:

“We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period—in agreement with previous similar studies.”

So once again you’ve copypasted BS from a ‘skeptic’ disinformation site (CO2 Science) without doing any fact-checking yourself. Good job restoring your credibility

SV I’m not interesting in tracking down and debunking your random claims, comical as it may be. I’ll be happy to discuss the contents of a paper if you read the paper first. Many are publicly available (just google “paper name” +pdf), so if you have “a lot more” you shouldn’t have any trouble quoting peer-reviewed work directly.

I don’t understand your obsession with the hockey stick or MWP, but to settle this issue once and for all let’s look at the results of the PAGES 2K synthesis. It’s the largest reconstruction to date (published 2013) with 78 researchers contributing as co-authors from 60 separate institutions around the world. They used tree rings, pollen, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores, stalagmites and historical documents from 511 locations. The paper, also published in Nature, is called Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. It’s not publicly available but I did find this article for you which contains some of the figures and pertinent information. I want to point out one figure in particular:

And some quotes from the paper:

"The period from around AD 830 to 1100 generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In South America and Australasia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around AD 1160 to 1370."

"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."

“The global warming that has occurred since the end of the nineteenth century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend. The increase in average temperature between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries exceeded the temperature difference between all other consecutive centuries in each region, except Antarctica and South America."

So, like I said, there’s regional variability in warming and cooling. But on the whole the global warming since the end of the 19th century is unprecedented in recent history.

 

[Sandvol]

Actually Sandvol that paper is publicly available so you could have read it. If you had you'd know your little blurb is neither the abstract nor the editor’s summary, and the graph you attached is not present in the paper. Here’s their actual result:

And their conclusion:

“We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period—in agreement with previous similar studies.”

So once again you’ve copypasted BS from a ‘skeptic’ disinformation site (CO2 Science) without doing any fact-checking yourself. Good job restoring your credibility

SV I’m not interesting in tracking down and debunking your random claims, comical as it may be. I’ll be happy to discuss the contents of a paper if you read the paper first. Many are publicly available (just google “paper name” +pdf), so if you have “a lot more” you shouldn’t have any trouble quoting peer-reviewed work directly.

I don’t understand your obsession with the hockey stick or MWP, but to settle this issue once and for all let’s look at the results of the PAGES 2K synthesis. It’s the largest reconstruction to date (published 2013) with 78 researchers contributing as co-authors from 60 separate institutions around the world. They used tree rings, pollen, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores, stalagmites and historical documents from 511 locations. The paper, also published in Nature, is called Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. It’s not publicly available but I did find this article for you which contains some of the figures and pertinent information. I want to point out one figure in particular:

And some quotes from the paper:

"The period from around AD 830 to 1100 generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In South America and Australasia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around AD 1160 to 1370."

"Our regional temperature reconstructions also show little evidence for globally synchronized multi-decadal shifts that would mark well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA intervals. Instead, the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with multi-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend."

“The global warming that has occurred since the end of the nineteenth century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend. The increase in average temperature between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries exceeded the temperature difference between all other consecutive centuries in each region, except Antarctica and South America."

So, like I said, there’s regional variability in warming and cooling. But on the whole the global warming since the end of the 19th century is unprecedented in recent history.

Never said it was their abstract. CO2 is just trying to present the proxy data and not the "recalibrated" charts-you know the "actual" data.

 

[Sandvol]

Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada
Reference
Zabenskie, S. and Gajewski, K. 2007. Post-glacial climatic change on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research 68: 261-270.
Description
Sediment cores were extracted from Lake JR01 (69°54'N, 95°4.2'W) on the Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada, using a Livinstone corer, with the authors careful to note that "the uppermost part of the sediment was sampled in a plastic tube with piston to ensure that the sediment-water interface was collected," while further stating that "the upper 20 cm of sediment were sub-sampled into plastic bags at 0.5-cm intervals." Then, from the fossil pollen assemblages thereby derived, July temperatures were estimated "using the modern analog technique." Among other things, this work revealed "a short warming," which they say "could be interpreted as the Medieval Warm Period." Following this latter period of warmth, they found that "temperatures cooled during the Little Ice Age," as pollen percentages "returned to their values before the [MWP] warming." Last of all, during the final 150 years of the record, a "diverse and productive diatom flora" was observed. However, as the two researchers continue, "July temperatures reconstructed using the modern analog technique remained stable during this time," which suggests that this part of the world is currently not as warm as it was during the MWP. In fact, from data presented in their Figure 7, we calculate that peak MWP temperatures were fully 1.0°C warmer than it is currently, and that the MWP occurred between AD 1200 and 1500.