Earth is warmer today than during 70 to 80 percent of the past 11,300 years

Mar 07, 2013
Earth is warmer today than during 70 to 80 percent of the past 11,300 years
Scientists look at an ice core from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide coring site. Credit: Thomas Bauska, OSU

Using data from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct Earth's temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age, revealing that the planet today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years.

Of even more concern are projections of global temperature for the year 2100, when virtually every climate model evaluated by the (IPCC) shows that temperatures will exceed the warmest temperatures during that 11,300-year period known as the Holocene – under all plausible scenarios.

Results of the study, by researchers at Oregon State University and Harvard University, were published this week in the journal Science. It was funded by the National Science Foundation's Program.

Lead author Shaun Marcott, a post-doctoral researcher in Oregon State's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, noted that previous research on past has largely focused on the last 2,000 years. Extending the reconstruction of back to the end of the puts today's climate into a larger context.

"We already knew that on a global scale, Earth is warmer today than it was over much of the past 2,000 years," Marcott said. "Now we know that it is warmer than most of the past 11,300 years. This is of particular interest because the Holocene spans the entire period of ."

Peter Clark, an OSU and co-author on the Science article, said many previous temperature reconstructions were regional in nature and were not placed in a global context. Marcott led the effort to combine data from 73 sites around the world, providing a much broader perspective.

Earth is warmer today than during 70 to 80 percent of the past 11,300 years
A West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core barrel is shown. Cores show past air temperatures. Credit: Thomas Bauska, OSU

"When you just look at one part of the world, the temperature history can be affected by processes like El Niño or monsoon variations," noted Clark. "But when you combine the data from sites all around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history."

What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) – until the past 100 years, when it warmed ̴ 1.3 degrees (F). The largest changes were in the northern hemisphere, where there are more land masses and greater human populations.

Climate models project that global temperature will rise another 2.0 to 11.5 degrees (F) by the end of this century, largely dependent on the magnitude of carbon emissions. "What is most troubling," Clark said, "is that this warming will be significantly greater than at any time during the past 11,300 years."

Marcott said that one of the natural factors affecting global temperatures over the past 11,300 years is gradual change in the distribution of solar insolation associated with Earth's position relative to the sun.

An ice core taken from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide is shown in its sampling barrel. Credit: Thomas Bauska, OSU

"During the warmest period of the Holocene, the Earth was positioned such that Northern Hemisphere summers warmed more," Marcott said. "As the Earth's orientation changed, Northern Hemisphere summers became cooler, and we should now be near the bottom of this long-term cooling trend – but obviously, we are not."

Clark said that other studies, including those outlined in past IPCC reports, have attributed the warming of the planet over the past 50 years to anthropogenic, or human-caused activities – and not solar variability or other natural causes.

"The last century stands out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature since the end of the last ice age," said Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation's Division of Ocean Sciences, which co-funded the research with NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences. "This research shows that we've experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history – but this change happened a lot more quickly."

The research team, which included Jeremy Shakun of Harvard University and Alan Mix of Oregon State, primarily used fossils from ocean sediment cores and terrestrial archives to reconstruct the temperature history. The chemical and physical characteristics of the fossils – including the species as well as their chemical composition and isotopic ratios – provide reliable proxy records for past temperatures by calibrating them to modern temperature records.

Using data from 73 sites around the world allows a global picture of the Earth's history and provides new context for climate change analysis.

"The Earth's climate is complex and responds to multiple forcings, including CO2 and solar insolation," Marcott said. "Both of those changed very slowly over the past 11,000 years. But in the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 through increased emissions from human activities has been significant. It is the only variable that can best explain the rapid increase in global temperatures."

Explore further: Scientists may be cracking mystery of big 1872 earthquake

More information: "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years," by S.A. Marcott, Science, 2013.

Related Stories

New Ice Age maps point to climate change patterns

Jan 19, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- New climate maps of the Earth’s surface during the height of the last Ice Age support predictions that northern Australia will become wetter and southern Australia drier due to climate change.

Holocene warming regional

Aug 14, 2012

Research confirms regional — not global — climate change in New Zealand and European glaciers during the preindustrial Holocene

Recommended for you

Questions of continental crust

17 hours ago

Geological processes shape the planet Earth and are in many ways essential to our planet's habitability for life. One important geological process is plate tectonics – the drifting, colliding and general ...

Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change

Nov 25, 2014

University of Adelaide-led research will help pinpoint the impact of waves on sea ice, which is vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Arctic where it is rapidly retreating.

User comments : 126

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jo01
2.1 / 5 (37) Mar 07, 2013
So, 30% of the time it was warmer than it is now.
That's a lot.
And don't forget that almost half of the perceived warming in recent time can be attributed to black carbon.

J.
sennekuyl
3.6 / 5 (28) Mar 07, 2013
So, 30% of the time it was warmer than it is now.

No; 30% of the time it was at least as warm as it is now. Subtle difference.

Take into consideration the difference in rates to get to those temperatures and reasonable people think it should be of serious concern. Changing the earths position relative to the sun is slow.
That's a lot.
70% is a lot more.
And don't forget that almost half of the perceived warming in recent time can be attributed to black carbon.

Citation?
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (30) Mar 07, 2013
Yes. But only at the start of the current inter-glacial.

Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans we are already guaranteed to be warmer than the peak of the current interglacial as the effects of the existing CO2 slowly warm the ocean.

More CO2 will simply push the temperatures that much higher.

"So, 30% of the time it was warmer than it is now." - Jo01

You are probably incapable of comprehending but the way the system works, is that orbital and rotational elements of the earth change the insolation, and that drives the climate in and out of the glacial periods. But the system has feedbacks that try and keep it in one state or the other.

Once the system is sufficiently forced to cause the glaciers to begin to retreat their melting amplifies the trend and they melt rapidly.

Along with the melt, the ocean outgasses CO2 which drives the temperature even higher. There is an overshoot, the CO2 is absorbed into the biota and the overshoot corrects to a slowly falling trend CONT
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (33) Mar 07, 2013
punctuated by large volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts etc.

That 12,000 year trend of declining temperatures has been reversed over the last 120 years of anthropogenic CO2 heating. A rate of heating that is unprecedented since the end of the last ice age, and one which unless stopped will push global surface temperatures rapidly into extremes that have not been observed for tens of millions of years.

Do you understand now?
FrankHerbertWhines
2 / 5 (46) Mar 07, 2013
VendiTARDe says ........ the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
djr
4.1 / 5 (33) Mar 07, 2013
"VendiTARDe says ........ the sky is falling, the sky is falling"

Vendi's response seemed to me to contain a fair bit of information - and to demonstrate a pretty sophisticated understanding of the issues. Why don't you re-read your response Frank - and wonder how we might take your contributions seriously....
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (32) Mar 07, 2013
"It is the only variable that can best explain the rapid increase in global temperatures."

It's the only variable they can easily measure.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (27) Mar 07, 2013
Vendi almost always contains a lot of good info. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I can always count on a well reasoned argument. Name calling is against the comment guidelines and while I can certainly understand a bit of derision when people are simple crackpots, we all need to be vigilant in reporting uncivilized behavior when we read it (and avoid it as much as possible) --> REMINDER TO SELF!

This is not a political or religious forum and the rules are a lot different that the WaPo blog guidelines.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (42) Mar 07, 2013
Must be an AGW meeting soon. Physorg is pushing AGW articles.
This is not a political or religious forum and the rules are a lot different that the WaPo blog guidelines.


It is as AGW is political AND religious.

This is the fault of their high priests, Gore, Hansen, Mann and the Brits who decided to push a political agenda, Kyoto and taxes, instead of any technical remedy for their cause.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (33) Mar 07, 2013
Why is the headline so very definite when there are literally dozens of proxy studies that show a hotter periods in the medieval and especially Roman eras? This study is from West Antarctica. There are nine former temperature series from Antarctica listed in detail here:

http://www.co2sci...tica.php

None of them are hockey sticks, so the headline above is bizarre given that science doesn't work by single studies overturning a whole globe full of pre-AGW scare proxy studies that don't show hockey sticks.

VendicarE
4 / 5 (29) Mar 07, 2013
As usual, once you invert what RyggTard states you are close to the truth.

"It's the only variable they can easily measure." - RyggTard

In fact there are a host of variables that are easily measured. Total solar output is one of them, and this has been measured regularly since pretty much the invention of the thermometer.

Methane levels are just as easily measured as CO2 of course, And so are CFC's.

Ocean temperatures are also easily measured and ships have been doing this for over at least 200 years.

Sea level rise is pretty easily measured, as are the declines in the worlds glaciers. This is particularly true since the development of earth observing satellites.

Even the origin of the CO2 now being emitted is easily determined through the analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopic ratio's.

RyggTard claims these things are difficult because to him, anything intellectual is difficult.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (39) Mar 07, 2013
...and once again the hot spot of West Antarctica is used to imply that not just Antarctica but now the whole Earth is suddenly going tropical, according to the headline.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (32) Mar 07, 2013
"physorg is a science news aggregator, and as such echo's what is being produced by the scientific community.

"Physorg is pushing AGW articles." - RyggTard

The frequency with which articles concerning Climate change appear here reflect the proportional rate at which they appear in the scientific literature.

And every one of those tens of thousands of articles claim the opposite of what RyggTard claims.

But because he defines free market principles as being infallible, RyggTard's only recourse is to fabricate elaborate conspiracy theories involving the scientists doing the research.

Seldom are intellectual inferiors like RyggTard, difficult to predict.

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (25) Mar 07, 2013
NikkieTard apparently can't read....

"Using data from 73 sites around the world," - Article

"and once again the hot spot of West Antarctica is used to imply that not just Antarctica but now the whole Earth is suddenly going tropical, according to the headline." - NikkieTard

The inability to read is a common failure among denialists.

Today I learn that 80 percent of high school student graduates in NY are unable to read.

Nikkie is from NY and seems to fit the pattern.

Officials: 80 Percent Of Recent NYC High School Graduates Cannot Read

http://newyork.cb...ot-read/
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (26) Mar 07, 2013
NikkieTard's reference is to CO2 science. A well known denialist site that us funded by Western Fuels, and run by the Idzo family.

The Corrupt Idzo family make a very good living by telling the world that industiral pollution is good for them.

"None of them are hockey sticks" - NikkieTard

Nikki probably isn't old enough to remember the Idzo's and their well funded campaign of ozone depletion denial.
TheRulingQueen
3.4 / 5 (22) Mar 07, 2013
I'm JUST a "layperson" but I very much enjoy receiving the Physorg newsletter each day and reading about physics, astronomy, biology, etc. What I am appalled by is the fact that you "smart" people have such a low level of emotional maturity. Can you not civilly debate your arguments without the juvenile name-calling???? Name calling undermines your otherwise good argument by demonstrating your stunted emotional development. And I really don't care what you call me as I am secure in my statement.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (29) Mar 07, 2013
I sometimes wonder if you guys aren't spam bots from opposing sides, constantly locked in a battle of pre-programmed insults, without actually knowing whether your opponent is actually online.

I see you were recently banned and then re-joined, Vendicar. I guess even the moderators get tired of you calling everyone "tard".

Stick to the data and graphs and such, and maybe try explaining it to them or something, instead of doing your constant stream of insults thing.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (23) Mar 07, 2013
There is no debate with congenital liars.

"What I am appalled by is the fact that you "smart" people have such a low level of emotional maturity." - Queen

The motivations of people like RyggTard, ScooTard, NumenTard etc, are 100% political.

It is their exclusive reason for being here.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (23) Mar 07, 2013
I see you were recently banned and then re-joined, Vendicar. I guess even the moderators get tired of you calling everyone "tard".

Tards are what Tards do.

Taxonomy is the first required step in every science.

If Tards wish to not belong to the Tard group, they should stop being Tards.

djr
4.5 / 5 (24) Mar 07, 2013
Lurker: "Stick to the data and graphs and such"

Lurker - take a second to read Vendi's first post. Now look at Frank's response immediately below it. Now - which side has nothing to say - but insists on spamming a science site with empty rubbish? It is totally understandable - when you have to address the same exact issue for the thousandth time - that you get exasperated. I have taken to refusing to engage with some of the posters - because it does no good - and they are happy to lie - and troll - and just generally stir up political nonsense. The sad reality is that this cedes the floor to the anti science mob - but the other alternative is to spend hours trying to rationally address issues - only to find the exact same nonsense is started on the next article. I understand fully the frustration of those who call a spade a spade.
deatopmg
2.1 / 5 (28) Mar 07, 2013
The blade of this new "hockey stick" is based on data that has a collection frequency of 1 - 5 yrs for the last ~100 yrs. while the data for the rest of the ~11000 yrs has an average collection frequency of 120 yrs from 73 data sets. All of the rapid variations that (may) have happened in those ~11000 yrs simply cannot be seen because there is a gross deficiency of data.

But, it is telling that the authors admit 20 - 30% of the time (2200 - 3300 yrs) it was as warm or warmer than today.

When children have nothing to support their argument they then start calling the opposition names and worse. Pathetic!

dir - read phys.org more closely. This is NOT a science site, this is a PR publication site. This one was from OSU.
djr
4.6 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2013
When children have nothing to support their argument they then start calling the opposition names and worse. Pathetic

Are you referring to Frank's commentary?

"This is NOT a science site"

I'm sorry - what is the subject matter dealt with on this site? It sure seems like science to me.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (21) Mar 08, 2013
I can certainly understand a bit of derision when people are simple crackpots, we all need to be vigilant in reporting uncivilized behavior when we read it (and avoid it as much as possible)


parsec - the problem is that the people who have the knowledge to take on the quacks (people like you BTW) are getting overwhelmed. Look at the thread "Curtains down for the black hole firewall paradox: Making gravity safe for Einstein again"

In there you have vacuum-mechanic plugging his garbage, followed by Zephyr under both ValeriaT and Natello, mohammadshafiq_khan, darkwingduck, & thingumbobsquire all promoting some fringe theory or another. So out of 26 posts (at the time I wrote this) 18 of them are either from crack pots or people trying to counter them.

And that's one thread.

Being polite doesn't work parsec, because they simply move to the next thread and post the exact same garbage as if no counter was ever made. And I, for one, am tired of the BS they are promoting.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (21) Mar 08, 2013
Furthermore Parsec, when my 16 yr old comes here and askes a question on a article read here, and that question is met with 3 PAGES of vaccuum-liar and Zephyr the Fraud and cantthinkclearly and Hannes the pretender, and others, then it is bloody time to start calling these pseudo-scientific, uneducated, science hating, lying frauds what they are.
RobL
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
11000 years is not that long a time scale compared to - 4540000000 Years. So the Earth is warming and it is anthropogenic. Anyone who has read ipccs rep agrees with the Data and its successful inverse models.However climate scientists should not be the backbone swaying political policy !!!! Would you let a plumber run time series analysis for numerical models, NO?! Why listen to what's best for Humans from a CLIMATE scientist. So we make a major impact to the climate, and cause mass extinction. This has all happened before many times, and on massive scales it will haven again. Keep up the good work climate scientists I'm sure you knowledge will be used in terraforming a planet one day, if we dont die
vlaaing peerd
4.2 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
...and once again the hot spot of West Antarctica is used to imply that not just Antarctica but now the whole Earth is suddenly going tropical, according to the headline.


I recommend re-reading the article, starting and ending with round about the first sentence. Then re-read your own post.

But let's say only just Antartica would heat up, you'd be right that our planet wouldn't become tropical. Rise of sea levels, in it's turn increasing the severity of storms and floods would more likely be the expected events.

Guess you still wouldn't care until it happened in your own backyard.

owwait ... never mind.

JRi
2.5 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
This morning, when riding my bike to work at -11degC (12degF), these kind of news seem so distant.
Birger
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
-In regard to good manners in debate:
Climate denialists are just like young-Earth creationists or the religious right that oppose vaccines for the HP virus.
.
Arguments have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on them, they are simply propagandists.
Also, groups beholden to the oil industry are happy to fund climate denialist groups, a trick learned from the tobacco industry's fight against regulations.
An "astroturf" group will -initially- be greeeted with having more credibility than a group known to be a pawn of commercial interest groups.

When debating other issues I am willing to give an opponent the benefit of doubt, but in therse issues the denialists are ideologically motivated mouthpieces who have no interest in an honest debate. Since life is short I reserve courtesy to those who deserve it.
StillWind
2.2 / 5 (23) Mar 08, 2013
As usual, the comments for this are so revealing. Those who don't believe the political propaganda re simply "Deniers". How pathetic. While it is true that there have been no good cases made in this particular response forum, against the propaganda from the corrupt academics that promote climate hysteria, it is not true that such arguments do not exist.
Someone above with an obvious bent toward conspiracy theory named some "family" who was supposedly supporting the "Deniers", yet it is obvious that the Warmists are clearly being financially supported to promote their propaganda, while there is no real evidence what so ever that those who actually follow the science are being supported in any way.
Some of us live in the real world, and can easily see the lie, and regardless of what the propagandist on this site might say, the facts are that there is no real evidence for AGW.
Now, flame on children. It's all you're capable of doing anyway, and it makes no difference what so ever.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (22) Mar 08, 2013
StillWind is obviously new to planet Earth, and has been reading nothing but the denialist tabloids.

Guy_Underbridge
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
...While it is true that there have been no good cases made in this particular response forum, against the propaganda from the corrupt academics that promote climate hysteria, it is not true that such arguments do not exist.

I hadn't realized that this forum was so central to the entire climate discussion.
Regardless, by extension of your logic, we should still be discussing if the world is indead round or not.
QuixoteJ
2.3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2013
global surface temperatures rapidly into extremes that have not been observed for tens of millions of years.

Umm, Vendicar... it was 4 degrees warmer 120,000 years ago... 2 degrees warmer 250,000 years ago... and again 2 degrees warmer 400,000 years ago.
QuixoteJ
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2013
deatopmg:
The blade of this new "hockey stick" is based on data that has a collection frequency of 1 - 5 yrs for the last ~100 yrs. while the data for the rest of the ~11000 yrs has an average collection frequency of 120 yrs from 73 data sets. All of the rapid variations that (may) have happened in those ~11000 yrs simply cannot be seen because there is a gross deficiency of data.

Finally someone who understands the problem with arbitrarily using a higher sampling frequency during data analysis! That alone calls current temperature "conclusions" into doubt.
The Teacher
2.3 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
We will continue to blow the trumpet climate change is real because of the world wide abuse of ENERGY especially carbonize fuel-the natural thermodynamic equation {ENTROPY} is surely being put in a disturbing environmental condition.So it is not a surprise "Earth is warmer today than during 70 to 80 percent of the past 11,300 years, "
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
Correct Response.

"Since life is short I reserve courtesy to those who deserve it." - Birger.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2013
FTR:

I believe in AGW firmly, but this is why these kinds of silly articles are NOT helpful in convincing the opposition...

http://en.wikiped...all_view

The vast majority of the Earth's geologic past has been warmer than it is today. Simple fact....

Let's move on to some more convincing arguments or addressing the other side's concerns more directly please.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 08, 2013
You mean at the peak of the previous interglacial?

Before humans existed?

"Umm, Vendicar... it was 4 degrees warmer 120,000 years ago.." - Quitoxe

As the following plot shows, even back then, temperatures were only slightly warmer than today. Perhaps 2'C, not 4'C as you dishonestly claim.

http://www.planet...emp2.jpg

So why do you feel a need to lie about it?
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
The name for someone who uses the local daily weather to judge the validity of climate change is...

"This morning, when riding my bike to work at -11degC" - JRi

"Fool".
Pkunk_
1.6 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2013
Must be an AGW meeting soon. Physorg is pushing AGW articles.


Physorg is ALWAYS pushing AGW articles, come rain , snow , blizzard or sun. There are the odd realist articles that sometimes slip through the cracks.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2013
Considering the absolute fraud of the original hockey stick, one wonders if they will release their data for independent analysis.
QuixoteJ
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2013
VendicarE:
As the following plot shows, even back then, temperatures were only slightly warmer than today. Perhaps 2'C, not 4'C as you dishonestly claim.
http://www.planet...emp2.jpg
So why do you feel a need to lie about it?


Go ahead and call it 2, though. It still shows that your original statement is obviously false.
Czcibor
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2013
So according to the study the glass is 20%-30% full? ;)

VendicarE:
"Perhaps 2'C, not 4'C as you dishonestly claim."

Perhaps you simply love to make rude remarks, even though actually both numbers can be found, pending on study?

(advice: before any grading of my post I strongly recommend quick fact check on wiki:

http://commons.wi...ture.png )
Tausch
2 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2013
Ask Physorg to re post this with the heading:

Climate researchers add more study to reconstruct past climate with paper titled:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years.

No one will post.
NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Mar 08, 2013
30% of the Holocene was warmer than today -- and no SUV's were around!!!
Steven_Anderson
2.3 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
In the past six months of viewing this site and during my research of energy solutions, I find that it becomes hard for anyone to step back and look at the pluses and minus of their opinions. By being completely honest about the limitations of a solution one does a better job of presenting their case. Unfortunately better is not always better because people won't take the time to read the intricacies of an point of view but instead tend to jump to conclusions and revert to name calling which is a far easier to reach an audience. Unfortunately name calling doesn't change opinions. For example up to a few years ago I was a hard core republican, until I met a skilled debater that changed my opinion. In this forum I have diligently presented my case for the efficacy of LFTR reactors, but have mainly been met by hostility. the conversations all revert to made up facts when my logic is unbeatable. It is representative of the sad state of humanity. http://rawcell.com. See you there!
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2013
ryggesogn2: Must be an AGW meeting soon. Physorg is pushing AGW articles.
--
Actually, there might be a singalong in the common room. I suggest that you go, as you might find it therapeutic.
Neinsense99
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2013
An acquaintance sent me a link to a parody of the folk song 'Home On The Range' that suits threads like this.

Fame On The Fringe

Oh, give me a home where the con artists roam
Where fakirs and the charlatans play
Where seldom is heard a rational word
And the fools don't know they will pay

Fame, fame on the fringe
Where fakirs and the charlatans play
Where seldom is heard a rational word
And the fools don't know they will pay

The full lyrics http://www.techno.../node/16
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
30% of the Holocene was warmer than today -- and no SUV's were around!!!


"What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) – until the past 100 years, when it warmed ̴ 1.3 degrees (F)."

Actually, the paper says the cooling stopped around 1850.

But the IPCC says 1950 was when CO2 started to have an effect on temperature.

The turnaround starting in 1850 had NOTHING to do with CO2.
Claudius
2.2 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2013

Fame On The Fringe


The thing that AGW proponents can't understand is that someone who questions the AGW position is not necessarily anti-science.

I am an avid reader of PhysOrg. I have a wide level of scientific interests. I even disagree in some areas, such as the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics. In most areas, I am simply fascinated by the progress being made in science. I have a scientific education and work in a scientific field.

However, whenever I make a comment against AGW I come under attack as being anti-scientific. This by itself is fascinating, as I am anything but anti-scientific. If I am anti AGW, it isn't because I don't believe in science, just that I see flaws in the AGW argument. Big flaws.

It is the essence of science that it should be open to criticism. Bad theories should be questioned. Bad science should be questioned. Those who ridicule those who raise legitimate questions are, interestingly enough, the anti-scientific ones.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
The thing that AGW proponents can't understand is that someone who questions the AGW position is not necessarily anti-science.


I'm going to play your game here for a bit just to see where it leads. Why do I say that? Because almost all of the people who question the science behind global warming do not approach it from the point of science. There is no real argument of the science, rather it's the very integrety of the scientists reporting the results of their work that is questioned, combined with allegations of some nebulous conspiracy.

I frankly believe that this conversation will turn into more of the same. My jadedness with the usual lunitic fringe who pretend to question the science while actually questioning the politics leads me to believe that your reason for posting what you have is to provide yourself with a forum by which to press forward your particular bent on the politics.

Furthermore, I predict that any conversation we try to have will be quickly...cont
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2013
cont.. be quickly overwhelmed by multiple posts from the usual lunatic fringe all claiming that the science and/or scientists are somehow all involved in a conspiracy to make you need the bunker in your backyard. Or something.

You say you question the science. You say you see "big flaws". I say you are just playing loosely with the facts. If you are interested in science, as you say you are, then you can begin this conversation by expaining away the fact that 98% of real, blood and bone, died in the wool scientists agree that it is not only happening, it is clearly and unequivically happening. What is your scientific background that leads you to the assumption that you have it correct whereas 98% of the scientists you claim to emulate are wrong?
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2013
Because almost all of the people who question the science behind global warming do not approach it from the point of science.


But thousands of bloggers and scientists do their part in demolishing the AGW because they actually read the crap papers churned out by cult members and then demolish those papers and they do it without a penny from anyone, unlike the well funded AGW cult.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2013
Cause all dem THOUSAND all be BLOGGING an tell all dem CULTISTS how dey all backwards-assed an tellen dem LIES all CONSPIRATORING and getting all dat MONEY and stuff! All be READING and stuff! Telling dem da TRUTHS an stuff! An all CONSPIRATORING and stuff!

Moron.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2013
Hey Claudius--I rest my case re: lunatic fringe. Next example in 3 - 2 - 1......
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2013
Earth is warmer today than during 70 to 80 percent of the past 11,300 years
Interesting.

This older chart shows temperatures were higher than today's for about 55% of the time, but it only uses 8 major data sets:

http://commons.wi...ions.png

Here's a publicly accessible article that discusses the new data from the paper, and shows a couple of the major graphs.

http://planet3.or...y-stick/

And here's an Oregon State University article about the paper:

http://oregonstat...ure-rise

But I wonder, if we only used 73 similar sites for the temperature record of the past 150 years, would we see the same temperature trends we see in the modern data?

Worse, imagine if the current data had a similar 400 year resolution...

Neinsense99
3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2013
Maggnus: Because almost all of the people who question the science behind global warming do not approach it from the point of science.

[the conversation]...be quickly overwhelmed by multiple posts from the usual lunatic fringe all claiming that the science and/or scientists are somehow all involved in a conspiracy to make you need the bunker in your backyard.

Right away, along comes Parker of Tard again to illustrate how Maggnus is quite correct in his prediction:

"But thousands of bloggers and scientists do their part in demolishing the AGW because they actually read the crap papers churned out by cult members and then demolish those papers and they do it without a penny from anyone, unlike the well funded AGW cult."

runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
30% of the Holocene was warmer than today -- and no SUV's were around!!!


Heck Parky, a bit late with that favourite rapier-sharp insight aren't you?

Do try and look at the science in the round at not from the standpoint of arriving at your preconceived conclusion.

Now, why would your above statement be true? To anyone with half a wit of intelligence on the subject it would be the obvious, that there have been more favourable orbital/rotational parameters for NH warmth than present. plus the other things that you have been told about ad nauseum, which quite obviously never did and never will require a SUV.
You see, looked at from a denialist point of view ( the particularly thick end of the spectrum admittedly ) it all boils down to "it's happened before and so cannot be us" parrot call.

Ever heard of "Milankovitch cycles"? course you have - a zillion times, but just choose to ignore.

For the benefit of others.....
http://en.wikiped..._optimum
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2013
30% of the Holocene was warmer than today -- and no SUV's were around!!!


"What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) – until the past 100 years, when it warmed Ě� 1.3 degrees (F)."

Actually, the paper says the cooling stopped around 1850.

But the IPCC says 1950 was when CO2 started to have an effect on temperature.

The turnaround starting in 1850 had NOTHING to do with CO2.


Maybe the cult could address the issue. If temps started climbing from 1850, before CO2 could scientifically have any effect, what caused the warming?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 10, 2013
Maybe the cult could address the issue. If temps started climbing from 1850, before CO2 could scientifically have any effect, what caused the warming?
LOL.

Maybe it was all the farting caused by the massive amounts of chili the cowboys of the Old West enjoyed! LOL.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2013
30% of the Holocene was warmer than today -- and no SUV's were around!!!


"What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) – until the past 100 years, when it warmed ÄĹ�Ä�ď��ď�� 1.3 degrees (F)."

Actually, the paper says the cooling stopped around 1850.

But the IPCC says 1950 was when CO2 started to have an effect on temperature.

The turnaround starting in 1850 had NOTHING to do with CO2.


Maybe the cult could address the issue. If temps started climbing from 1850, before CO2 could scientifically have any effect, what caused the warming?


You have access to the full paper?
Then please provide full context for your statement "The turnaround starting in 1850"
TheKnowItAll
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2013
Personally if the Earth was 10°C higher tomorrow I would be a happy camper. It's so cold here where I live :D. On a serious note it doesn't take a genius to realize that all work creates an amount of heat and that is something we all do. We're about 7 billion people on earth and we're all burning our share so of course the Earth will warm up. We are quickly releasing heat that the Earth has been storing for millions of years. It is not a question but rather a realization. The real focus should be on how to minimize that footprint without slowing down evolution. We have the technology to make that happen now but too little of us are willing to contribute. Obviously it doesn't hurt enough yet but the day will come.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2013

Then please provide full context for your statement "The turnaround starting in 1850"


"Marcott's graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise over that period was about 0.6 °C.

They then held steady until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling again until around 1850.

The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly reversing the previous rise.

Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.newsci...led.html
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2013
http://www.scienc...77b5cf33

Note the stations monitoring temperature are extremely biased to hot regions.

Also,

"Using data from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct Earth's temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age, revealing that the planet today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years."

"temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age"

"temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age"

So for 70% of the last 11,300 years, we have been warming up, after the last ice age...Well...Yeah...This is what happens. It will obviously get warmer after an ice age, otherwise it would still be an ice age....Jesus christ its amazing how they spin such basic obvious things into politically motivated drivel.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2013
" If you are interested in science, as you say you are, then you can begin this conversation by expaining away the fact that 98% of real, blood and bone, died in the wool scientists agree that it is not only happening, it is clearly and unequivically happening."

100% of Scientists stated Thalidomide was a perfectly safe drug through pregnancy in history.

Your argument is the least scientific in existence. "These self reinforcing career scientists say it's true so it must be".

If we took that to be a valid argument we would still have medicine of Galen, and the Earth would still be at the centre of the solar system.

I don't care who the majority are, the fact is most scientists in other subjects can predict with 99.9999% accuracy a result. Environmental sciences can't. Again, I have a 1980's paper saying where I am typing right now should be 6ft under water. It's not. So when I read 2010 papers saying similar things, I read with doubt.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2013
Why are we still talking about this?

For the vast majority of the Earth's past it's been hotter than it is now.

This doesn't have anything to do with AGW and the issues surrounding it. These kinds of articles, and arguments are not helpful because they DON'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE. Moreover they simply lend ammunition to the deniers; because guess what??...they're RIGHT when they say the Earth's past has been hotter....
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Mar 11, 2013

"Using data from 73 sites around the world


Only 9 of the proxies have data TO 1850.

Only 2 of the proxies have data TO 2000.

NONE of the 9 show a hockey stick shape.

http://suyts.word...al-2012/

This is an even worse fraud than the original hockey stick.
aaron1960
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
global warming is a good thing
Tektrix
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
This morning, when riding my bike to work at -11degC (12degF), these kind of news seem so distant.

Illustrating the difference between weather and climate.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 11, 2013
This morning, when riding my bike to work at -11degC (12degF), these kind of news seem so distant.

Illustrating the difference between weather and climate.


Absolutely. From the AGW Cult Dictionary:

Record cold is weather.
Record warmth is climate.

Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
100% of Scientists stated Thalidomide was a perfectly safe drug through pregnancy in history.


Flat out lie. The drug was only introduced in 1955, and it was never tested to determine how safe it was. It was withdrawn everywhere in the world by 1962. This is typical of the distortions and misinformation used by those that don't understand how science works.

Furthermore, this answer ducks the question.

If we took that to be a valid argument we would still have medicine of Galen, and the Earth would still be at the centre of the solar system.


No, these would have occurred if people maintained the mentality towards science that you manifest. Closing your eyes to facts doesn't change them.

Again, I have a 1980's paper saying where I am typing right now should be 6ft under water. It's not. So when I read 2010 papers saying similar things, I read with doubt.


In other words, I don't see it so it must not be happening. Fallacy
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
With regards to thalidomode, I actually want to expand on this misrepresentation by triplehelix, because it is actually a good example of what happens when science is ignored.

Thalidomide was first introduiced in Europe in 1955, where it was bill as a drug to treat insomnia arising from a number of factors, mostly colds. By 1956/7 reports began filtering back to the marketer that doctors who recommended its use by pregnant women who suffered insomnia resulting from severe emesis gravidarum or "morning sickness" were seeing "remarkable" results of reduced incidence of morning sickness itself. So although the drug was recommended for tretment of insomnia, a side benefit was that it also helped reduce the sickness that was causing the insomnia.

The manufacturer learned of these reports, and began to market their new drug unofficially as a morning sickness treatment. Make note here, that at no point did anyone do any testing of this drug for possible side effects, not when it was ..cont
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2013
With regards to thalidomode, I actually want to expand on this


" At the time of the drug's development, scientists did not believe any drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing fetus."

By the way, thalidomide is back on the market.

http://www.global...lth/fact file/6442707043/story.html
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2013
cont.. nor later when the manufacturer began claiming it as an effective morning sickness treatement.

By 1958 doctors in Germany and England began reporting instances of birth defects in woman who took the drug during pregnancy. These reports were mostly dismissed, as it was believed then that drugs could not pass the placental barrier. No official testing was done.

By 1959 reports reached the point where they could no longer be ignored. As a result, scientists were officially involved for the first time to look at the drug and determine if any link existed. At that point, the drug was limited to prescriptions. By 1961 scientists confirmed an alarming link and began recommending the drug be removed from the market immediately. The drug was banned for use world wide shortly thereafter.

So what is the lesson? Well a number of things, but one of them is that warnings from scientists should not be ignored. It is also a lesson on how people like triplehelix try to misrepresent science
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
Parky, you stated this ...
"Actually, the paper says the cooling stopped around 1850. But the IPCC says 1950 was when CO2 started to have an effect on temperature. The turnaround starting in 1850 had NOTHING to do with CO2."

Stopping cooling is just that. Not warming from that point. You have inflated the thing by 100 years in so doing.

Also your quote from NS does not originate from the paper but from a report on the paper. In other words you are being dishonest.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
By the way, thalidomide is back on the market.

http://www.global...lth/fact file/6442707043/story.html


Which actaully leads to another fact about science and why it should not be ignored. During the (in my view justified) hysteria that resulted from the discovery of the link to birth defects of this drug, ALL research was stopped.

Since then a number of scientists have tried, unsuccessfully until very recently, to point out that while the drug should clearly not be given to pregnant women, there were some interesting benefits that might be associated with it. Their requests to test these possible benefits were mostly ignored, because people do not understand the science and were therefore afraid to even look at the drug.

Again, the findings of real scientists were ignored due to fear and misunderstanding.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2013
Note the stations monitoring temperature are extremely biased to hot regions.


Actually its the colder parts that would exhibit greater warming in a world of general rising temps. Own goal.

"Using data from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct Earth's temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age, revealing that the planet today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years."

So for 70% of the last 11,300 years, we have been warming up, after the last ice age...Well...Yeah...This is what happens. It will obviously get warmer after an ice age, otherwise it would still be an ice age....Jesus christ its amazing how they spin such basic obvious things into politically motivated drivel.


No, wrong again the warming following the last IA lasted from 11,300yr ago to 9500yr ago and was then FLAT. 16% of the time.

Try not to let your denialist bias make an idiot of you. If you care.
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Mar 11, 2013
Parky, you stated this ...
"Actually, the paper says the cooling stopped around 1850. But the IPCC says 1950 was when CO2 started to have an effect on temperature. The turnaround starting in 1850 had NOTHING to do with CO2."

Stopping cooling is just that. Not warming from that point. You have inflated the thing by 100 years in so doing.

Also your quote from NS does not originate from the paper but from a report on the paper. In other words you are being dishonest.


1) If it was cooling for 1,000 years and then it suddenly stopped cooling in 1850, then 1850 is the turnaround point.

2) If the paper then says it warmed starting in the late 1800s, then it is still not 1950 which is when CO2 supposedly started effecting temperature.

3) Careful analysis of the proxies show only a few have data to 1850. And none have a Hockey Stick shape. The Hockey Stick shape was a dishonest calibration to Mann's discredited Hockey Stick.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2013
This morning, when riding my bike to work at -11degC (12degF), these kind of news seem so distant.

Illustrating the difference between weather and climate.


Absolutely. From the AGW Cult Dictionary:

Record cold is weather.
Record warmth is climate.



Parky - I can post you several links to papers that make the above statement untrue. If you had even an inkling of an idea of how the atmosphere works it would be obvious. And of course you have been made aware of the reasons many times. Cold weather is ALSO climate in a warming world. Hint: the clue is in the word GLOBAL as distinct from REGIONAL ( which is what weather is ).
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 11, 2013
From the AGW Cult Dictionary:

(Modified for cult member runrig)

Record cold in all of Europe and Russia is weather.
Record warmth in the USA is climate.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
If it was cooling for 1,000 years and then it suddenly stopped cooling in 1850, then 1850 is the turnaround point.


Actually, mathematically speaking the inflection point would be midway between the stopping of cooling and the beginning of warming.

If the paper then says it warmed starting in the late 1800s, then it is still not 1950 which is when CO2 supposedly started effecting temperature.


Yet again you do not look at the bigger picture. Do try and understand that there are other factors at play... from IPCC

"In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet."
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 11, 2013
If the paper then says it warmed starting in the late 1800s, then it is still not 1950 which is when CO2 supposedly started effecting temperature.

Whatever gave you the addle brained notion that CO2 played no role in radiative forcing until 1950?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2013
If the paper then says it warmed starting in the late 1800s, then it is still not 1950 which is when CO2 supposedly started effecting temperature.

Whatever gave you the addle brained notion that CO2 played no role in radiative forcing until 1950?


The IPCC

http://fabiusmaxi...2-44158/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
From the AGW Cult Dictionary:
(Modified for cult member runrig)

Record cold in all of Europe and Russia is weather.
Record warmth in the USA is climate.

Ignorance is bliss eh. Some meteorology for Denialist-cult member Parky ...

The disturbance of the usual weather patterns ( in part ) caused by the disruption/weakening of the Polar jet due to anomalous heating/melt of late summer Arctic ice, leading to feedback into early winter of WV across Eurasia, causing Earlier/stronger Siberian High formation, in turn leading to formation of tropospheric long-wave pattern, leading to disruption of Polar Stratospheric vortex and consequent -ve AO. Basic GW theory predicts more frequent expulsion of cold from the Arctic. To quote the song. "the toe-bone is connected to the foot-bone, the foot-bone is connected to the ankle-bone .... now hear the word of the Lord". You really must try to think more deeply Parky. Just trying to highlight that fact for the neutral - you're a lost cause.
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Mar 11, 2013
From the AGW Cult Dictionary:
(Modified for cult member runrig)

Record cold in all of Europe and Russia is weather.
Record warmth in the USA is climate.


The disturbance of the usual weather patterns ...


There is no such thing as "usual weather pattern".

And cold is not caused by "Global Warming".

runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2013
From the AGW Cult Dictionary:
(Modified for cult member runrig)

Record cold in all of Europe and Russia is weather.
Record warmth in the USA is climate.


The disturbance of the usual weather patterns ...


There is no such thing as "usual weather pattern"

And cold is not caused by "Global Warming".



More frequent REGIONAL arctic plunges certainly are a feature of GLOBAL warming. To say otherwise is blatant science denial. Calling black white does not make it so except in your own mind -where you seem to living some sort of denialist fantasy - a sort of "I'm the only sane inmate in the Asylum" approach to life. What is it about the formation of jet-streams that you don't understand? Everything? Go find a book on meteorology that will give you the facts, facts I have known about for 40 years nearly, since before the start of my professional career.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2013
@ Claudius - I continue to await your responce. You laid down the gauntlet and I took your questions/comments as an honest attempt to discuss the issues you raised.

Your silence bespeaks your true intention. So I was right about your political bent to the issue then?
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2013
The article is pointless....

If their point is to say that the Earth is warmer today than in the past then it's not news to the Earth. The Earth has been warmer in the past when compared to modern temperatures for 80% of its history.

http://en.wikiped...se_Earth

This does NOT mean that AGW isn't real or a problem, but it DOES distract, obfuscate, and lend ammunition for those that think it isn't a problem.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2013
If their point is to say that the Earth is warmer today than in the past then it's not news to the Earth. The Earth has been warmer in the past when compared to modern temperatures for 80% of its history.

These two sentences stand in opposition to each other.

And, how did you reach the conclusion set forth in the second one; and how do you reconcile it with the article?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 12, 2013

More frequent REGIONAL arctic plunges certainly are a feature of GLOBAL warming.


Don't be absurd.

Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2013
hese two sentences stand in opposition to each other.


No indeed. We're currently in an Icehouse Earth. It's quite unusual for the Earth to have permanent ice anywhere on its surface. The fact that it's warmer than it was tens of thousands of years ago is irrelevant as it's been far warmer than it has been NOW for most of its history. Does that help clear it up?

I should have said "If their point is to say the Earth is warmer to day than in its RECENT past then it's not news to the Earth. The earth has been warmer than it currently is for 80% of its geologic history"....

That might have mad it more clear.

And, how did you reach the conclusion set forth in the second one;


http://en.wikiped...se_Earth

It's not new science....

and how do you reconcile it with the article?


I don't attempt to. The article's main thrust, if I understand it correctly, is irrelevant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
(cont)
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2013
(cont)

IOW it's true to say that the Earth is warmer than it was 11,000 years ago. It's also true to say that the Earth has been warmer for 80% of its existence than it is today or 11,000 years ago.......so what's the point?

The main point here is that temperatures are changing far more rapidly than ever in the past. That we're the cause of it, and we should damn well be doing something to start to curb it...and silly articles like this do NOT help....
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2013
MM - I know you understand what you think the article said, but I don`t think you realize that the conclusion you think the article reached is incorrect.

This article is about the new technique used to reconstruct Earth`s climate history back to 11,000 years ago. It is not written with climate warming denialists in mind, because the researchers do not consider that there is anyone left of relevence who does not believe that global warming is not occurring.

It is simply the case that there is no one left who matters who still argues the facts. The article is written to bring to the readers news of a refinement to the previously established science. Nothing more.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2013
More frequent REGIONAL arctic plunges certainly are a feature of GLOBAL warming.
Don't be absurd.


You really haven't a clue have you. And yet you tell a retired Forecaster that a fundamental principle of meteorology is absurd. You really would try the patience of a saint. Do I have to spell-out how Jet-streams function?

An analogy perhaps... In which of these two scenarios are you more likely to wobble?
Riding a pedal bicycle at 1mph.
Riding a bycycle at 20mph. Clue: It's to do with mass/momentum and is basic physics.

How are Jet streams formed? - go look it up.
What would a warming world then do to that process?
Given the NP will/is warm(ing) faster.

Now Parky, What do you do for a living? Because I will then proceed to tell you that the fundamental concept of that profession "is absurd".
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2013
We're currently in an Icehouse Earth. It's quite unusual for the Earth to have permanent ice anywhere on its surface.

Doesn't make it an Ice Age.

The fact that it's warmer than it was tens of thousands of years ago is irrelevant as it's been far warmer than it has been NOW for most of its history. Does that help clear it up?

The only thing it makes clear is that, for some unknown reason, you chose to ignore the fact that it is now established that Earth's previous 11 millennia have for the greater part been cooler than the present, and that a general warming tend began approximately a century ago.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2013
All of the rapid variations that (may) have happened in those ~11000 yrs simply cannot be seen because there is a gross deficiency of data.

That is just simply false. A total lie. What is your source of this garbage?
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2013
The only thing it makes clear is that, for some unknown reason, you chose to ignore the fact that it is now established that Earth's previous 11 millennia have for the greater part been cooler than the present, and that a general warming tend began approximately a century ago.


That's been established. I didn't and don't ignore it. In fact I think it's quite alarming if you'd read all my posts I make that fact quite clear. My point isn't that it's getting warmer, it's that it's getting warmer VERY QUICKLY. That means we're doing it, and we need to stop.

I think it's not only irrelevant to point out that it was cooler 11,000 years ago (in the grand scope of the Earth's geologic history) it only gives the deniers ammunition to continue to evade their fears on the subject and not focus on the PROBLEM, but the SYMPTOMS.
deepsand
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2013
The only thing it makes clear is that, for some unknown reason, you chose to ignore the fact that it is now established that Earth's previous 11 millennia have for the greater part been cooler than the present, and that a general warming tend began approximately a century ago.


That's been established. I didn't and don't ignore it. In fact I think it's quite alarming if you'd read all my posts I make that fact quite clear. My point isn't that it's getting warmer, it's that it's getting warmer VERY QUICKLY. That means we're doing it, and we need to stop.

I think it's not only irrelevant to point out that it was cooler 11,000 years ago (in the grand scope of the Earth's geologic history) it only gives the deniers ammunition to continue to evade their fears on the subject and not focus on the PROBLEM, but the SYMPTOMS.

How does the article give comfort to the denialists when it makes clear that a general warming tend began approximately a century ago? :confused:
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2013
How does the article give comfort to the denialists when it makes clear that a general warming tend began approximately a century ago? :confused:


As a former denialist I can see this more clearly than you perhaps. They WON'T see this as evidence of warming. What they will do is point to the natural systems (whatever the evidence says about how UNnatural the current warming is) of climate and (quite correctly) point out that it's been far warmer on the Earth before than it has been now. They will then say this is nothing to worry about, and furthermore NOT man made.

It doesn't give them any ACTUAL reasonable grounds to stand on, or any actual points to their arguments, but what it will do is give them some false sense of security that they don't actually have to face the truth and the changes in policy needed to rectify the situation.

This is the real problem. We're still talking about the symptoms and this allows them to keep up the obfuscation and denial IMVHO.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2013
(cont)

IOW articles like this that talk about symptoms are not addressing the real problem. We've had a thousand articles like this. Your statement that "there is no one left of relevence" listening is wishful thinking. Greater than 50% of the voting public is still not on board and that's exactly why nothing is happening. We need to change the conversation....period. Articles like this keep it circling down the proverbial drain.

Now here's the funny part...I agree with them that you're not going to fix this problem with policy. Carbon taxes??? Really? You're not going to fix it with windmills and solar panels either. We need to be pouring every dollar we can into nuclear, fusion and fission.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
Ok MM - BUT! you are proceeding under the premise that this article was written as a part of the debate. It wasn't.

What is left of the denialist camp is of no concern to the researchers reporting their findings and the writers of the articles spreading that news to the general public. They don't write the material as proof of anything, because they are mostly unaware (and don't care) that there remains a lunatic fringe parroting 1990 era arguments against the science.

It doesn't matter that the lunatic fringe gains some nebulous ammunition from the article. Those that continue to argue against the obvious will continue that argument no matter what is said.

And you are wrong when you insist 50% or higher think there is an issue. It only looks that way to people in the US, and its not true even there. ALL recent surveys confirm that there remains a hard-core, anti-scientific, conspiratist lunatic fringe that argues the science, and that is it.
deepsand
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2013
Perhaps MM would be more pleased were the article entitled "The Earth Is Warming Faster Now Than It Has in 11,000 Years" as done by Phil Plait, author of the blog Bad Astronomy. See http://www.slate....:content

Or, if it had included the following graphs from Marcott, etal..

http://www.slate....inal.jpg

http://www.slate....inal.jpg
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2013
Perhaps MM would be more pleased were the article entitled


"Only One Of Proxies Goes To 2000"

"No Modern Data"

"Big Fat Lies And the Morons Who Believe Them!"
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2013
Ok MM - BUT! you are proceeding under the premise that this article was written as a part of the debate. It wasn't.


I know it doesn't sound like it, but I do get that. My premise isn't that it was written as part of the debate, my premise is that it will be used in the debate regardless of intention.

Let's say I wrote an article stating that every home in Switzerland has a fully automatic military grade assault rifle in it and they have a low incidence of gun violence. NOW I didn't write the article with the INTENTION of it being used in any debate in the US where our culture (and a hundred other variables) is VASTLY different than it is in Switzerland...but it won't stop people from USING the article in that manner.

Does that help clarify more where I'm coming from?
NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2013
More frequent REGIONAL arctic plunges certainly are a feature of GLOBAL warming.
Don't be absurd.


You really haven't a clue have you.


I do have a clue.

If you think Regional cooling occurs more often because of AGW, prove it.

Q: How can you tell the difference between cooling periods caused by AGW versus cooling episodes that occur naturally.

AGW Cult: Because I say so.

Sane Person: Ha ha ha ha

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
Yes MM, and I get that. Perhaps I am not getting through what I mean.

It doesn't matter what is written, or what the science says, or what proof is provided for those few people who are left trying to convince the world that warming is not happening. Nothing will make a dent in their view of the world.

It would be like arguing with someone who says the Earth is flat. Or that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. There is no proof that you can provide to convince someone who will not accept proof. There is no logical argument you can make to someone who does not accept logic.

So there is no sense trying to make an article unusable to these types. It does not matter what you say in any article, if it even hints at global warming, it will still be used by dogmatic, lunatic people like notparker.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2013
So there is no sense trying to make an article unusable to these types. It does not matter what you say in any article, if it even hints at global warming, it will still be used by dogmatic, lunatic people like notparker.


And I agree. While I can't speak for every denalist I can tell you that I know a LOT of them in my part of the country. Most of them are not unstable, not unreasonable, quite intelligent, and anything but "fringe" types. What they ARE is afraid. If you speak to their fears you're going to have a much better conversation and chance for change.

Fear is a powerful emotion, it will trump reason EVERY single time...almost. When I changed my mind is when I realized that I didn't really think that AGW wasn't happening, but got intentional about how and why my stance was what it was. It was all about fear. Once I realized that the rest followed quite naturally.

Again just personal experience, mine might not be the typical one...
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
Perhaps MM would be more pleased were the article entitled


"Only One Of Proxies Goes To 2000"

"No Modern Data"

"Big Fat Lies And the Morons Who Believe Them!"

Wrong again, NP.

But, thanks for playing; it's so good of you to provide us with cheap entertainment.
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2013
More frequent REGIONAL arctic plunges certainly are a feature of GLOBAL warming.

Don't be absurd.

You really haven't a clue have you.

I do have a clue.

Sorry; but, Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick doesn't count.

Q: How can you tell the difference between cooling periods caused by AGW versus cooling episodes that occur naturally.

AGW Cult: Because I say so.
Sane Person: Ha ha ha ha

Oh, dear; and I did so think you might get this one right.

The correct answer, of course, is because the physical evidence points to to such.

Perhaps hop-scotch is more your speed.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2013
If you think Regional cooling occurs more often because of AGW, prove it.

Q: How can you tell the difference between cooling periods caused by AGW versus cooling episodes that occur naturally.
AGW Cult: Because I say so.
Sane Person: Ha ha ha ha

I am not saying I can attribute AGW to greater regional cooling, merely that a warmer world would do it, it's just basic physics. However studies have indeed done so. See link below. A Weaker jet-stream allows for greater Arctic plunges. A weakening contrast between the NP and equatorial regions in a warming world will cause this, given the Arctic will warm quicker ( pos feedback due decreasing albedo as sea-ice melts ).
You have exhausted my patience - the ignorance and bigotry is staggering and beyond what I would expect from a mere Denialist. I shall therefore treat my responses to you differently in future, but will continue to respond to you to deny ignorance for others.
http://iopscience.../article
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 13, 2013
If you think Regional cooling occurs more often because of AGW, prove it.

Q: How can you tell the difference between cooling periods caused by AGW versus cooling episodes that occur naturally.
AGW Cult: Because I say so.
Sane Person: Ha ha ha ha

I am not saying I can attribute AGW to greater regional cooling, merely that a warmer world would do it, it's just basic physics.


So basic physics says that cold weather should occur more often in the tropics?

Are you sure you can read?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2013
Perhaps MM would be more pleased were the article entitled


"Only One Of Proxies Goes To 2000"

"No Modern Data"

"Big Fat Lies And the Morons Who Believe Them!"

Wrong again, NP.



Totally true. Only one of the 73 proxies has data up to 2000.

The demolishing has begun ....

http://climateaud...stery-1/

Stay tuned for the evisceration of the cults pathetic choice to try and resuscitate the fraudulent stick.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
The only good thing about notparker is that every time I give an example of a dogmatic, conspiracist lunatic he comes along to prove my point.
space music
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
some well known studies have been proven as fudged data, well respected researchers have been caught skewing the data, so, in fact, we know some will lie to advance whatever it is they want.
case closed.............
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
some well known studies have been proven as fudged data, well respected researchers have been caught skewing the data, so, in fact, we know some will lie to advance whatever it is they want.
case closed.............


Oh goody, a new idiot to mock.

Cause all dem RESEARCHERS be FUDGING an changing all dey DATA an stuff! Not jes RESEARCHERS but dem RESPECTICLE researchers an stuff! All dey be working geather an be FUDGING an LYING an all dat! Cause we KNOWS dey do! Causing dey all WANTING to please dem POLTITIONS, giving dem what dey WANT and stuff!
Q-Star
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2013
some well known studies have been proven as fudged data, well respected researchers have been caught skewing the data, so, in fact, we know some will lie to advance whatever it is they want.
case closed.............


Some Irishmen were fathered by very disheveled horse thieves,,, never mind, bad example,,,,

Anyhoo, the case is not closed, a cheater must be defined by his own behavior, not on the behavior of someone who happens to have the same job. Ya can't "close a case" using the word "some" as a reason to close it.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
Some Irishmen were fathered by very disheveled horse thieves,,, never mind, bad example,,,,


That's funny, cause when the Vikings first came upon the Irish isles, all there were, were sheep......
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2013
So basic physics says that cold weather should occur more often in the tropics?

Are you sure you can read?

You obviously can't grasp the basic science - or just on a wind-up mission. Don't know which is the kindest opinion to have. Either way it seems I have to break it down to infant level. Oh, by the way in your case it is "because we say so" because your rampant Dunning-Kruger syndrome is of staggering proportion.

Where did tropics come into it? The jet stream is caused by the total atmospheric column temperature difference between north and south ( of each hemisphere ). By convention there are 2 ( westerly ) jets - the subtropical and polar, though form at any point where cold and warm air is in proximity ( heard of the hydrostatic equation and Coriolis force ). It does not mean that arctic air can penetrate into the Tropics when the Jet is weak, though around the NH can penetrate south to around 30 deg N.

Have a nice life.

http://en.wikiped...t_stream
deepsand
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2013
So basic physics says that cold weather should occur more often in the tropics?

Are you sure you can read?

One thing that is certain is that you don't think.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
some well known studies have been proven as fudged data, well respected researchers have been caught skewing the data, so, in fact, we know some will lie to advance whatever it is they want.
case closed.............


Oh goody, a new idiot to mock. -- MagganusTurd.

OK. Here yer go - http://www.uoguel...tick.pdf

Cause all dem RESEARCHERS be FUDGING an changing all dey DATA an stuff! Not jes RESEARCHERS but dem RESPECTICLE researchers an stuff! All dey be working geather an be FUDGING an LYING an all dat! Cause we KNOWS dey do! Causing dey all WANTING to please dem POLTITIONS, giving dem what dey WANT and stuff!

deepsand
2 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2013
some well known studies have been proven as fudged data, well respected researchers have been caught skewing the data, so, in fact, we know some will lie to advance whatever it is they want.
case closed.............


Oh goody, a new idiot to mock. -- MagganusTurd.

OK. Here yer go - http://www.uoguel...tick.pdf

Cause all dem RESEARCHERS be FUDGING an changing all dey DATA an stuff! Not jes RESEARCHERS but dem RESPECTICLE researchers an stuff! All dey be working geather an be FUDGING an LYING an all dat! Cause we KNOWS dey do! Causing dey all WANTING to please dem POLTITIONS, giving dem what dey WANT and stuff!

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
-- deepsandTurd
Oh look FecalMatter is missing his home.
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2013

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
-- deepsandTurd
Oh look FecalMatter is missing his home.

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2013

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
-- deepsandTurd
Oh look FecalMatter is missing his home.

Another steaming heap from AnalOrifice.
.. aka deepsandTurd...aka FecalMatter
deepsand
1.9 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2013
Does your mommy know that you play with your own fecal matter in public?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2013
Does your mommy know that you play with your own fecal matter in public?
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter
Oh, have I upset the turd? You don't want to pway wid me anymore, Turdy?
deepsand
2 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2013
Why would I be upset with one who provides me with such great and ready amusement?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.