...
Second, our study suggests that global surface air temperature, although an important
diagnostic, is a flawed metric of planetary “health”, because faster ice melt has a cooling effect
for a substantial period. Earth’s energy imbalance is in some sense a more fundamental climate
diagnostic.  Stabilizing climate, to first order, requires restoring planetary energy balance. The
Framework Convention never mentions temperature – instead it mentions stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations at a level to avoid danger.  It has been shown that the dominant
climate forcing, CO2, must be reduced to no more than 350 ppm to restore planetary energy
balance (Hansen et al., 2008) and keep climate near the Holocene level, if other forcings remain
unchanged.

Rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions is the crucial need, because of the
millennial time scale of this carbon in the climate system. Improved understanding of the carbon
cycle is needed to determine the most effective complementary actions. It may be feasible to
restore planetary energy balance via improved agricultural and forestry practices and other
actions to draw down atmospheric CO2 amount, if fossil fuel emissions are rapidly phased out.
..

source: page 50, http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acp-2015-432-manuscript-version4.pdf

-> lucky we won't be here to see it  :o :o :o :o

http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/11/changes-in-atlantic-sooner-than-expected/

http://i65.tinypic.com/k46vbq.jpg

You have been reading 350.org too much

'Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes.'

So decreasing CO2 was the cause of glaciation and you want to go back to that?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

lol

Sorry the above was from Hansen et al 2008.

replies on the new Hansen paper to Seth Borenstein alarmist.

'seth borenstein ‏@borenbears Mar 24

@EricHolthaus Decision not to write based on comments by 5 of 6 outside scientists finding faults in study & model, including Alley (2/2)
1 retweet 3 likes
Eric Holthaus ‏@EricHolthaus Mar 24

.@borenbears you say here that those critical comments convinced you the Hansen study "wasn't worth writing about."
0 retweets 1 like

seth borenstein Verified account
‏@borenbears

@EricHolthaus The study didnt merit AP story. Unproven badly reviewed science whether from Jim Hansen or Fred Singer isnt worth writing

    Retweets
    2
    Likes
    4
    Joseph Verruni
    Adam Robertson
    Jorge Salazar
    Nick Nauslar
    Chris Beale
    Eric Holthaus

2:13 PM - 24 Mar 2016

        Eric Holthaus ‏@EricHolthaus Mar 24

        .@borenbears on what basis do you think the Hansen study was "badly reviewed". And, humbly, all predictions are unproven until the future.'

https://twitter.com/borenbears/status/713111555102150656

So if even Borenstein thinks it is crap, it must be real crap.

lee wrote on Mar 26^th, 2016 at 8:59am:

Sorry the above was from Hansen et al 2008.

Everything except your added comment you mean!  8-)
..let's not forget the bit you highlighted for some reason  ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

Everything except your added comment you mean

Yes everything except that. Does it stand true for what Hansen et al 2008 state?


lee wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm,

You do not understand what it says?

lee wrote on Mar 26^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 26th, 2016 at 12:30pm: Everything except your added comment you mean Yes everything except that. Does it stand true for what Hansen et al 2008 state? lee wrote on Mar 25th, 2016 at 7:24pm: large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, You do not understand what it says?

;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 25^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:

'Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes.' So decreasing CO2 was the cause of glaciation and you want to go back to that? http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

They are talking about glaciation of Antarctica. And yes we want to preserve Antarctica's glaciers or we will be seeing a rise in sea levels.

Thanks for posting a link confirming the relationship between global temperature and CO2. I'm sure Ajax appreciated it too.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:38am:

They are talking about glaciation of Antarctica. And yes we want to preserve Antarctica's glaciers or we will be seeing a rise in sea levels.

Yes, Did you understand the thing about "Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm "?  CO2 dropping resulted in the glaciation.

You mean decreasing CO2 led to an Ice Age? Of course there has been no evidence of increasing CO2 leading to runaway global warming ever.

lee wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:26am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:38am: They are talking about glaciation of Antarctica. And yes we want to preserve Antarctica's glaciers or we will be seeing a rise in sea levels. Yes, Did you understand the thing about "Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm "?  CO2 dropping resulted in the glaciation. You mean decreasing CO2 led to an Ice Age? Of course there has been no evidence of increasing CO2 leading to runaway global warming ever.

They are talking about glaciation of Antarctica (which had been ice free prior to this) they are not talking about an ice age.
Bit of an own goal there Lee


Quote:

The Eocene Epoch, lasting from 56 to 33.9 million years ago. During this period of time, little to no ice was present on Earth with a smaller difference in temperature from the equator to the poles. Following the maximum was a descent into an icehouse climate from the Eocene Optimum to the Eocene-Oligocene transition at 34 million years ago. During this decrease ice began to reappear at the poles, and the Eocene-Oligocene transition is the period of time where the Antarctic ice sheet began to rapidly expand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

lee wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:26am:

Of course there has been no evidence of increasing CO2 leading to runaway global warming ever.

Not sure what you are trying to define as "runaway" global warming - but that is generally complete bollocks.   There is actually a lot of evidence that increasing CO2 has caused significant global warming in the past.

During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), ∼56 Mya, thousands of petagrams of carbon were released into the ocean-atmosphere system with attendant changes in the carbon cycle, climate, ocean chemistry, and marine and continental ecosystems. The period of carbon release is thought to have lasted <20 ka, the duration of the whole event was ∼200 ka, and the global temperature increase was 5–8◦C

The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future
https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/16827/paleo_McInerney_Wing_2011_AREPS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The injection into the atmosphere of approx,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a delta13C anomaly associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine and terrestrial biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago.
Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6755/abs/401775a0.html

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

There is actually a lot of evidence that increasing CO2 has caused significant global warming in the past.

What were the catastrophic consequences that were caused by the approximate double the amount of CO2 that we have at present? In what way was it runaway warming?


rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a delta13C anomaly associated

As such it is settled science? What was the tipping point? What remediation was put into effect to return CO2 to "normal"?

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

lee wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 11:26am: Of course there has been no evidence of increasing CO2 leading to runaway global warming ever. Not sure what you are trying to define as "runaway" global warming - but that is generally complete bollocks.   There is actually a lot of evidence that increasing CO2 has caused significant global warming in the past. During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), ∼56 Mya, thousands of petagrams of carbon were released into the ocean-atmosphere system with attendant changes in the carbon cycle, climate, ocean chemistry, and marine and continental ecosystems. The period of carbon release is thought to have lasted <20 ka, the duration of the whole event was ∼200 ka, and the global temperature increase was 5–8◦C The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: A Perturbation of Carbon Cycle, Climate, and Biosphere with Implications for the Future https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/16827/paleo_McInerney_Wing_2011_AREPS.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y The injection into the atmosphere of approx,200–2,000 gigatons of carbon, as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a delta13C anomaly associated with high-latitude warming1 and changes in marine and terrestrial biota near the Palaeocene–Eocene boundary, about 55 million years ago. Carbon cycling and chronology of climate warming during the Palaeocene/Eocene transition www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6755/abs/401775a0.html

In the last 11,000 years we have had nine instances of global warming as the graph below shows.

Yet CO2 looks like it has nothing to do with this warming on ever occasion.

Now please provide evidence that more CO2 increases temperature here on Earth.

In the papers above what was our sun doing during these periods....???

What about cosmic rays reaching the Earth during that period.....???

The only way more natural CO2 gets released into the atmosphere is if the Earth warms up.


Quote:

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

why did batman show a graph where the Y-axis for CO2 concentration is restricted to the 260 - 285 ppm range?

https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

why did batman show a graph where the Y-axis for CO2 concentration is restricted to the 260 - 285 ppm range? https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

That's all you got to say.

We've have had nine global warming episodes in the last 11000 years which had nothing to do with CO2 as the graph shows...!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

why did batman show a graph where the Y-axis for CO2 concentration is restricted to the 260 - 285 ppm range?

Because he is using an ice core sample taken from a single point in Greenland and comparing it to a CO2 ice core sample taken in Antarctica.
The ice core samples don't show any data for the last couple of hundred years presumably because they have melted.

This is cherry picking of data at it's most dishonest.
the full explanation of why these graphs don't prove anything can be read here

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=670



Quote:

Using a single ice core record as a proxy for global temperature is a little like reading the thermometer on your back porch and claiming you know the global average temperature.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:49am:

The ice core samples don't show any data for the last couple of hundred years presumably because they have melted.

Oh no. the increasing ice mass of Antarctica is melting the last 200 years of data? :D :D :D :D

The Ice core data from Greenland because the melting ice still has the lost WW11 planes about 260 feet under the ice. ;D ;D ;D

And you quote skeptical science. Did they tell you that crud, or did you come up with it on your own?

Try googling Firn and CO2 and you may have an answer. Why does Rob Honeycutt not know this?

edit: I may have found the answer to my last question.

"Rob's claim to fame is being the founder of the popular pack and bag company Timbuk2.  He is a guru of mass customization and, through the application of Toyota manufacturing methods, created a unique and enduring brand in the outdoor products industry."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

Sceptical; but no scientist.

Interesting that you didn't comment on the actually argument.

So Lee would you agree with this statement?


Quote:

Using a single ice core record as a proxy for global temperature is a little like reading the thermometer on your back porch and claiming you know the global average temperature.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:54am:

Interesting that you didn't comment on the actually argument. So Lee would you agree with this statement? Quote: Using a single ice core record as a proxy for global temperature is a little like reading the thermometer on your back porch and claiming you know the global average temperature.

Where is the quote that a single ice core is a proxy for global temperature? Attribution please.

Found it SKS. Now what about multiple ice core proxies? or just general multiple proxies.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 10:49am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:14pm: why did batman show a graph where the Y-axis for CO2 concentration is restricted to the 260 - 285 ppm range? Because he is using an ice core sample taken from a single point in Greenland and comparing it to a CO2 ice core sample taken in Antarctica. The ice core samples don't show any data for the last couple of hundred years presumably because they have melted. This is cherry picking of data at it's most dishonest. the full explanation of why these graphs don't prove anything can be read here https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=670 Quote: Using a single ice core record as a proxy for global temperature is a little like reading the thermometer on your back porch and claiming you know the global average temperature.

What are you saying that somehow in the northern hemisphere there would be some great big difference between the atmospheric CO2 in the northern and southern hemisphere.

You got jacksh!t haven't you otherwise you would have some evidence to say what's wrong with what i've shown.

Why don't you pull out a CO2 atmospheric graph in the northern hemisphere for comparison.

It is because they a just about the same....????

There may be a little difference not denying that, but nothing that would make my statement false or otherwise not believable.

Antarctica and Greenland two of the most reliable sources for ice core data.

You sir are a liar who peddles snake oil, like that hairy arsed chimp.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 11:54am:

Using a single ice core record as a proxy for global temperature is a little like reading the thermometer on your back porch and claiming you know the global average temperature.

But using 2 ice core proxies from different hemispheres is not using a single ice core.

lee wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm: There is actually a lot of evidence that increasing CO2 has caused significant global warming in the past. What were the catastrophic consequences that were caused by the approximate double the amount of CO2 that we have at present? In what way was it runaway warming? rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm: as methane from the decomposition of sedimentary methane hydrates, has been proposed to explain a delta13C anomaly associated As such it is settled science? What was the tipping point? What remediation was put into effect to return CO2 to "normal"?

:o 8-) :o :o :o SAY WHAAAAAAAAAAAA BROZ????  ::)

Ajax wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:14pm: why did batman show a graph where the Y-axis for CO2 concentration is restricted to the 260 - 285 ppm range? https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif That's all you got to say. We've have had nine global warming episodes in the last 11000 years which had nothing to do with CO2 as the graph shows...!

:D

Co2 is released by warming,... Leading to a feedback mechanism that releases more co2!

Another billion page circle jerk to forget the global copper Internet joke: bye bye sideshow mal!

:D

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 10:38am:

lee wrote on Mar 25th, 2016 at 7:24pm: 'Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes.' So decreasing CO2 was the cause of glaciation and you want to go back to that? http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 They are talking about glaciation of Antarctica. And yes we want to preserve Antarctica's glaciers or we will be seeing a rise in sea levels. Thanks for posting a link confirming the relationship between global temperature and CO2. I'm sure Ajax appreciated it too.

Lees a friggin peanut going to the grave with copper Internet as his legacy!

Well done lee: 😂

lee wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 11:26am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 10:38am: They are talking about glaciation of Antarctica. And yes we want to preserve Antarctica's glaciers or we will be seeing a rise in sea levels. Yes, Did you understand the thing about "Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm "?  CO2 dropping resulted in the glaciation. You mean decreasing CO2 led to an Ice Age? Of course there has been no evidence of increasing CO2 leading to runaway global warming ever.

Well done mate: f$$$$n well done mate ya spasticated too much friggin' teethed whore for the foreign investor!

Is your second name Isis by any chance you planet accountant freak  ;D ???

We all know  :D

lee wrote on Mar 28^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 28th, 2016 at 11:54am: Using a single ice core record as a proxy for global temperature is a little like reading the thermometer on your back porch and claiming you know the global average temperature. But using 2 ice core proxies from different hemispheres is not using a single ice core.

Wrong
They are using one for temperature from a single location in Greenland.

So do you agree that using a proxy from a single location to represent global temperature is invalid or are you just going to continue to avoid answering the question. A simple yes or no will suffice

It's clear from the mounting evidence that both Batman and lee are on the ropes and need to render joint public apologies.

https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

Both batman and lee are the same very bored crack smoker!

Dad bought him a house and he can slowly pay off the rent by selling his soul to planet accountant dot org!

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

So do you agree that using a proxy from a single location to represent global temperature is invalid or are you just going to continue to avoid answering the question. A simple yes or no will suffice

Do you agree that using surface station readings, heavily biased to the Northern Hemisphere, have no hope of calculating a GLOBAL temperature?

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 11:51am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 29th, 2016 at 10:35am: So do you agree that using a proxy from a single location to represent global temperature is invalid or are you just going to continue to avoid answering the question. A simple yes or no will suffice Do you agree that using surface station readings, heavily biased to the Northern Hemisphere, have no hope of calculating a GLOBAL temperature?

do yo prefer that Australian land surface temperatures are used lee?

what do you mean by "HEAVILY biased".

Provide some statistics and hard evidence or apologise and leave

well done though - well done on your disastrous partnership with Batman.

You will in tears in no time mate - well done

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 12:01pm:

what do you mean by "HEAVILY biased". Provide some statistics and hard evidence or apologise and leave

Crutem4 Database -

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm

Total Stations - 5583

Datasets with some or all stations in the Southern Hemisphere - 674

12% at best.

440      Europe, East Asia, Africa, USA, S. America and Australia
  63      Asia, Central and S. America
  60      Mali, D.R. Congo plus a few others
  98      Australia
  13      New Zealand
674      Total

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 29^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

So do you agree that using a proxy from a single location to represent global temperature is invalid or are you just going to continue to avoid answering the question. A simple yes or no will suffice

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

Crutem4 Database - https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/station-data.htm Total Stations - 5583 Datasets with some or all stations in the Southern Hemisphere - 674 12% at best. 440      Europe, East Asia, Africa, USA, S. America and Australia   63      Asia, Central and S. America   60      Mali, D.R. Congo plus a few others   98      Australia   13      New Zealand 674      Total

Well I guess if you arn't happy with measurements from well over 5,000 temperature stations then I'll take that as a "Yes". You agree that Ajax's graph using just one location in Greenland is discredited.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:10pm:

Well I guess if you arn't happy with measurements from well over 5,000 temperature stations then I'll take that as a "Yes". You agree that Ajax's graph using just one location in Greenland is discredited.

Do you agree the Southern Hemisphere with less than 12% of surface temperature stations are under represented in calculating a GLOBAL average temperature?

"You agree that Ajax's graph using just one location in Greenland is discredited"-
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Hey professor, barnacle, chimp and your too Cerberus.

Is this graph a true representation of climate variability for the last 1000 years of our history.

http://i64.tinypic.com/t06p9j.jpg

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 9:21pm:

Do you agree the Southern Hemisphere with less than 12% of surface temperature stations are under represented in calculating a GLOBAL average temperature?

No I dont.
The ratio of northern hemisphere to southern hemisphere stations is irrelevant.
All that really matters is that there are enough stations in the southern hemisphere to give a reliable reading for that hemisphere.
674 stations is a lot more reliable than relying on a single ice core sample in a single location in Greenland.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:47am:

Hey professor, barnacle, chimp and your too Cerberus. Is this graph a true representation of climate variability for the last 1000 years of our history. http://i64.tinypic.com/t06p9j.jpg

your graph isnt clear batman. What is the x-axis time range? In what year does the data end? Where did you extract the data?

Apologise and retire to continue your weeping batman

https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:14am:

lee wrote on Mar 31st, 2016 at 9:21pm: Do you agree the Southern Hemisphere with less than 12% of surface temperature stations are under represented in calculating a GLOBAL average temperature? No I dont. The ratio of northern hemisphere to southern hemisphere stations is irrelevant. All that really matters is that there are enough stations in the southern hemisphere to give a reliable reading for that hemisphere. 674 stations is a lot more reliable than relying on a single ice core sample in a single location in Greenland.

The USA has the most weather stations out of all other nations.

Empirical readings from NOAA weather stations SHOW a cooling trend.

http://i64.tinypic.com/35ix05s.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:29am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 9:47am: Hey professor, barnacle, chimp and your too Cerberus. Is this graph a true representation of climate variability for the last 1000 years of our history. http://i64.tinypic.com/t06p9j.jpg your graph isnt clear batman. What is the x-axis time range? In what year does the data end? Where did you extract the data? Apologise and retire to continue your weeping batman https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

It's all there in black and white Einstein, can't you read a graph.....???

Ice core data is used to determine our past climate.

Therefore the ice core data observed from Greenland is valid for determining what went on in our history.

Both alarmists and skeptics accept it.

Unless you have some valid reason as to why these studies aren't relevant you haven't got a foot to stand on.

BTW that graph shows nine occurrences of global warming in the past 11000 years and not one of them correlate to what CO2 is doing.... ;D


Quote:

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

http://i65.tinypic.com/2rrnres.gif

Ajax,

This is the long discredited Don Easterbrook "presentation." Don is a long retired Geology Professor from Western Washington University.  The faculty was so affronted by this nonsense that they wrote a letter to the Bellingham Herald, where Easterbrook originally posted.

I'll see if I can find the letter.

If you want an actual peer reviewed paper that provides a reconstruction of global temperatures for the past 10,000 years, the most recent work is Marcott et al. (2013, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science, Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201.

There are other respectable peer reviewed studies such as Shakun et al.

Combining the data from these two studies plus Hadcrut 4 and a projection to 2100, this is what it looks like:

---

Quote:

By WWU GEOLOGY FACULTY — COURTESY TO THE BELLINGHAM HERALD On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker. We concur with the vast consensus of the science community that recent global warming is very real, human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, and their environmental and economic impacts on our society will likely be severe if we don't make significant efforts to address the problem. Claims to the contrary fly in the face of an overwhelming body of rigorous scientific literature. We intend no disrespect to Easterbrook personally. We appreciate his previous service to our department and to Western. His present appointment as emeritus professor was made in light of his long-standing history at WWU. But people of the state of Washington need to understand that Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong. Science thrives on controversies; it rewards innovative, unexpected findings, but only when they are backed by rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning. Without such standards, science would be ineffective as a tool to improve our society. It is worth acknowledging that nearly every technological advance in modern society is a direct result of that same scientific method (think the Internet, airplanes, antibiotics, and even your smartphone). Easterbrook's views, as exemplified by his Senate presentation, are a stark contrast to that standard; they are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. For example, more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit. In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change. As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Western Washington University WWU Geology Department faculty members who authored this column are Douglas H. Clark, who holds a doctorate in geology; Bernard A. Housen, who is the department chair and holds a doctorate in geophysics; Susan Debari, who holds a doctorate in geology; Colin B. Amos, who holds a doctorate in geology; Scott R. Linneman, who holds a doctorate in geology; Robert J. Mitchell, who holds doctorates in engineering and geology; David M. Hirsch, who holds a doctorate in geology; Jaqueline Caplan-Auerbach, who holds a doctorate in geophysics; Pete Stelling, who holds a doctorate in geology; Elizabeth R. Schermer.......

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 10:29am:

your graph isnt clear batman. What is the x-axis time range? In what year does the data end? Where did you extract the data?

The previous letter answers most of those questions. The data ends in 1855.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 5:43pm:

If you want an actual peer reviewed paper that provides a reconstruction of global temperatures for the past 10,000 years, the most recent work is Marcott et al. (2013, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science, Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201. There are other respectable peer reviewed studies such as Shakun et al. Combining the data from these two studies plus Hadcrut 4 and a projection to 2100, this is what it looks like:

'Q.

Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A.

Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.'

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?_r=0

Shakun's reply to Steve McIntyre-

'Dear Stephen,

Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. Specifically, we concluded this based on several lines of evidence. (1) Comparison of the Standard5x5 reconstruction with the RegEM stack shows that they differ during this youngest 60-year interval, suggesting the reconstruction for the last 60 years is dependent on this methodology, whereas the agreement between the methods for the remainder of the reconstruction shows it is not dependent on this methodology. (2) Figure 1G shows the number of datasets going into the reconstruction in each time interval. In the online supplement, we evaluated in some detail the fidelity of global reconstructions based on the number of datasets included (for example, Fig. S13); that analysis notes a considerable reduction in the correlation of Monte Carlo reconstructions with an input global signal when the number of temperature time series becomes small. (3) In manuscript paragraph 5 (and in an extensive discussion in online supplement section 9), we evaluated effective smoothing of centennial to millennial scale variability, and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions. For these reasons, we do not use the reconstruction of the last 60 years shown in Figure 1 as the basis for any of our conclusions.'

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/marcott-mystery-1/#comment-404356

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 5:43pm:

If you want an actual peer reviewed paper that provides a reconstruction of global temperatures for the past 10,000 years, the most recent work is Marcott et al. (2013, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science, Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201. There are other respectable peer reviewed studies such as Shakun et al. Combining the data from these two studies plus Hadcrut 4 and a projection to 2100, this is what it looks like:

So you do believe in hockey sticks, well professor I'm starting to think you're anything but.

Proxies obtained from alkenones are controversial to say the least, the findings of these two fraudsters have been shown to be wrong and that they fiddled with the figures to arrive at an agreeable conclusion with the AGW religion.

You really do need to be thrown into the hyperdrive.

http://i64.tinypic.com/214pzs.jpg

Nothing wrong with that graph either professor both sides use it and refer to it.

Mr. Eaterbrook didn't create it he just used it.

http://i66.tinypic.com/yj9e9.jpg

Nothing wrong with your graph if it is used for the intended purpose,

I'm not particularly interested in what Steve McIntyre has to say. I'm more interested in qualified climatologists.

At the time of that article, Don Easterbrook had long retired from the WWU. He was misrepresenting himself.

The letter from WWU speaks for itself.

lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:26pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 5:43pm: If you want an actual peer reviewed paper that provides a reconstruction of global temperatures for the past 10,000 years, the most recent work is Marcott et al. (2013, A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science, Vol. 339 no. 6124 pp. 1198-1201. There are other respectable peer reviewed studies such as Shakun et al. Combining the data from these two studies plus Hadcrut 4 and a projection to 2100, this is what it looks like: 'Q. Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years? A. Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.'

You can't do much better than that for any paleotemperature data set.

So your little band of reprobate denialists has heard of this study, but prefers the Greenland study as a guide to global temperature.

Interesting. 

A more pertinent question might have been along the lines of "What makes the past 50 years stick out like the proverbial  in terms of temperature range"

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:44pm:

So your little band of reprobate denialists has heard of this study, but prefers the Greenland study as a guide to global temperature. Interesting.

Who denies climate changes?


John_Taverner wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 8:44pm:

A more pertinent question might have been along the lines of "What makes the past 50 years stick out like the proverbial  in terms of temperature range"

So we only want 50 years of data? All else is inconvenient. 50 years is not even one man's lifetime.

Isn't it amazing that you can't find what is written by Marcott and Shakun saying it is not robust, palatable?

I thought you were saying "this is unprecedented"? ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 9:27pm:

So we only want 50 years of data? All else is inconvenient. 50 years is not even one man's lifetime. Isn't it amazing that you can't find what is written by Marcott and Shakun saying it is not robust, palatable? I thought you were saying "this is unprecedented"? ;D ;D

Both Marcott and Shakun provide independent studies that totally refute your assertion that the temperature has been rising since the last glaciation. 

This is the case regardless of whether you take 150 year running means or not. 

If you compare the studies with other paleotemperature studies, the data is perfectly valid.  There is agreement with many other such studies.  You can get finer detail as you get into more recent times. By the way, if you numpties are still stuck in the late 1990s  denying what you call the hockey stick based on the now ancient work of Mann, here are another 12 independent Northern Hemisphere  studies for you to deny:

https://www.sk-zag.de/Binaries/Binary700/Abb9_8.jpg

Time to move on from Hockey Stick denial guys. That was 27 years ago. The world of climatology has progressed since then, just as the rest of the world has.  It has also moved on from being called the Hockey Stick by the way. Some now call it the "wheelchair". Whatever you call it, the data is well established.

As for the data from the Industrial period, we actually have this data from a number of sources. Of course it becomes more accurate once we enter the time of instrumental readings.

Even if you were to make a 150 year running average (why on earth would anybody do that?), you'd still have a rising trend.  To do so would be pointless.

What is your obsession with paleodata anyway? It's irrelevant simply because the crux of the matter is radiative forcing.  That is basic science. 

Regardless of what natural variation has looked like in the dim and distant past, what is starting to manifest itself now  is an enormous signal of anthropogenic global warming superimposed on that natural variation, a signal which  is becoming even more difficult to deny.

Even the paid bloggers like "MicroWatts" are having trouble getting enough numpties like you two to help them with cherry picking and half truths as it becomes more obvious that professional scientists have got it right after all.   

You see, as Global Warming becomes more and more obvious, you eventually run out of m0rons who are prepared to announce impending Ice Ages or something equally as silly.

Professor I'm disappointed in you, I thought you were a man that looks all the evidence, if you're pining your hopes on Marcott and Shakun who have been proven to be no better than Mann and ignore all other evidence then how can you consider yourself a scientist.

Isn't a scientist sceptical until the theory and its computations can be proven in the real world by observations.....???

How can you choose to ignore the multitude of over whelming evidence that goes against these fraudsters that produce hockey sticks from their studies to suggest current temperatures are unusual when its evident in our history that we have had warmer periods than we are experiencing now.

Its the hyperdrive for you professor...big FAIL and disappointing to say the least.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

http://i63.tinypic.com/11hs9rn.jpg

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

For anyone who is unsure, go to this site, it shows 120 proxy studies that confirm the medieval warm period (look at all the locations that have been explored), that shows temperatures back then were at least as warm as today if not warmer.

So much for your hockey stick professor.... ;D

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

http://i63.tinypic.com/11hs9rn.jpg

The IPCC did show the Medieval warm period and then for some strange reason replaced it with the now discredited and fraudulent hockey stick by Mann.


http://i67.tinypic.com/3539yyd.jpg



And to rub it in a little more there is nothing wrong with the graph I have shown.



Quote:

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

http://i65.tinypic.com/2rrnres.gif

Ajax wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:58am:

How can you choose to ignore the multitude of over whelming evidence that goes against these fraudsters that produce hockey sticks from their studies to suggest current temperatures are unusual when its evident in our history that we have had warmer periods than we are experiencing now.

OK, so any peer reviewed work that disagrees with your conspiracy theories is now fraud.  So let me get this right. Mann is a fraud, All the 12 authors of the proxy studies previously mentioned are frauds. Marcott is a fraud. Shakun is a fraud. There has been a 10 year conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientists (evil b@stards) and we should place our trust in Micro Watt, Joanne Nova and other unqualified hacks.   

In addition to that, we should go through a list of Ajax supplied highly localised studies, including one in a single location in Norway all to prove that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today. ( Of course it isn't, but the whole business of the Medieval Warm Period is a red herring anyway)

You must love this site:

http://www.debunking911.com/

Please tell us more Ajax. Your posts are always very entertaining   ;D

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:24am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 8:58am: How can you choose to ignore the multitude of over whelming evidence that goes against these fraudsters that produce hockey sticks from their studies to suggest current temperatures are unusual when its evident in our history that we have had warmer periods than we are experiencing now. OK, so any peer reviewed work that disagrees with your conspiracy theories is now fraud.  You must love this site: http://www.debunking911.com/ ;D

Professor you keep shooting yourself n the foot with your very own evidence.

This site you provided shows one of the towers broken into to two, the top one third looks like its going to topple over.

That's what should've happened, after all those bombs were detonated at that point and time, maybe an oversight by the demolition team.

Instead the top third of the building was pulverized into dust by explosives, how can you explain that one professor, what crushed the top third of the building...???

There is your evidence, thanks to you professor.

The world trade centre was demolished.


http://www.debunking911.com/
http://i67.tinypic.com/mafj2t.jpg

Ajax wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:33am:

This site you provided shows one of the towers broken into to two, the top one third looks like its going to topple over. That's what should've happened. Instead it was pulverized into dust by explosives. There is your evidence thanks professor. The world trade centre was demolished.

Priceless.  You have just killed any credibility you had with any newbies reading this site.  Lee must be embarrassed by now, but he won't show it.

How are the moon landing conspiracies going?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 8:35am:

Both Marcott and Shakun provide independent studies that totally refute your assertion that the temperature has been rising since the last glaciation. This is the case regardless of whether you take 150 year running means or not.

And yet you show a graph from the LIA approximately, which was not the last glaciation. More post-modern climatology.

I'll use wiki; you seem to understand that.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Approximate_chronology_of_Heinrich_events_vs_Dansgaard-Oeschger_events_and_Antarctic_Isotope_Maxima.png/1024px-Approximate_chronology_of_Heinrich_events_vs_Dansgaard-Oeschger_events_and_Antarctic_Isotope_Maxima.png

'Chronology of climatic events of importance for the Last Glacial Period (about the last 120 000 years)'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

Although those graphs both belong to specific localities, they still show cooling trends for the latest 5000 year time period. You just shot yourself in the foot, Lee.

In fact, they agree quite closely with the work of Marcott.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 2:05pm:

Although those graphs both belong to specific localities, they still show cooling trends for the latest 5000 year time period.

Wow, you can pull 5,000 year time lines that far with certainty. No short term trends whatsoever. Colour me impressed. /sarc

You mean the Marcott uptick which he says is not robust, because it is caused by the methodology? Just like the Mann uptick that you also included. You are getting funnier and funnier. Who needs a circus?

Removing the recent upstick, you can see that Marcott and the graphs you provided show remarkably similar trends. The Marcott graph I showed previously had the time scale in the opposite direction.  I can tidy this up further, but just to illustrate a point, you can see similar cooling trends in both graphs.

The time scale in both cases go from 1 to 20,000 years.

By the way, I said the last glaciation, not the last glacial period.

Deglaciation commenced in the Northern Hemisphere gradually between approximately 18,000 to 17,000 BCE, and in Antarctica approximately 12,500 BCE.

(See reply 67 for the graphs)

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 2:05pm:

Although those graphs both belong to specific localities, they still show cooling trends for the latest 5000 year time period. You just shot yourself in the foot, Lee. In fact, they agree quite closely with the work of Marcott.

Geez professor your really having a bad hair day today, you just keep outing your foot in it......ROFL..... ;D

I guess you'll live to fight another day.

Ajax wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 2:42pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:05pm: Although those graphs both belong to specific localities, they still show cooling trends for the latest 5000 year time period. You just shot yourself in the foot, Lee. In fact, they agree quite closely with the work of Marcott. Geez professor your really having a bad hair day today, you just keep outing your foot in it......ROFL..... ;D I guess you'll live to fight another day.

I don't expect you to understand this, but at least others will. Blind Freddy can see that the above graphs do not show warming since the last glaciation. Your argument that the warming of the past 50 years is just a continuation of warming since the last ice age is therefore totally fallacious.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 2:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:42pm: John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 2:05pm: Although those graphs both belong to specific localities, they still show cooling trends for the latest 5000 year time period. You just shot yourself in the foot, Lee. In fact, they agree quite closely with the work of Marcott. Geez professor your really having a bad hair day today, you just keep outing your foot in it......ROFL..... ;D I guess you'll live to fight another day. I don't expect you to understand this, but at least others will. Blind Freddy can see that the above graphs do not show warming since the last glaciation. Your argument that the warming of the past 50 years is just a continuation of warming since the last ice age is therefore totally fallacious.

It still has me perplexed how a man of your educational background can be deceived by trash like that which you are presenting.

I recon you're an agent from skeptical science blog sent here by that cartoonist and fraudster John Cook who himself reports to Al Gore on converting Australians to Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion.

What will you be door knocking next like the jehovah's witnesses FFS.... >:(

I've cleaned up the graph. Lee is quiet because he has the nouse to realise what I'm talking about. With the time axes going the same way, the Morcott graph is very similar in trend to the graph that Lee just presented.

---

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:34pm:

You do know the earth has been warming since the last ice age , don't you?

Quote:

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the Quaternary glaciation occurring during the last 100,000 years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago

So we're looking for signs that the earth has been warming since about 12.000 years ago.

Lee,

How do you explain the fact that you just posted a graph that contradicts your previous statement?  Have you changed your mind?

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 3:17pm:

I've cleaned up the graph. Lee is quiet because he has the nouse to realise what I'm talking about

You expanded the graph and expect to see short-term trends? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 3:56pm:

So we're looking for signs that the earth has been warming since about 12.000 years ago. Lee, How do you explain the fact that you just posted a graph that contradicts your previous statement?  Have you changed your mind?

Have you posted any error bars? ;)

BTW, I notice you don't address what both Marcott and Shakun have said about their papers.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 4:03pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 3:17pm: I've cleaned up the graph. Lee is quiet because he has the nouse to realise what I'm talking about You expanded the graph and expect to see short-term trends? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I stretched the graph slightly to show that your graph shows a similar cooling trend to that of Morcott.


Quote:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 3:56pm: So we're looking for signs that the earth has been warming since about 12.000 years ago. Lee, How do you explain the fact that you just posted a graph that contradicts your previous statement?  Have you changed your mind? Have you posted any error bars? ;) BTW, I notice you don't address what both Marcott and Shakun have said about their papers.

Well the first graph was yours.  Did you post any error bars? Do you deny that the graph shows a rising trend, then a cooling trend ?

What Marcott and Shakun said related to the more recent industrial period.  I removed the projected uptick to 2100 from the composite graph because it doesn't relate to your argument anyway.

Your statement that the world has been warming since the last Ice Age has now been demonstrated to be false by virtue of data that you posted yourself.

I'll ask you again. Does your graph show a warming or a cooling trend for the most recent (say) 8000 years?  A simple question.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 4:21pm:

I'll ask you again. Does your graph show a warming or a cooling trend for the most recent (say) 8000 years?

Actually, don't you see you just changed the question again.  Where did I say there have been no warming or cooling periods within that time-frame?

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 4:30pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 4:21pm: I'll ask you again. Does your graph show a warming or a cooling trend for the most recent (say) 8000 years?  Actually, don't you see you just changed the question again.  Where did I say there have been no warming or cooling periods within that time-frame?

I already quoted what you said.  Now answer the question.  If you prefer to put in context of the entire 12.000 year period, please describe the trends that you see in your graph.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:24am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 8:58am: How can you choose to ignore the multitude of over whelming evidence that goes against these fraudsters that produce hockey sticks from their studies to suggest current temperatures are unusual when its evident in our history that we have had warmer periods than we are experiencing now. OK, so any peer reviewed work that disagrees with your conspiracy theories is now fraud.  So let me get this right. Mann is a fraud, All the 12 authors of the proxy studies previously mentioned are frauds. Marcott is a fraud. Shakun is a fraud. There has been a 10 year conspiracy involving thousands and thousands of scientists (evil b@stards) and we should place our trust in Micro Watt, Joanne Nova and other unqualified hacks.    In addition to that, we should go through a list of Ajax supplied highly localised studies, including one in a single location in Norway all to prove that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than today. ( Of course it isn't, but the whole business of the Medieval Warm Period is a red herring anyway) You must love this site: http://www.debunking911.com/ Please tell us more Ajax. Your posts are always very entertaining   ;D

Why is the MWP a red herring? There are widespread studies show multiple localised events; in both NH and SH. How many of these "localised events" do we need before you would consider these localised events constituted a global event. Not all at the same time. Or is that one of your prerquisites?


Micro Watt, Joanne Nova and other unqualified hacks. - Seeing how you have said you don't read blogs; how have you determined this? Around the water cooler at work? You know what they say about relying on water cooler gossip don't you?

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 4:36pm:

If you prefer to put in context of the entire 12.000 year period, please describe the trends that you see in your graph.

Why would I do that when the graph shows the earth coming out of the ice age at about 15.5k years? Do you see a warming coming out of the ice age or not?

Avoiding the question, I see. I'll make it easier for you:

The attached part of your graph shows the temperature trend since the end of the last Ice Age. (Generally taken to be about 12,000 years BP)

Which of these statements would be most consistent with what you see in the graph you posted:

A. A warming trend since the last Ice Age.
B. An initial warming trend followed by a slight cooling trend.
C. An initial cooling trend followed by a slight warming trend. 

I've made it easier for you by cropping to the relevant time period.

Again. This is what you said before. I'm quoting this without modification.


lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:34pm:

You do know the earth has been warming since the last ice age , don't you?

Well, has it?

---

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 4:46pm:

Well, has it?

Obviously it has warmed since the ice age.

BTW - about Watts, Jonova etc?

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 5:20pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 4:46pm: Well, has it? Obviously it has warmed since the ice age. BTW - about Watts, Jonova etc?

Obviously it warmed for a few thousand years after the Ice Age, otherwise we'd still be in an Ice Age.  That much is  mind-numbingly obvious. Your reply is a glaring half truth.

The argument often used that the increasing trend in temperatures is just a continuation of the warming following the Ice Age is plainly incorrect (based on your graph for one thing) and it is also mind-numbingly obvious that the trend was that of initial warming, then slow cooling. 

I doubt if even you could dispute that, even though you continue to dodge the question.  I will give you a chance to do that. If you don't take it up, I'll infer from this, that you agree with me.

I've seen enough of Watts and Jo Nova based on posts by Ajax and others like him on other forums, as well as those from Christopher Monckton.  On the surface, their articles are seductively simplistic. Scratch below that veneer of half truths and cherry picking, and the arguments fall apart. Yes, I have on occasion followed the links, but the stench of deception at those sites was enough to discourage me from revisiting.

Ajax wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:33am:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 9:24am: Ajax wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 8:58am: How can you choose to ignore the multitude of over whelming evidence that goes against these fraudsters that produce hockey sticks from their studies to suggest current temperatures are unusual when its evident in our history that we have had warmer periods than we are experiencing now. OK, so any peer reviewed work that disagrees with your conspiracy theories is now fraud.  You must love this site: http://www.debunking911.com/ ;D Professor you keep shooting yourself n the foot with your very own evidence. This site you provided shows one of the towers broken into to two, the top one third looks like its going to topple over. That's what should've happened, after all those bombs were detonated at that point and time, maybe an oversight by the demolition team. Instead the top third of the building was pulverized into dust by explosives, how can you explain that one professor, what crushed the top third of the building...??? There is your evidence, thanks to you professor. The world trade centre was demolished. http://www.debunking911.com/ http://i67.tinypic.com/mafj2t.jpg

Um, whatttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt  :-?

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 6:23pm:

I've seen enough of Watts and Jo Nova based on posts by Ajax and others like him on other forums, as well as those from Christopher Monckton.  On the surface, their articles are seductively simplistic. Scratch below that veneer of half truths and cherry picking, and the arguments fall apart. Yes, I have on occasion followed the links, but the stench of deception at those sites was enough to discourage me from revisiting.

So that reporting climate science like Karl et al stinks.

Yes I have to agree with you.


John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 6:23pm:

The argument often used that the increasing trend in temperatures is just a continuation of the warming following the Ice Age is plainly incorrect (based on your graph for one thing) and it is also mind-numbingly obvious that the trend was that of initial warming, then slow cooling. I doubt if even you could dispute that, even though you continue to dodge the question.  I will give you a chance to do that. If you don't take it up, I'll infer from this, that you agree with me.

As I said you are looking at a small time-frame.


lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2016 at 6:42pm:

(Marcott)   and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions

And you want to use that as proof that there haven't been short-term warming trends in the past? You are definitely an activist.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:51pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:23pm: I've seen enough of Watts and Jo Nova based on posts by Ajax and others like him on other forums, as well as those from Christopher Monckton.  On the surface, their articles are seductively simplistic. Scratch below that veneer of half truths and cherry picking, and the arguments fall apart. Yes, I have on occasion followed the links, but the stench of deception at those sites was enough to discourage me from revisiting. So that reporting climate science like Karl et al stinks. Yes I have to agree with you. John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:23pm: The argument often used that the increasing trend in temperatures is just a continuation of the warming following the Ice Age is plainly incorrect (based on your graph for one thing) and it is also mind-numbingly obvious that the trend was that of initial warming, then slow cooling. I doubt if even you could dispute that, even though you continue to dodge the question.  I will give you a chance to do that. If you don't take it up, I'll infer from this, that you agree with me. As I said you are looking at a small time-frame. lee wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:42pm: (Marcott)   and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions And you want to use that as proof that there haven't been short-term warming trends in the past? You are definitely an activist.

Lee doesn't know how many liberal voters get free rent from daddykins to smoke crack does he?

::) ::)

I dare Lee to visit Julie Bishops electorate one day  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:51pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:23pm: I've seen enough of Watts and Jo Nova based on posts by Ajax and others like him on other forums, as well as those from Christopher Monckton.  On the surface, their articles are seductively simplistic. Scratch below that veneer of half truths and cherry picking, and the arguments fall apart. Yes, I have on occasion followed the links, but the stench of deception at those sites was enough to discourage me from revisiting. So that reporting climate science like Karl et al stinks. Yes I have to agree with you. John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3rd, 2016 at 6:23pm: The argument often used that the increasing trend in temperatures is just a continuation of the warming following the Ice Age is plainly incorrect (based on your graph for one thing) and it is also mind-numbingly obvious that the trend was that of initial warming, then slow cooling. I doubt if even you could dispute that, even though you continue to dodge the question.  I will give you a chance to do that. If you don't take it up, I'll infer from this, that you agree with me. As I said you are looking at a small time-frame. lee wrote on Apr 2nd, 2016 at 6:42pm: (Marcott)   and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions And you want to use that as proof that there haven't been short-term warming trends in the past? You are definitely an activist.

um, ?  ::)

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 10:51pm:

And you want to use that as proof that there haven't been short-term warming trends in the past? You are definitely an activist.

Oh you were referring to short term warming trends of less than 300 years stuck in a longer term overall cooling trend.

I don't see any point in continuing.  Your arguments are surreal. 

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 6:43am:

Oh you were referring to short term warming trends of less than 300 years stuck in a longer term overall cooling trend. I don't see any point in continuing.  Your arguments are surreal.

You were the one talking about short-term warming trends for the 20th century and using Marcott graphs with approval. It just shows you hadn't either read or understood the paper. Unless you were just pushing the AGW cause.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 10:43am:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 4th, 2016 at 6:43am: Oh you were referring to short term warming trends of less than 300 years stuck in a longer term overall cooling trend. I don't see any point in continuing.  Your arguments are surreal. You were the one talking about short-term warming trends for the 20th century and using Marcott graphs with approval. It just shows you hadn't either read or understood the paper. Unless you were just pushing the AGW cause.

Lee is made of straw! (Yes, still mum! This f'n joke is still made of straw!!)

HI WORZEL  :D

lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:34pm:

You do know the earth has been warming since the last ice age , don't you?

- but your graph shows the complete opposite.


Quote:

As I said you are looking at a small time-frame.

The timeframe since the last Ice Age - the same time frame that you say that the earth has been warming in.

Are you sating that there were short periods of warming within that overall cooling trend since the initial spike? Is that what you're saying? (If you are, I don't dispute that)

Lee - you are seriously giving Ajax a run for his money. Your statements are almost overtaking his on the silliness scale.

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 10:43am:

You were the one talking about short-term warming trends for the 20th century and using Marcott graphs with approval. It just shows you hadn't either read or understood the paper. Unless you were just pushing the AGW cause.

No I was talking about your now disproven assertion that:


lee wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 5:34pm:

You do know the earth has been warming since the last ice age , don't you?

Are you going to admit that you contradicted yourself with the graph that you posted or are you going to continue to act like a fool?

John, You are the one talking about late 20th century warming. That is a small time-frame.

That is why it gets lost in a 300year Marcott reconstruction. That is why the Minoan, Roman and MWP are lost. The uptick is just a function of the methodology used.

Nice try though.

Are you going to admit acting like an AGW activist?

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:06am:

John, You are the one talking about late 20th century warming. That is a small time-frame. That is why it gets lost in a 300year Marcott reconstruction. That is why the Minoan, Roman and MWP are lost. The uptick is just a function of the methodology used. Nice try though. Are you going to admit acting like an AGW activist?

Nice try at deflecting.  The upward trend in temperature in the late 20th century does not rely on Marcott's study. His study was  about paleotemperature reconstruction. There are plenty of other reconstructions over a shorter time frame, and I have already posted one graph showing some of these.

When are you going to admit that the overall trend for the last 5000 - 8000 years was one of slight cooling?

To say that it has been warming since the last ice age is incorrect whichever way you look at it.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:29am:

There are plenty of other reconstructions over a shorter time frame, and I have already posted one graph showing some of these.

Mann?


John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 11:29am:

When are you going to admit that the overall trend for the last 5000 - 8000 years was one of slight cooling?

When are you going to admit that the reconstructions don't do warming blips?

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

When are you going to admit that the reconstructions don't do warming blips?

I'm sure that there were warming blips, but we're talking about overall trend here.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 11:29am: There are plenty of other reconstructions over a shorter time frame, and I have already posted one graph showing some of these. Mann?

You're not paying attention. These ones for a start: 

https://www.sk-zag.de/Binaries/Binary700/Abb9_8.jpg

Ajax wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 9:11am:

For anyone who is unsure, go to this site, it shows 120 proxy studies that confirm the medieval warm period (look at all the locations that have been explored), that shows temperatures back then were at least as warm as today if not warmer.

For anybody who can't be bothered checking out those studies (including Ajax) , I chose one study at random. It was extremely localised, the data ended in 1976, and it didn't even show that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than 1976, let alone today.

Check the trend line for yourself:

http://thevikingworld.pbworks.com/f/1260168653/Moberg%20et%20al%202005%20full%20annotation.png

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:

and it didn't even show that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than 1976, let alone today.

You mean it agreed with the IPCC? :D :D :D

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:

I'm sure that there were warming blips, but we're talking about overall trend here.

What is a climate trend - 30 years? 200 years? 400 years?
But why are you sure this is not a blip? Why was cooling so good? Skating on the Thames? Dying of hypothermia?

Is the world going into a naturally warming phase or is it the dread CO2?

Colder temps  poorer crops?

Don't you just love the sinusoidal waveform, even though it is increasing? One wonders what effects are not incorporated into the climate models.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 3:18pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 3:08pm: and it didn't even show that the Medieval Warm period was warmer than 1976, let alone today. You mean it agreed with the IPCC? :D :D :D

I mean that it contradicted what Ajax said that it showed. (Ajax lied)

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 3:23pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 2:52pm: I'm sure that there were warming blips, but we're talking about overall trend here. What is a climate trend - 30 years? 200 years? 400 years?

"Since the last Ice Age" according to your statement. That's about 12,000 years.

Warming since the last Ice Age, you said.   :o

Do you dispute that you said that?


lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 3:23pm:

Is the world going into a naturally warming phase or is it the dread CO2?

I think you know what the science says. What do you think, and why? 

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

"Since the last Ice Age" according to your statement. That's about 12,000 years.

It is warmer than 12,000 years ago.


John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

I think you know what the science says.

There's the science and the "science". According to AGW religion it is all CO2. Natural variation cannot explain it (Hansen 1988). However the "pause " or the "hiatus", which drew upon about 60 odd peer-reviewed papers had a "consensus" that it was mostly "natural". So natural variation couldn't explain the warming but can explain the slowdown in the face of rising CO2.

The science says all things being equal a rise in CO2 may have some effect on temperature. But all things are not equal.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 4:52pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 4:29pm: "Since the last Ice Age" according to your statement. That's about 12,000 years. It is warmer than 12,000 years ago.

That's right genius, because 12,000 years ago, we were just coming out of the last glaciation.

It's quite amusing that you are avoiding the truth of the matter though.

The curve looks a bit like an inverted J though. Do you agree?

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 7:58pm:

The curve looks a bit like an inverted J though. Do you agree?

Over what time period?

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5th, 2016 at 7:58pm: The curve looks a bit like an inverted J though. Do you agree? Over what time period?

12,000 years of course. You need to focus.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 5^th, 2016 at 9:48pm:

12,000 years of course. You need to focus.

I thought you were referencing your last graph.

I think I have done enough to demonstrate just how dishonest you are. Even though it's plain to see, you refuse to acknowledge that the graph that you posted shows a slight cooling trend after the earth came out of the last glaciation about 12,000 years ago right up to the onset of industrialisation.

In terms of temperature reconstruction studies over the past 2000 years, there have been at least 24 of them, many of which refer to specific localities. Some show a pronounced medieval warming period and some do not.

For example, this graph shows reconstructed temperatures for Australia over the last 1000 years. There are far fewer bumps than some of the Northern Hemisphere examples.
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2012/1000yearsofc.png

You can get a better feel for variability with this graph which shows some newer studies.  There is a pronounced Medieval Warming period in some, but not all.

The so-called little Ice Age is just a continuation of the cooling trend that occurred right up to the beginning of industrialisation.

---

- and taking a closer look at more recent temperature trends:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/gistemp_graph_2015.png

Quote:

Graph of temperature trends in relation to El Niño and La Niña events. Red bars represent global temperature anomalies in El Niño years, with the red line showing the trend. Blue bars depict La Niña years, and the blue line shows that trend. Neutral years are shown in gray, and the dashed black line shows the overall temperature trend since 1950. (Credit: NASA/GSFC/Earth Observatory; fig. upd. 2016-01-25)

You really are hung up on those short-term time-frames aren't you.

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 1:59pm:

You really are hung up on those short-term time-frames aren't you.

You don't like relevance?

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 1:59pm:

You really are hung up on those short-term time-frames aren't you.

This particular timeframe is near and dear to me. I suppose you would like the  timeframe to extend back to the Jurassic Period.

I didn't think it was relevant. Up until now, I had no reason to believe that dinosaurs were anything other than extinct.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

I suppose you would like the  timeframe to extend back to the Jurassic Period.

Nope.
John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

Up until now, I had no reason to believe that dinosaurs were anything other than extinct.

But you found one on youtube? How cute.

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:10pm: I suppose you would like the  timeframe to extend back to the Jurassic Period. Nope. John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 3:10pm: Up until now, I had no reason to believe that dinosaurs were anything other than extinct. But you found one on youtube? How cute.

lee, the internets biggest joke, is still trying to stick machineguns through the physical layer to make us respect his authoritaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

---

You have a YouTube channel too?

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:30pm:

You have a YouTube channel too?

Nope