A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
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.
In other words, the current temperatures are only 3/4 of the way to the previous record high. Then that statement is followed by conjecture that in 87 years we will exceed the known high.
Good grief, they didn't get the picture right for the past 10 years, how can they believe they can get it right 87 years out?
Again,
There are no drowning and starving polar bears. (Their population in Canada is at an all time high) There are no inundated islands There are no increased numbers of hurricanes.
And if there is actually "global warming" this year, please tell our members in Kansas
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The graph from the paper is real telling.
Only if you don't bother to dig deeper than the surface or the scary headline.
The resolution they used for the period prior to the last 100 years is 200 years, while the resolution for the current century IS ONE YEAR. OF COURSE the graph will show a difference.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: If you look at your own link you'll see a long term graph that clearly shows a gradual rise. Year after year the highest and lowest points are higher than the year before it. It is a gradual rise, exactly as I said.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Yeah the graphs are REAL flat. Source.
Wow - you tell me to look at the long term graph, but you yourself keep posted the above "short term" graph.
But let go with this: how many times does the temperature fluctuate between 2000 - 2010? Does the CO2 level also not increase/decrease in this same time frame? According to the graph posted, yes it does vary (I am not talking about averages here).
ALSO, the rise in CO2 is NOT "gradual" as you are indicating, but increasing in a logarithmic type style, whereas temperature is not:
Decade /// Total Increase /// Annual Rate of Increase
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The attribution for the warming anomaly is black and white. CO2 is the best match because there is no evidence for a different leading cause. What's not black and white is the entirety of Earth's climate system that governs its average temperature.
There have been many times in prehistory when atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are right now. In fact, they were "low" for a while, not long ago -- 290 ppm (270 ppm before the 'industrial revolution"), when a minimum of about 180 ppm is necessary to sustain life on earth.
While on this, according to this NASA chart, plants can already absorb thirteen times as much as humans pump out. There's plenty of evidence that increased CO2 enhances plant growth, which means enhancing plants' take-up of CO2 from the atmosphere. There is no evidence that plants are "saturated" and can't take up more CO2. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.
Considering the new report from Marcott et al, and many previous reports, I think it is fortunate that there has been somewhere from 200 to 300 years of solid anthropogenic global warming; otherwise it appears that we would very possibly be on the threshold, if not already in the throes, of another Ice Age.
But continued AGW beyond the current level would be too much of a good thing.
I remember a TV segment (several years ago) that said that if another Ice Age descends, it may come rapidly and not gradually, with dramatic cooling and expansion of glaciers and polar ice in less than a 100 years of change.
It's humankind's destiny to attempt to engineer the global climate. Or say farewell to New York City, and many other familiar locales. I guess another Ice Age would open up new lands as ocean levels subside. Massive resettlement of human populations?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-08-2013).]
No denying climate is changing. It ALWAYS has. Sad that people are falling for goverment hype that man is causing it. Al Gore is the devil. He lead the race to put a price on climate change. Man cannot and will not affect the outcome. We are just a pimple on the planet in the big picture.
No denying climate is changing. It ALWAYS has. Sad that people are falling for goverment hype that man is causing it. Al Gore is the devil. He lead the race to put a price on climate change. Man cannot and will not affect the outcome. We are just a pimple on the planet in the big picture.
Sad that people can't accept their effect on the environment.
Climate has indeed always changed but according to SCIENCE what we are seeing is unprecedented and evidence shows man is the cause.
Pimple on the planet? Many extinct species of animals and plants would show otherwise.
In science there is no infallible proof ... only theory (as in Theory of Universal Gravitation), evidence, experiment, observation, analysis, and confirmation. Repeat. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" applies, but scientific conclusions are always subject to modification as new evidence is developed. 100 years after it was first published, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is still being tested and confirmed by experiment and observation.
In science there is no infallible proof ... only theory (as in Theory of Universal Gravitation), evidence, experiment, observation, analysis, and confirmation. Repeat. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" applies, but scientific conclusions are always subject to modification as new evidence is developed. 100 years after it was first published, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is still being tested and confirmed by experiment and observation.
Then the question is whether there's *adequate * proof.
In an email to Steve McIntyre, the author of the new bogus hockey stick admits the primary finding of the paper, the alleged rapid rise of temperature from 1890-1950 is "probably not robust." Translation: it is not statistically significant and the hyped press releases from the authors are not scientifically nor statistically valid.
Email from first author Shaun Marcott to Steven McIntyre:
Dear Stephen, Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. Specifically, we concluded this based on several lines of evidence. ... Regarding the SH reconstruction: It is the same situation, and again we do not think the last 60 years of our Monte Carlo reconstruction are robust given the small number and resolution of the data in that interval. Regards, Shaun
Paragraph 4 from the paper is below. Did you catch that the primary finding of the paper is "clearly stated" to be "probably not" statistically significant?
Mann himself, who literally wrote the book on attacks on climate scientists, said in an email to Climate Desk that he was "certain that professional climate change deniers will attack the study and the authors, in an effort to discredit this important work," especially given the close ties between the two scientists' research. "It will therefore be looked at as a threat to vested interests who continue to deny that human-changed climate change is a reality."
Marcott admitted he was apprehensive about charging into the fully-mobilized troll army, but said he was grateful scientists like Mann had "gone through hell" before him to build a support network for harassed climate scientists.
"When Michael came along there was a lot more skepticism about global warming, but the public has come a long way," he said. "I'm curious to see how the skeptics are going to take this paper."
Your statement that "The science now confirms the GW fanatics are full of you know what " appears to be untrue depending on what you are stating. The Science shows Climate Change is happening as predicted by the experts, if you are arguing however that some GW fanatics are false then I would have to agree.
Well I can't disagree Newf. Climate continually changes. The exaggerated claims of the GW crowd are just that, exaggerated.
Now the East Anglia and IPCC bunch of reports are out and out fraud.
Arn
Depends on who you are talking about, there are some people who have exaggerated but certainly the East Angola and the IPCC reports have been mostly on target.
Believe what you will, I'll trust the Science thanks!
This quote from the article is very interesting, given that the net temperature rise during the past Century is less than 1 degree C.
"Greenhouse gas emissions have soared during the past 15 years, the magazine notes, with 100 billion tons of carbon having been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. Still, both air and ground temperatures during that time have remained virtually unchanged."
And, the IPCC predictions have been completely overblown and wrong, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary
Originally posted by Arns85GT: In other words, the current temperatures are only 3/4 of the way to the previous record high.
Try reading it again and get back with us. That's not even close.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Only if you don't bother to dig deeper than the surface or the scary headline.
The resolution they used for the period prior to the last 100 years is 200 years, while the resolution for the current century IS ONE YEAR. OF COURSE the graph will show a difference.
That's not true at all. If any warming like what has been experienced in the last 100 years happened in the last 11,000, it would have shown up in the study. The recent warming is without question unprecedented in the last 11,000 years. The deniers favorite guy, Tamino, verified this quiet clearly.
Of course Watts is still waiting for McInyre to do the same analysis to verify it, since Watts is a college drop out and incapable of any actual scientific work.
For one example of how incompetent and dishonest Watts is, he rejects the Marcott study after comparing the Marcott global reconstruction to one single site in the Arctic. Who can compare one single site in the Arctic to a global reconstruction and call it "scientific" with a straight face? Watts.
That's just one part of one example, for a good dose of how unscientific and sometimes humorous WUWT has been since Marcott, checkout this post.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Wow - you tell me to look at the long term graph, but you yourself keep posted the above "short term" graph.
I asked you to look at the long term graph because that's what I was talking about. Over the long term, CO2 is a gradual rise.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ALSO, the rise in CO2 is NOT "gradual" as you are indicating, but increasing in a logarithmic type style, whereas temperature is not:
Again, you're only looking at surface temperatures. You just can't ignore evidence you don't want to see. Source.
We've already covered this. Ocean warming is where 90% of the warming is occurring, NOT just surface temperatures. You cannot look at surface temperatures alone and ask the questions you are: Source. Peer reviewed and published, by the way.
While you're at it, why don't you explain how you justify getting data from a website (www.co2now.org) that supports man's dominate roll in climate change yet you reject mans roll in climate change? How can you cherry pick one narrow section from that website and ignore everything else it says? How can you logically trust the data if you don't trust anything else they report? But I'm sure you'll just ignore those illuminating questions like you always do.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: While on this, according to this NASA chart, plants can already absorb thirteen times as much as humans pump out.
What NASA chart? There are no links to NASA. That's a very wild and outlandish statement to make without backing it up with evidence.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: There have been many times in prehistory when atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher than they are right now. In fact, they were "low" for a while, not long ago -- 290 ppm (270 ppm before the 'industrial revolution"), when a minimum of about 180 ppm is necessary to sustain life on earth. ... There is no evidence that plants are "saturated" and can't take up more CO2.
These last two paragraphs should have thrown up a logical red flag.
"270 ppm CO2 before the industrial revolution" - we're almost at 400 ppm now, yet you say "there's no evidence plants are saturated" - obviously plants aren't keeping up! Your understanding of where CO2 ends up is also seriously flawed, the majority of CO2 ends up in the oceans, causing the oceans to be more acidic, which is destroying ocean ecosystems! So quit pretending like "CO2 is just plant food" because that's just flat out wrong.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: These words from the author of the paper are even more telling:
That quote is only meaningful if you don't understand the purpose of the Marcott paper. The purpose of the paper was to define how rapidly temperatures changed during the holocene and the extent of these changes, which the paper does quiet well and it is very robust in that regard. The recent warming is unprecedented.
The "hockey stick" is not the most interesting thing about the paper, but I see how the uptick really annoys fake skeptics who have knee jerk spasms every time they're confronted with reality. Allow me...
Originally posted by fierobear: Looks like that big uptick in 20th century temperatures in the Marcott Study was created out of whole cloth. In other words...it is MADE UP.
But notice how the fake skeptics jumped at the opportunity to accuse the study's authors of deliberately manipulating data. This is what makes them deniers. It seems it's become the denier prerogative to assume the worst possible motives, even if it's completely unsubstantiated. Even McInyre left things opened ended as possible in order to sow as much doubt as possible. He could have done some actual science but he stopped looking once he found something to misrepresent out of context.
Tamino, again, gets it done with actual science that is unparalleled in the denier-o-sphere:
quote
...if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the "differencing method" himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.
But that would require him actually to do some science.
Notice that I not only identified (quite independently) the reason for the exaggerated uptick, I also implemented a method to overcome that problem? Notice how I showed the result and compared it to Marcott's reconstructions? Notice how I computed the result using both the re-calibrated and the originally published proxy ages? Notice how I did so for the same latitude bands as Marcott, and compared those too? Notice how I even did an area-weighting of those latitudinal results? Science.
I'm looking forward to your replies, if you can stomach them. Watts has like 30 posts on Marcott thus far. There's sure to be lots of humorous failing as usual.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: This quote from the article is very interesting, given that the net temperature rise during the past Century is less than 1 degree C.
If you ignore 97% of where the warming is occurring, yeah it's real interesting.
1. It is unbelievable that you continue to defend and use the marcott study as proof of 20th century warming, considering the author of the study said himself that the "20th century results are not robust". That means they don't prove anything. Are you so desperate to prove human caused warming, you will ignore an indisputable piece of information?
2. You have criticized my use of "blogs", yet you quote Tamino. That is a blog site, and the author has never identified himself or his qualifications. Talk about hypocrisy!
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I asked you to look at the long term graph because that's what I was talking about. Over the long term, CO2 is a gradual rise.
You never provided a link, the "Best Data" that you always refer to as gospel is short term. There is also a sudden increase in CO2 (data posted earlier in this thread), yet a temperature rise did not follow (is air or the ocean). Explain...
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: How can you cherry pick one narrow section from that website and ignore everything else it says?
I was simply using the chart shown and asked a question. You ALWAYS post that I should be using reputable sources, so what's better then coming from the horses mouth? If I would have used a chart from some other website you would have accused me of using info from a blog from a 'non-scientist' or one that is making a political statement/motivated no matter if it is correct or not - I stand accused one way or the other.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: What NASA chart? There are no links to NASA. That's a very wild and outlandish statement to make without backing it up with evidence.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: These last two paragraphs should have thrown up a logical red flag.
"270 ppm CO2 before the industrial revolution" - we're almost at 400 ppm now, yet you say "there's no evidence plants are saturated" - obviously plants aren't keeping up! Your understanding of where CO2 ends up is also seriously flawed, the majority of CO2 ends up in the oceans, causing the oceans to be more acidic, which is destroying ocean ecosystems! So quit pretending like "CO2 is just plant food" because that's just flat out wrong.
...and yet you completely ignore CO2 levels have been much higher in the past:
The ocean isn't becoming "more acidic", it's becoming less alkaline, and that change is well with the natural variation that has occurred in the past. For it to become "more acidic" it requires a PH level of less than 7.0. This also hasn't just all happened since the "industrial revolution", from NASA's Earth Observatory website; "since 1750, the pH of the ocean’s surface has dropped by 0.1". "So quit pretending like" this has never happened before.
1. It is unbelievable that you continue to defend and use the marcott study as proof of 20th century warming, considering the author of the study said himself that the "20th century results are not robust". That means they don't prove anything. Are you so desperate to prove human caused warming, you will ignore an indisputable piece of information?
2. You have criticized my use of "blogs", yet you quote Tamino. That is a blog site, and the author has never identified himself or his qualifications. Talk about hypocrisy!
Your arguments are beyond pathetic.
I agree we should use reputable sources. Pretty much every one of them is in agreement about this subject.
List many peer reviewed published papers that support the topic of this thread (maybe you missed that part)
Edit - and if you ACTUALLY look at the site, not only does it list the papers (that supports directly or indirectly) it ACTUALLY links to the paper themselves. I was simply replying to your post:
quote
Originally posted by newf: No, I said I agreed we should use reputable sources. That means all of us.
Have fun finding some.
This site simply shows LINKS to many "reputable sources" in which you said "have fun finding some" - well, there you go, a site that links to many - ie: peer reviewed published papers - but perhaps you are too thick to get that judging from your posts (sorry not going to bump this thread over your inability to understand that).
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 04-19-2013).]
Nic Lewis is a well known denier and his expertise was in finance. Having said that he does seem to agree with the data that man is causing the current warming but he submits that there may be less warming due to other factors.
Looks like you are coming around to accepting Man made climate change is real!
Nic Lewis is a well known denier and his expertise was in finance. Having said that he does seem to agree with the data that man is causing the current warming but he submits that there may be less warming due to other factors.
Looks like you are coming around to accepting Man made climate change is real!
Once again, you miss the point. Once again, you are being a smartass.
Once again, you miss the point. Once again, you are being a smartass.
I hate you. Piss off.
Just pointing out facts.
Anyways in Science news...
quote
Global average temperatures were the hottest in 1400 years in the 20th century, more specifically during the period 1971-2000, according to a first-of-its-kind scientific study. The study, conducted by a team of 78 climate researchers in 24 countries, helps break new ground in climate science in that the team compiled direct and proxy data from a range of sources to reconstruct 2000 years of temperature change for seven continental-scale regions. The global warming trend they detected, which began in the late 19th and accelerated over the course of the 20th century, is in stark contrast to, and reverses, a long-term cooling trend that lasted well over 1000 years.
Reconstructing climate change across seven continental-scale regions over the past 2000 years, the researchers drew on direct observations of temperature, as well as a variety of proxy data that included ice and coral reef cores, tree-ring measurements, pollen and lake sediment sampling. The study, “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” was published in the current issue of Nature Geoscience.
Newf, welcome to the "I've Been Called a Smartass by fierobear" club. I'll PM you the secret handshake and put your lapel pin in the mail. But be careful; the whole brownshirt brigade may be coming for you soon.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 04-25-2013).]
Newf, welcome to the "I've Been Called a Smartass by fierobear" club. I'll PM you the secret handshake and put your lapel pin in the mail. But be careful; the whole brownshirt brigade may be coming for you soon.
yes it's anecdotal doesn't, include the whole northern hemisphere, and is as wrong as claiming a trend during any one specific short time period. 
