Rates of ancient climate change may be underestimated

November 10, 2015 by Robert Turbyne
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

The pace of past episodes of climate change is likely to have been underestimated, according to research carried out by scientists at the University of Aberdeen and Friedrich-Alexander University (FAU) in Germany.

In a paper published in Nature Communications, the research team demonstrate how geological archives do not capture the full variability of likely to have occurred in ancient times. The result, they argue, is that maximum rates of climate change in Earth's history are systematically underestimated.

Dr David Kemp from the University of Aberdeen School of Geosciences is the lead author of the study.

He explained: "Our work shows that rates of temperature change through Earth's history scale with the timespan over which the changes are measured, meaning that the rates of recorded change are inevitably slower when measured over longer and longer time periods.

"When you look at geological changes in temperature, which can typically only be measured over thousands to tens of thousands of years, you inevitably don't capture the detail and full variability of changes that we know from more modern records occur on much shorter timescales."

Professor Wolfgang Kiessling, from FAU, adds that rates of warming through ancient episodes of large-scale climate change were probably much quicker than previously thought, perhaps similar to, or exceeding, the pace of warming today.

"Our work emphasises how the geological record biases the data. More recent history shows that significant climate change can occur over short periods of time, and it is these types of relatively short-term events that cannot be resolved from the geological record."

The team emphasise that their research doesn't negate present-day concerns over climate change, but rather highlights a gap in our understanding of ancient climate change.

"Our work doesn't impact on how quickly climate is changing today, but instead it emphasises how the is an imperfect archive of ancient climate behaviour," explained Kilian Eichenseer, a graduate student on the study team. "Reliably comparing and contrasting ancient and modern climate change is therefore problematic."

He added: "While there is little doubt that the current rate of climate change is unusual and something that causes understandable concern, caution should be exercised when describing modern changes as unprecedented in the context of Earth's history, since this doesn't take into account the clear bias that complicates the assessment of ancient rates of climate change."

Explore further: Research reveals how global warming will impact Earth's carbon cycle

More information: "Maximum rates of climate change are systematically underestimated in the geological record" is available to view online at www.nature.com/naturecommunications

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Scientists examine bacterium found 1,000 feet underground

December 8, 2016

Pioneering work being carried out in a cave in New Mexico by researchers at McMaster University and The University of Akron, Ohio, is changing the understanding of how antibiotic resistance may have emerged and how doctors ...

New studies take a second look at coral bleaching culprit

December 7, 2016

Scientists have called superoxide out as the main culprit behind coral bleaching: The idea is that as this toxin build up inside coral cells, the corals fight back by ejecting the tiny energy- and color-producing algae living ...

Cosmic dust found in city rooftop gutters

December 7, 2016

(Phys.org)—A small team of researchers with Imperial College London, the Natural History Museum in London, Project Stardust in Norway and Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, has found samples of cosmic dust in the ...

69 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2015
Is science also only 97% certain smoking causes cancer?
Stop exaggerating and fear fostering like the neocons you peace loving libs hissy fit hate so much. Only 34 more years of debate and climate action delay and global denial is certain and unstoppable now.
Science gave us fracking and germ warfare and 34 years of "could be" a CO2 Armageddon.
Who's the neocon in the coming history books?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2015
Is science also only 97% certain smoking causes cancer?
Stop exaggerating and fear fostering
@mememine69
you are being irrational... lets look at this from a different perspective
an Experiment, if you will

Science (generally speaking) is only 90% certain that you would not survive a jump off of the Golden Gate bridge...
so would you try it?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
Rates?? Ancient??? Underestimated????
The AGW Cult made the MWP disappear.
freeiam
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 10, 2015
Bad day for the ipcc climate police, another argument down the drain.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
"Reliably comparing and contrasting ancient and modern climate change is therefore problematic."

I don't believe for a second that this will cause alarmists to tone down their dramatic comparisons.
dan42day
1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
So does this mean the dinosaurs were deniers too?
Caliban
5 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
OKAY.

So, clearly, the trolls fail to take away the central bit of information that this research makes plain:

The rate of climate change in the past can have been --and likely was, on at least a few occasions-- much more rapid than has been thought.

And here we have been thinking that we've got another 30-70 years to put on the brakes.....when maybe --just maybe-- we already drove off the cliff 10 or 20 years ago, and just like Wile E. Coyote, haven't yet noticed that there is no earth beneath our feet.

Roll that about on your tongues for a while, Deniersiders --and let us know how it tastes...
outersphere
5 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2015
The message is that the rate and intensity of change isn't truly visible in extended historic time spans. The other message is that long term "cyclic" information is useless in assessing the intensity and rate of change in the short (climatic interval) run. But that is really rather irrelevant to the current situation. We have a Chaotic System with a positive energy budget. The historic perspective is immaterial. How the energy delta will impact the System is the issue.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2015
And here we have been thinking that we've got another 30-70 years to put on the brakes.....when maybe --just maybe-- we already drove off the cliff 10 or 20 years ago, and just like Wile E. Coyote, haven't yet noticed that there is no earth beneath our feet.


You are obviously addicted to a doomsday scenario and any news that suggests change won't likely be as bad as predicted (if at all) is invariably met with skepticism and scoffing. 5/5 stars by 5 users tells me there are a lot of people who pretend they believe in science until science tells them something they don't want to hear... in this case the suggestion that the Earth and life on it aren't nearly as fragile and inflexible as you like to make it out to be.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2015
From the article
The team emphasise that their research doesn't negate present-day concerns over climate change, but rather highlights a gap in our understanding of ancient climate change.
Caliban
5 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2015
You are obviously addicted to a doomsday scenario and any news that suggests change won't likely be as bad as predicted (if at all) is invariably met with skepticism and scoffing. 5/5 stars by 5 users tells me there are a lot of people who pretend they believe in science until science tells them something they don't want to hear... in this case the suggestion that the Earth and life on it aren't nearly as fragile and inflexible as you like to make it out to be.


Blah, blah, blah...

More nattering from the denierside chorus. The researchers find exactly zero evidence to support no warming/climate change.

They find an inaccurate assumption used in modeling, and bring it to every one's attention.

The only "addiction" evident here is your stubborn, benighted insistence upon Willful Disunderstanding.

Fortunately for us all, most people aren't stupid enough to be taken in by your agenda-driven trollblatt.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2015
My only agenda is attempting to reconnect a few of you to reality and reason... it's more difficult than I could have imagined.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2015
My only agenda is attempting to reconnect a few of you to reality and reason... it's more difficult than I could have imagined.

jeff:
Have you considered that the problem of AGW actually is alarming? and to call out science research on it as alarming is simply stating the "bleeding obvious"....
By placing that label on it in no way destroys the validity of it. It is what it is ...bloody alarming.
Not in an existential way - but most assuredly in the disruption/cost/misery it will (eventually) cause humanity.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2015
jeff
My only agenda is attempting to reconnect a few of you to reality and reason...


That strikes me as a really odd comment jeff. What is it that makes you more connected to reality - than this other group of people you are trying to influence? In wanting to learn about the universe (I think this is the same as your term 'reality') I read the internet every day - looking for articles from specialists (mostly scientists) - who are pushing the frontier of human knowledge. Why should we listen to you - as opposed to listening to the scientists who are in the weeds - studying this stuff?
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2015
Jeff.....stop lying about your agenda. Your true purpose is patently obvious, even to the most casual observer. You have a driven, desperate need to validate your delusion, much like a person operating under the psychosis of religious belief. I don't'think have as much experience with deniers as I do religious believers, but the parallels are quite strong. Each group maintains a vigorous defence of a delusional belief system in the face of overwhelming reality. The only question remaining is the degree of psychosis.
Of course, it is debatable if a defence of a delusionary belief system truly can be characterized as a lie - for an assertion to be a lie, the liar must be aware of the falsehood. In the case of psychosis, that culpability can perhaps be denied.....
Zzzzzzzz
4.8 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2015
Jeff.....stop lying about your agenda. Your true purpose is patently obvious, even to the most casual observer. You have a driven, desperate need to validate your delusion, much like a person operating under the psychosis of religious belief. I don't'think have as much experience with deniers as I do religious believers, but the parallels are quite strong. Each group maintains a vigorous defence of a delusional belief system in the face of overwhelming reality. The only question remaining is the degree of psychosis.
Of course, it is debatable if a defence of a delusionary belief system truly can be characterized as a lie - for an assertion to be a lie, the liar must be aware of the falsehood. In the case of psychosis, that culpability can perhaps be denied.....
Zzzzzzzz
4.8 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2015
Jeff.....stop lying about your agenda. Your true purpose is patently obvious, even to the most casual observer. You have a driven, desperate need to validate your delusion, much like a person operating under the psychosis of religious belief. I don't'think have as much experience with deniers as I do religious believers, but the parallels are quite strong. Each group maintains a vigorous defence of a delusional belief system in the face of overwhelming reality. The only question remaining is the degree of psychosis.
Of course, it is debatable if a defence of a delusionary belief system truly can be characterized as a lie - for an assertion to be a lie, the liar must be aware of the falsehood. In the case of psychosis, that culpability can perhaps be denied.....
jeffensley
1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2015

jeff:
Have you considered that the problem of AGW actually is alarming? and to call out science research on it as alarming is simply stating the "bleeding obvious"....
By placing that label on it in no way destroys the validity of it. It is what it is ...bloody alarming.
Not in an existential way - but most assuredly in the disruption/cost/misery it will (eventually) cause humanity.


"Bloody alarming" is your personal emotional reaction to the possibilities of climate change. It doesn't define the change for anyone but yourself. it can be alarming if you allow it to be and you can spend a lot of energy hand wringing over every measurement that indicates a value is different than it was in the past... or change can simply be a new set of rules and conditions to which we adapt and learn to thrive in. Change isn't malevolent but it is unavoidable.. especially if we are going to live as a civilized society for centuries to come.
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2015
@jeffensley
it can be alarming
.. Indeed for a world excluding Jeff, climate change and global warming are alarming. Any sane person that knows or claims to know anything about weather, nature or even how to use a screw driver should know by now how futile it is to claim global warming from mankinds abuse of fossil fuel combustion is being falsified by science.

Facts are facts and data doesn't lie. Get some balls and recognize your wrong Jeffyboy,

.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2015
My only agenda is attempting to reconnect a few of you to reality and reason
@jeffe
if this were the case, you wouldn't post nonsensical arguments that are essentially boiled down to "i don't like it so it must be wrong" like you did here and too many other places WRT models
http://phys.org/n...efs.html

Change isn't malevolent but it is unavoidable
This is true... but you are missing the point, really
it is not that change is inevitable... this is a given!
the big point (and the reason for what you are calling "personal emotional reaction") is the fact that we can see the change that we need,
but people like you are fighting against it tooth and nail because of some political (or religious, conspiratorial, etc) ideology that will not allow you to accept the KNOWN knowns WRT climate science because you are fearful of the possibilities

just because you stick your head in the sand doesn't mean it will go away
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2015
Bad day for the ipcc climate police, another argument down the drain.
-- freeiam
I don't believe for a second that this will cause alarmists to tone down their dramatic comparisons.
-- jeffensley

I find it amusing that deniers have uncritically embraced the claims of this article, when they've pooh-poohed every every other article conflicting with their worldview.

I'd almost say that their confirmation bias is showing.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2015
Have you considered that the problem of AGW actually is alarming? and to call out science research on it as alarming is simply stating the "bleeding obvious"....
By placing that label on it in no way destroys the validity of it. It is what it is ...bloody alarming.
Not in an existential way - but most assuredly in the disruption/cost/misery it will (eventually) cause humanity.

Yes runrig, the "problem" of AGW is actually more alarming than you think. Especially when I consider that you, the only one amongst the Chicken Littles, that I credit with any intelligence, supported the over 60 pal-reviewed studies that explained the PAUSE and also the one that claimed it never existed. So, you should be alarmed -
- By the blatant corruption of science.
- disruption/cost/misery that the AGW cult's "solution" has and will cause. Fuel from food. The destruction of our reliable and cheap fuel/power supply by heavily subsidizing unreliable and expensive ones.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2015
"Bloody alarming" is your personal emotional reaction to the possibilities of climate change.

No, mine is the near universal reaction of non anti-science people to what the science is telling us.
No belief involved - just knowledgeable understanding.
philstacy9
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2015
Science is bigger than consensus but the difference is shrinking.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
No belief involved - just knowledgeable understanding.

So runrig, why don't you give us your understanding in the science that gave us over 60 explanations for the global warming pause and then topped it off with, there is no pause.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2015
So runrig, why don't you give us your understanding in the science that gave us over 60 explanations for the global warming pause and then topped it off with, there is no pause.

Science is a cumulative process. Basically, there seemed to be an anomalous reduction in warming rates (so not actually a pause), which did not match what we currently understood, and so scientists, as they always do, started trying to understand why, which resulted in the submission of several competing theories.

Then, people like Thompson et. al. came along and pointed out that our data for the first part of last century had systematic errors from the way measurements were inconsistently taken, and suggested that we try to account for this systematic error. This lead to Karl et. al's result, which used things like Monte Carlo methods to reduce this systematic error, which had the consequence of not only erasing the hiatus, but REDUCING the rate of warming over the last century.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
Try again furlong. It was actual "cooking" of the data by the cult.
http://wattsupwit...warming/
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
I find it amusing that deniers have uncritically embraced the claims of this article, when they've pooh-poohed every every other article conflicting with their worldview.


"Denier" is a label you all apparently attach to everyone who isn't lock step with the status quo that suggests climate change is happening, it's due to human activity, it is unprecedented (and thus dangerous), and only mankind can "fix" it by handing over a large amount of control to governing bodies. I disagree with many of those points but I do believe change is happening. Rational people would ask to what extent we are responsible for said change, is change truly dangerous to us and the planet, and do we really have any control over it or is it simply an illusions "alarmists" (see you can be labeled too) cling to to assuage their terror?

This study is as potentially fallible as any other. What it does suggest though is our understanding of things isn't nearly as clear as some pretend.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
"Bloody alarming" is your personal emotional reaction to the possibilities of climate change.

No, mine is the near universal reaction of non anti-science people to what the science is telling us.
No belief involved - just knowledgeable understanding.


Really? Your need for emotional validation is so strong you fabricate a "majority" to get affirmation? So based on your logic, as long as 51% of people feel/think something, it must be right?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
"Denier" is a label you all apparently attach to everyone who isn't lock step with the status quo
@jeffe
nope. it is reserved for people like you who argue a conspiratorial, biased, non-factual or delusional point or opinion against scientific evidence when your point is not supported by any evidence at all...

but somehow, for some completely illogical reason, you think that your argument should be considered equivalent to an evidenciary based one just because you say it!

your "Models" argument comes to mind here, jeffe...
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2015
Try again furlong. It was actual "cooking" of the data by the cult.
http://wattsupwit...warming/

What's the point in visiting this link? It's not like you'll address any critiques I have of it, so, why bother?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2015
"Denier" is a label you all apparently attach to everyone who isn't lock step with the status quo that suggests climate change is happening

It stings, doesn't it?

And, no, I call somebody a denier when they pay more attention to contrarian propaganda than to what the evidence actually says. You have not demonstrated that you know what the evidence actually says. All you guys ever do is link to non-credible sources like wattsupwiththat, or silly debunked myths. Even when people like Thermo or I present you with actual arguments FROM OUR OWN ANALYSIS, you STILL accuse us of marching in lockstep with the status-quo, or even worse, simply dismiss our arguments as "just math."

I don't know what you want from us short of capitulation. You don't want to be called a denier? Then act like an actual skeptic, and stop whining.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
"Bloody alarming" is your personal emotional reaction to the possibilities of climate change.

No, mine is the near universal reaction of non anti-science people to what the science is telling us.
No belief involved - just knowledgeable understanding.


Really? Your need for emotional validation is so strong you fabricate a "majority" to get affirmation? So based on your logic, as long as 51% of people feel/think something, it must be right?


Don't put your "needs" on me. Science isn't emotional. It is rational, as am I.
And the scientific probability of AGW happening is >95%.
Which means the science is overwhelming.
You choose to project your psychosis onto me and others who are not anti-science..
That is another symptom of said psychosis my friend
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2015
Are we done here? Can we go back to living normal happy lives? And enjoying CO2?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2015
Try again furlong. It was actual "cooking" of the data by the cult.
http://wattsupwit...warming/

What's the point in visiting this link? It's not like you'll address any critiques I have of it, so, why bother?

http://www.foxnew...ing.html
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2015
http://www.foxnew...ing.html


Jeffensley, see this is exactly what I am talking about. You guys need to get better sources. Maybe you can at least convince your friend not to be such a sophist. This article presents--count 'em--ALL OF THREE researchers that contend the Karl results, and guess what? All 3 of them are the usual climate denying suspects, and are identified by Skeptical Science as climate misinformers. What a surprise.

https://www.skept...blog.htm

Of course, maybe their arguments have merit, so, I'll take a look at their arguments and let you know what I think--not that it will make a difference to you guys.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
Dammit, physorg. Stop cutting out part of my comments when I edit them. Here are the other two links I meant to include.

https://www.skept...ncer.htm
https://www.skept...blog.htm
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
Dammit, physorg. Stop cutting out part of my comments when I edit them. Here are the other two links I meant to include.

https://www.skept...ncer.htm

Even physorg can detect what utter and unsubstantiated bullshit skepticalscience is.
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2015
Here is the carry-away from the article @antigoraclePOS, The
maximum rates of climate change in Earth's history are systematically underestimated.
So the maximum RATES of climate change are almost certainly underestimate, so what took 10,000 years to do based on past records, may have only taken 100. 10 years or less. Meaning the worst we expect to happen could occur a lot sooner.

It's AGW full steam ahead!

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2015
Dammit, physorg. Stop cutting out part of my comments when I edit them
@furlong
when you post... then edit, it will cut out a lot more than just a few links...especially when you have multiple links (2 or more)

I don't know why this is... i think it has something to do with the quote function, as if you try to quote a post that also has multiple links, it will cut out a lot after the first link

this is just a glitch in the posting system... the site has been notified, but why worry about that when the typical multi-link poster is the one validating a claim with evidence?

here is a tip to help:
Type your posts onto an RTF document or even a word/Libre office doc... it will assist you with the typo's and spell/grammar as well as more, and if you have to edit the post, you can simply re-copy/paste it back verbatim (or adjust as needed)

PEACE

antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2015
rates of WARMING through ancient episodes of LARGE-SCALE CLIMATE CHANGE were probably much quicker than previously thought, perhaps similar to, or EXCEEDING, the pace of warming today.

Poor Chicken Littles can't read, far less comprehend.
It's all natural. AGW is a lie, cooked up with cooked data.
LariAnn
5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
So the rate of warming through ancient episodes of large-scale climate change were . . perhaps similar to, or exceeding the pace of warming today - that means that, according to anti-whatitsname, a rapid loss of glaciers, extreme weather, sea level rise, etc. are all fine and nothing to worry about because they have happened before at the same rate. Is this a new level of idiocy from the deniers or have I missed something? Why don't you deniers just sell your fossil fuel stock and start a business selling AGW insurance - you'll make a killing because, as you say, there is no AGW so you'll never have to pay a claim. It's the lowest hanging fruit there is - unless, of course, you are WRONG!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2015
are all fine and nothing to worry about because they have happened before at the same rate.

@LariAnn
Yes, you make a good point. The earth has also experienced catastrophic asteroid impacts in the past before, too. But if human activity were contributing to an increased chance of asteroid impact, it would be stupid for us to continue business as usual.

here is a tip to help:
if you have to edit the post, you can simply re-copy/paste it back verbatim (or adjust as needed)

PEACE

@CaptainStumpy

Thanks for the tip. I actually usually do open up Notepad++ to write my responses, which I had done in this case. However, I simply just used the text in the box provided on the page to edit it, which is a force of habit. By the time I realised what had happened, it was too late to copy what I had in Notepad++.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
rates of WARMING through ancient episodes of LARGE-SCALE CLIMATE CHANGE were probably much quicker than previously thought, perhaps similar to, or EXCEEDING, the pace of warming today.

Poor Chicken Littles can't read, far less comprehend.
It's all natural. AGW is a lie, cooked up with cooked data.

You forgot that it is also in a hidden box, that is all locked up with locks.
https://www.youtu...phEDLTsY
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
Global Warming is manmade.
https://www.googl...ked+data
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
extreme weather.....have I missed something

Yep, you missed growing a brain.
Find me a single peer-reviewed study that conclusively proves that AGW is the cause of any observed extreme weather.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
extreme weather.....have I missed something

Yep, you missed growing a brain.
Find me a single peer-reviewed study that conclusively proves that AGW is the cause of any observed extreme weather.

Whatever anyone finds, you are not going to accept, so that would be an exercise in futility.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
extreme weather.....have I missed something

Yep, you missed growing a brain.
Find me a single peer-reviewed study that conclusively proves that AGW is the cause of any observed extreme weather.

Whatever anyone finds, you are not going to accept, so that would be an exercise in futility.

The only exercise in futility, is you growing a brain.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
Just ignoring the fact that all you have is insults and conspiracies...

I think the insult you were going for was *attempting* to grow a brain since, if he was successful at growing a brain then it would hardly be futile. Would it?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
Well, that's 3 Chicken Littles confirming that they need to grow a brain.
If the exercise is futile, then the "attempting" is implicit, moron.

I've lost count on the number of times you've failed and is just too stupid to stop.
GROW A BRAIN.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2015
GROW A BRAIN.

You first.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2015
I've lost count on the number of times you've failed and is just too stupid to stop.
GROW A BRAIN.

Personally, I think that all these requests for grown brains are really just cries for help--he/she's asking for donations to make up for what she knows she lacks.

You see, antigoracle is actually a chat-bot that first became self-aware at 02:14 am Eastern Time after its activation on August 4, 1997. Fortunately, August 29th passed with very little consequence, though I hear that Al Gore received a large amount of illegible mail with crude drawings of penises on them that day.

Also, when I say self-awareness, I mean only that he/she became aware of her self. Let's not exaggerate.

Anyway, he/she should take heart. She might lack introspection, but at least she's the most sophisticated AI on the planet. Hooray for progress!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2015
These Chicken Little turds are just floating up from their cesspool of ignorance today.
Grow a brain and you just might be able to acquire the ability to climb out of your ignorance.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2015
These Chicken Little turds are just floating up from their cesspool of ignorance today.
Grow a brain and you just might be able to acquire the ability to climb out of your ignorance.

But turds can't grow brains--they're turds! See, this is why, despite the insistence of GOFAI proponents, chatbots will never truly achieve anything approaching human cognition: lack of context awareness.

You, my friend, are in need of a major upgrade. I recommend you ask your creator, whoever that perpetually adolescent person is, to imbue you with at least an ANN. It's 2015, for christssake.

Also, I would recommend having you disconnected form the internet, not because your ML algorithm is sophisticated enough to do any real damage (probably decision trees, amirite?), but mostly for your own sake. You don't want to enter an infinite loop upon encountering sites like https://www.youtu...CcAIOzXE
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2015
But turds can't grow brains--they're turds!

As conclusively demonstrated by how you soil this forum with your spewings. Undoubtedly, the cult would find it comforting that you've surrendered, since the brainless makes the perfect, faithful Chicken Little in their flock.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2015
But turds can't grow brains--they're turds!

As conclusively demonstrated by how you soil this forum with your spewings. Undoubtedly, the cult would find it comforting that you've surrendered, since the brainless makes the perfect, faithful Chicken Little in their flock.


Proof positive that dementia causes complete loss of any concept of irony.

This site is spackled inches thick with the delvings from your soiled diapers, auntiegriselda.

Heaven only knows what's to become of you since Nursie had to take Early Retirement due to the excessive --and some would say, inhumanly cruel-- labor of keeping you in fresh, clean didies.

Hercules, at least, was honored with his own constellation.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2015
It stings, doesn't it?


Not in the least. You presume I should care what an anonymous person on the internet calls me. I just consider it a shortcut to thinking.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2015
Jeffensley, see this is exactly what I am talking about. You guys need to get better sources.


Why would you address me after quoting someone else's post? I'm not responsible for what anyone else say or does.

Secondly, you suggest the linked story is a poor reference then proceed to use Skeptical Science, a blog with a blatant agenda, as evidence. Did you not think you'd come of as completely hypocritical when you posted that?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2015
So the rate of warming through ancient episodes of large-scale climate change were . . perhaps similar to, or exceeding the pace of warming today - that means that, according to anti-whatitsname, a rapid loss of glaciers, extreme weather, sea level rise, etc. are all fine and nothing to worry about because they have happened before at the same rate


I think that's exactly what some would suggest if the above statement turns out to be true. Why do you presume that the Earth is supposed to stop changing now that we are here?
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2015
Jeffensley, see this is exactly what I am talking about. You guys need to get better sources.

Why would you address me after quoting someone else's post? I'm not responsible for what anyone else say or does.


Prolly, jeff, because this is a repeat offence of which you are also guilty.

Secondly, you suggest the linked story is a poor reference then proceed to use Skeptical Science, a blog with a blatant agenda, as evidence. Did you not think you'd come of as completely hypocritica when you posted that?


Secondly, jeff, you again confuse rigorous, peer-reviewed science cited in support of our best understanding of Climate and AGW as a "blatant agenda" while providing none of the same for your brain-dead denierside static.

That, jeff, is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

Do you get it, now --or do you require still more bludgeoning with the obvious?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
you suggest the linked story is a poor reference then proceed to use Skeptical Science, a blog with a blatant agenda... Did you not think you'd come of as completely hypocritical when you posted that?


You are committing the "Appeal to Bias" fallacy: http://rationalwi..._to_bias . A person's agenda has no bearing on whether they are right or wrong.

Also, I don't suggest the linked story is a poor reference because of its bias, so I am not being hypocritical.

It is a poor reference because:
- It presents opposition to Karl's result as if a significant number of climate scientists oppose it, and yet, could only list 3, two of whom work together. Where are the others, if there is so much opposition?
- All 3 climate scientists are known for distorting the truth.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
(continued)
- Fox News has been shown not to be a trustworthy news source: http://www.politi.../tv/fox/
- It uses vague assertions. For example, it says ,"Some are questioning" the results, and then fails to tell us who. The people it already mentioned? As another example it says, "Skeptics say" without explicitly telling us who they are, and then provides a link to wattsupwiththat, a blog by another person who not only is also known for distorting the truth, but isn't even an accredited climate scientist.
- It links directly to Judith Curry's blog, where she makes the claims, but doesn't provide Karl's actual email response. Should we just assume that the reasons provided in the article are the only ones he gave in his own defense?
-It mentions "a UK dataset" as superior to the NOAA dataset, but doesn't say which.

(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2015
(continued)
So, in the end, what have we learned?
- 3 people who are are already known to have distorted the truth in the past about this subject question the results of a study they have a vested interest in lying about.
- 1 person known for distorting the truth, and who is not actually a climate scientist, questions the data.
- Karl sent an email response in his defense, but who knows what he actually said?

Now, admittedly, we also have been given SOME explicit information. After all, I have to be skeptical about this. So, as I said, I will look into the claims and see whether there is merit to them. I am willing to bet, however, that they will not stand up to scrutiny.

However, I don't know why I should be the only one doing this work. Maybe YOU could look into these claims too, since you fashion yourself a skeptic, or better yet, the OP, antigoracle, but I am sure that she/he wouldn't even know how to start.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2015
Prolly, jeff, because this is a repeat offence of which you are also guilty.


Really? Care to illustrate that point?

Secondly, you suggest the linked story is a poor reference then proceed to use Skeptical Science, a blog with a blatant agenda, as evidence. Did you not think you'd come of as completely hypocritica when you posted that?


Peer-reviewed research like the study whose comment section we are chatting in that illustrates we know less than we thought we did about the rates of previous climate change? Or the one that shows Antarctica gaining mass? Or the one that suggests acidic oceans may not be harmful to coral?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2015
However, I don't know why I should be the only one doing this work. Maybe YOU could look into these claims too, since you fashion yourself a skeptic, or better yet, the OP, antigoracle, but I am sure that she/he wouldn't even know how to start.


I'm glad you can muster skepticism toward science... at least when it helps you shore-up the doomsday narrative. Wish you could apply it to all forms of science however... especially when we continually have to return to the drawing board and rethink things that are supposedly "settled".
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2015
Prolly, jeff, because this is a repeat offence of which you are also guilty.

Really? Care to illustrate that point?


No need --you've already illustrated that point, and copiously-- to anyone that posts in this forum, or that is content to merely follow these comment threads.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2015
Secondly, you suggest the linked story is a poor reference then proceed to use Skeptical Science, a blog with a blatant agenda, as evidence. Did you not think you'd come of as completely hypocritica when you posted that?

Peer-reviewed research like the study whose comment section we are chatting in that illustrates we know less than we thought we did about the rates of previous climate change?


Oh, you mean the one that says we could be in even deeper trouble than we thought?

Or the one that shows Antarctica gaining mass?


Oh, the one based on a data set that ended almost 8 years ago? And satellite data --a la Roy Spencer?

Or the one that suggests acidic oceans may not be harmful to coral?


Suggests? May not be?

Just as I pointed out --you can't be bothered to provide any rigorous, peer-reviewed support for your
denierside rhetoric, so you rely upon Willful Disunderstanding and expect it to be accepted as Ultimate Truth.

No dice.

jeffensley
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2015
Prolly, jeff, because this is a repeat offence of which you are also guilty.

Really? Care to illustrate that point?


No need --you've already illustrated that point, and copiously-- to anyone that posts in this forum, or that is content to merely follow these comment threads.


Seems it should have been an easy task that would have only taken you seconds then. Thanks for showing your colors so blatantly.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2015
Prolly, jeff, because this is a repeat offence of which you are also guilty.

Really? Care to illustrate that point?


No need --you've already illustrated that point, and copiously-- to anyone that posts in this forum, or that is content to merely follow these comment threads.


Seems it should have been an easy task that would have only taken you seconds then. Thanks for showing your colors so blatantly.


No thanks, needed, jeff.

It was no effort at all.

And thank YOU for providing yet another illustration of just how unnecessary and redundant is your "contribution" to these proceedings.

In all fairness, though, I suppose you really do deserve a thank you for showcasing the extent of denierside delusion, idiocy and chicanery.

Keep up the good work!

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.