Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

You aren't going to present the data?

Already did. As I said, it appears as if you're not smart enough to understand it, no use wasting my time.

Thanks, and good day.

 

[Loudmouth]

Already did. As I said, it appears as if you're not smart enough to understand it, no use wasting my time.

Thanks, and good day.

"That graph" is not presenting data.

Which graph are you referring to? That is all I am asking.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Of course climate science would say this, but what about REAL science:

Climate science is REAL science, andypro7 .
Blogs are not science . Reliable blogs cite science (see below).

"Steve McIntyre, the guy who uncovered Michael Mann's hockey stick fraud" is a lie since the hockey stick has been independently verified several times (that is what science does)
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Shaun Marcott is one of the authors (plural) of the Marcott et al paper, andypro7.

Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here. To the uninformed reader the Marcott et al paper seems to arbitrarily change the date of some ocean cores. What they actually do is apply a new analysis to the ocean core to get dates from that analysis. Those date happened to be different from the published dates.
None of the authors of the published dates have expressed concern about the new dates.

You missed:
Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer is a climate skeptic myth from Monckton.
which lead to:
3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?

 

[RealityCheck01]

As I showed in my last reply to RealityCheck01, just because you come here and repeat a lie you read on far-left websites, it doesn't make it true.

Sorry, andypro7, but what you showed is that you are not adverse to citing a blogger (the engineer Steve McIntyre) lying about the hockey stick graph. An excuse could be that you did not know about the several independent verifications of the hockey stick graph. That is no longer usable: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

You also need to learn who Steve McIntyre is - he is not a climate scientist!

Steven McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis.

His comments about the validity or not of dating ocean cores are moot because he may be ignorant about how ocean cores are dated.

Compare him to Shaun A Marcott who does have the skills needed to date ocean cores.

I am an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison working on a number of different projects that involve paleoclimatology, glacial geology, geochemistry, and statistical modeling.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's all in that graph. ...

A possibly invalid graph, andypro7, since you have still not given a source.

The graph itself looks amateurish.
* Strange years in the axis.
* Too much color.
* The idiocy of thinking that Greenland temperatures are global temperatures (unless this is a comment on the local temperatures - thus the need for a source).
* A watermark with c3headlines.com - a blog not a scientific journal!

 

[andypro7]

Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here


What you've done here is called circular reasoning. You demand proof that global warming isn't real, but when I supply any info, you say it comes from a 'denier', and therefore can't be proof.

Therefore, until you stop using the word 'denier', which is a childish trick, which proves BEYOND A DOUBT that this is not about science, ANYTHING that you cite or assert that comes from anyone who believes in global warming is INVALID. (I'm just using your logic here).


All those people who say Mann's hockey stick is correct are just know global warming zealots, and therefore we can't believe anything they say. Again, just using your logic here.

All of your information that you shared comes from known 'warmists', and thus, AGAIN, BY YOUR LOGIC, can't be taken seriously.

 

[andypro7]

Now that we've tackled the fact that you don't understand the principles of logic, let's get back to science (well, I will be getting back to science, you never started):

Compare him to Shaun A Marcott who does have the skills needed to date ocean cores

Yet another example of you unknowingly proving that you don't know the least bit about the issue at hand. Whether or not Marcott has the necessary skills to do that is NOT THE ISSUE uncovered by McIntyre and MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY others. The issue is that he CHANGED THE VALUES of some of them because, as the GRAPH OF MARCOTT'S values shows, if he had used the values that HE ORIGINALLY GOT DOING THE SCIENCE, it would have shown cooling not warming in the 20th century.

Do you have any idea how to read what's below? I'm pretty sure you do not. I do, and I could explain it to you, but I know from reading your illogical posts, and your obvious cluelessness to this issue, that I'd just be wasting my time.

Anyway, here is the EXACT SCIENCE that PROVES that Marcott committed fraud. Find someone to explain it to you:


The table below summarizes Marcott-Shakun redating for all alkenone cores with either published end-date or Marcott end-date being less than 50 BP (AD1900). I’ve also shown the closing temperature of each series (“close&#8221 after the two Marcot re-centering steps (as I understand them).
The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ( “pubend” less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcot et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century.

 

[eclipsenow]

Not a shread of truth in that statement. Ok, maybe a shread. It would appear to be a rapid increase, just like many other times over the past 10000 years.

Just a cursory look at the graph shows many similar rapid increases. Moreover, some of those rapid increases show much greater increases in temperatures, as well as much higher temps at the apex of the increase.

As I showed in my last reply to RealityCheck01, just because you come here and repeat a lie you read on far-left websites, it doesn't make it true.

Back to the drawing board, champ.

Assertion is not evidence.
You assert a lot.
Evidence?

 

[eclipsenow]

Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here


What you've done here is called circular reasoning. You demand proof that global warming isn't real, but when I supply any info, you say it comes from a 'denier', and therefore can't be proof.

Therefore, until you stop using the word 'denier', which is a childish trick, which proves BEYOND A DOUBT that this is not about science, ANYTHING that you cite or assert that comes from anyone who believes in global warming is INVALID. (I'm just using your logic here).


All those people who say Mann's hockey stick is correct are just know global warming zealots, and therefore we can't believe anything they say. Again, just using your logic here.

All of your information that you shared comes from known 'warmists', and thus, AGAIN, BY YOUR LOGIC, can't be taken seriously.

There's a reason they are called 'Deniers' and it is because they deny the science without really participating in the peer-review process, do not listen to the peer-review process, and are funded by big oil and killer coal.

The Kochs have also contributed vast sums to promote scepticism towards climate change, more even than the oil industry according to some estimates. Greenpeace, for instance, has calculated that ExxonMobil spent $8.9m on climate-sceptic groups between 2005 and 2008; over the same period the Koch brothers backed such groups to the tune of nearly $25m.

Americans for Prosperity, a group established by David Koch, did much to foment public outrage over the "climategate" emails stolen from the computers of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009. The organisation claimed the emails proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".

Except that many separate inquiries have found the scientists innocent of all charges, including a UK Parliamentary inquiry.

The Koch brothers have realised their donations to anti-science, anti-climate think tanks are really disgusting to the public eye, and so they're trying to hide their conspiracy by using the Donors Trust!

The Donors Trust is a "donor advised" fund, which means it has special status under the US tax system. One of the benefits of donor-advised funds for billionaires such as Charles is that their names are not linked to funds given out by the Donors Trust to other organisations.

Among the beneficiaries of Donor Trust money is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.

Professor Mann was one of the scientists named in the stolen emails from the UEA and has been a target of climate sceptics keen to rubbish his work on temperature records, which produced the now famous "hockey stick" graph showing a rapid temperature rise in the 20th century.

According to Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, the Donors Trust and its sister organisation Donors Capital Fund have become key players in the climate "countermovement", which he says is dedicated to maintaining the status quo on energy policy.

How the 'Kochtopus' stifled green debate - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

Yet coal kills 3 million people a year worldwide; and Harvard claims coal costs America alone an EXTRA $300 to $500 billion a year in public health (and other) costs!

If anything, don't you want to move to clean nuclear power just to SAVE MONEY!?

 

[andypro7]

blah, blah, blah....

I don't know how I could make it any more clear: We're done here.

No one is reading your insane ramblings, least of all me.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here
..snipped rant...

Is a statement of the facts, andypro7:
Steve McIntyre is
* a known climate change denier
* lied about the hockey stick.
* an engineer.
This makes his opinions on his blog dubious.

I will correct your fantasy about what I want, andypro7:
I want actual science as published in the peer reviewed scientific literature that is against or in support of global warming.

Persisting in ignorance about climate science is not good, andypro7:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick? list several independent scientific papers that agree with the hockey stick .

3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?
4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped insults...
Compare him to Shaun A Marcott who does have the skills needed to date ocean cores
..snipped more insults...

Actually an example of you missing the point, andypro7 .
Shaun A Marcott is an expert in his field and knows when recalculating the dates of ocean cores is needed and how to do it. Probably ditto for his fellow authors.

Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick and has no known expertise about ocean cores !

The issue is not whether Marcott et. al. did calculations on ocean core dates.
The issue is that Steve McIntyre has no idea whether the values that Marcott et. al. came up were correct or not.

Repeating what I have already read is redundant, andypro7.

You missed a blog entry about climate science from real climate scientists (not an engineer!): Response by Marcott et al.

ETA: This illustrates a bit of ignorance by Steve McIntyre.
Marcott et al. state in their paper that they find that the 20th century portion of their data is not statistically robust and so they do not use it in their conclusions.

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL054271-pip.pdf).

This conclusion was Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013).
That is 2013's Global Average Temperatures as measured in 2013!

 

[andypro7]

ETA: This illustrates a bit of ignorance by Steve McIntyre.
Marcott et al. state in their paper that they find that the 20th century portion of their data is not statistically robust and so they do not use it in their conclusions.

You know NOTHING. Absolutely hysterical.

You call it 'a bit of ignorance' by McIntyre that the data isn't robust, but that was

EXACTLY THE POINT THAT MCINTYRE WAS MAKING!!!!!!!

Now, you do understand that you are saying this proves massive warming in the 20th century, while at the same time saying that THEY DO NOT USE THE DATA IN THEIR CONCLUSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, since we BOTH agree, and agree with Marcott and McIntyre that the 20th century data isn't enough to draw any conclusions, where in the heck did Marcott, and you, come up with your theory that the 20th century has abnormal warming?

Oh, wait, if you understood in the least bit about this, you'd know that I already went over ALL OF THIS:

The table below summarizes Marcott-Shakun redating for all alkenone cores with either published end-date or Marcott end-date being less than 50 BP (AD1900). I’ve also shown the closing temperature of each series (“close”) after the two Marcot re-centering steps (as I understand them).
The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ( “pubend” less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcot et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual insults snipped...

Which does not leave much coherent text andypro7 .
The MASSIVE WARMING IN THE 20TH CENTURY is a matter of record
Marcott et al. in theory need not have looked at data past the beginning of the instrumental temperature record. Berkeley Earth use data from (I think) 1763). It is agreed that reliable coverage starts around 1850.

You are spamming the thread enough to actually read what data McIntyre looks at. Not all of the ocean cores end in the 20th century. 1008 BP is the tenth century!

The bit of ignorance by Steve McIntyre was what the conclusion of the paper was. This conclusion was Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013).
That is 2013's Global Average Temperatures as measured in 2013!


3rd March 2015 andypro7: What is your source for that graph of Greenland temperatures?
4th March 2015 andypro7: Several independent scientific papers agree with the hockey stick graph!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here is the actual paper:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years by Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix

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

I disagree with the title of the news articles about the paper since I do not think of 75% as close to 100%. "Getting closer" would be better but I am not a magazine editor !

In order for the engineer Steve McIntyre to invalidate the paper he would have to show that either
* past temperatures were so high that there is no way that global warming could reach them or
* that global warming will stop, leaving temperatures less than the ones in the paper.
Steve McIntyre did neither of these.

 

[andypro7]

blater, blather

You STILL have no idea what this means, so you?

When you do, then we'll talk:


The table below summarizes Marcott-Shakun redating for all alkenone cores with either published end-date or Marcott end-date being less than 50 BP (AD1900). I’ve also shown the closing temperature of each series (“close”) after the two Marcot re-centering steps (as I understand them).
The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ( “pubend” less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcot et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You STILL have no idea what this means, so you?

The answer is easy: It means that you are obsessed with spamming the thread with purple colored text, andypro7 !

Meanwhile more about the paper with citations to the science for you to ignore:
Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'

A new global temperature reconstruction over the past 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013) has been described as 'the new hockey stick,' and adopted into 'the wheelchair' by Jos Hagelaars by including temperatures further in the past and projected for the future (Figure 1).
...
The Marcott paper has been subjected to an immense amount of scrutiny, particularly in the climate contrarian blogosphere, with criticisms about everything from the wording of its press release to the timing of its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) publication. Unfortunately climate contrarians have been so noisy in their generally invalid criticisms that the media has begun to echo them, for example in this Washington Post blog.

With all the hubub, it's easy to lose sight of the important conclusions of this paper. The bottom line is that the rate of warming over the past century is very rapid and probably unprecedented for the past 11,000 years. That's actually both good and bad news.
Why Climate Contrarians Should Love the Hockey Sticks
...
The Hockey Stick 'Blade' is Real
Much of the manufactured controversy about the Marcott paper is in regards to the 'blade' or 'uptick' – the rapid warming at the end of the graph over the past century. While their reconstruction does identify an approximately 0.6°C warming between 1890 and 1950, the authors note in the paper that this result is probably not "robust."
...

 

[andypro7]

crap

You STILL don't get it, do you. What does this statement mean to you:


"the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions"

I can name at least 4 people who agree with this statement: Me, you, McIntyre, and Marcott.

Now, what does it mean, who said it, and most importantly, WHEN did the person in question say it?

Maybe then you'll FINALLY get it. Eh, who am I kidding, you'll never get it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It looks like Steve McIntyre may have some relevant analysis on his blog. Read How Marcottian Upticks Arise and ignore the actual subject because the Marcott et al. paper already discounts that "uptick" as not robust.

The first graph is interesting though: "In the graphic below, I&#8217;ve plotted Marcott&#8217;s NHX reconstruction against an emulation (weighting by latitude and gridcell as described in script) using proxies with published dates rather than Marcott dates.". Note that the Marcott et al. curve overlays McIntyre's reconstructed curve from ~-9000 years to ~+1900.

Steve McIntyre is confirming the conclusion of the paper - the current temperature has risen to a sizable part of the temperature in the last ~10,900 years.

This is something we may trust from McIntyre since it is not ocean core dating - just running of data though a computer program.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You STILL don't get it, do you. What does this statement mean to you:

What is means is what it says in plain English even in bold purple, andypro7 !

The text is "the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

The meaning - their conclusions do not use the 20th century portion of their paleotemperature stack !

These conclusions include
1. “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.”

2. “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 …. are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene”

And guess what, andypro7, we have had instruments to calculate the global temperatures for over 300 years! It is those measurements that are referred to in "Current global temperatures of the past decade" and "Global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009"

I will repeat in bold purple in case you only read bold purple text :
Instrumental measurements are referred to in "Current global temperatures of the past decade" and "Global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009"