How about this little number:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

From the abstract:

Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming,

If you read the full work you will find that over all the temp fluctuations for the last 100 years are with in a standard deviation. The theme of almost every paper is the same, we think this is happening, but we can't prove it. Give me more money is implied in several of them.

baby_hewey: Give me more money is implied in several of them.

This is unpossible! Scientists are all purely altruistic beings who are not in the slightest motivated by the possibility of government secured income...

baby_hewey: How about this little number:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

From the abstract:

Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming,

If you read the full work you will find that over all the temp fluctuations for the last 100 years are with in a standard deviation. The theme of almost every paper is the same, we think this is happening, but we can't prove it. Give me more money is implied in several of them.

Holy out of context batman, lets see what happens when you continue with the rest of the abstract, not even getting into the swathe you cut out:

which expresses a more homogenous global "fingerprint." Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

See the bold part? It indicates that anthropogenic climate change is, indeed, global. The rest indicates that, if you know about current temperatures and have read the reconstructions, the warming trend now is warmer than it was then.

Oh, and this is from directly before your cherry picked quote:

Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades.

Now, get out of here and take your FAIL with you.

Obdicut 2009-05-27 01:29:02 PM
baby_hewey: . These people as well as others want to portray AGW or Climate Change as a proven theory with no doubt, no disent, and refuse to consider any data that does not fit neatly with in the confines of "Man is killing the planet and we have to hae a knee jerk reaction to stop it".

No, that's not a good characterization of their position at all. Can't you try to be honest? It's pretty obvious to everyone reading the thread that their argument is, "Among the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, there is no dissent that AGW is occurring." That's all. You have cited papers to try to disprove that, but you either don't understand what they say, or are being disingenuous in citing them, because they actually contradict your points.

Call it unrealted if you wish, but I refuse to take anything on faith, unlike others in the thread.

You seem to take on faith that if someone says one statement in a paper that you can vaguely interpret to mean that one element of the system is poorly understood,that the rest of that paper doesn't matter and that the whole science of climatology is hazy guesswork.

And that's not even getting into the 'I'll be sent to Antartica' silliness.

And why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Why do you feel the need to "interpret" my post. I have never said there was no evidence, I have never claimed that Global Warming or Climate Change wasn't happening. I have only claimed two things, first there is not a consensus as to the cause or serverity of Climate Change and second, there is evidence of previous cycles in the climate which is often discounted or even addressed as non-relivent.

As for the sillyness with heading to Antartica, I've been there I hated it, I don't want to go back. Nor to I wish to head north to the Artic since I spent plenty of time there as well. It wasn't bad when I was single, but with a family I have no interest in any of these now as I can be cold next time I have to go to Chicago in Febuary.

Now, I'll ask you. How many papers have you published? Reviewed any?

communistsarestupid: baby_hewey: Give me more money is implied in several of them.

This is unpossible! Scientists are all purely altruistic beings who are not in the slightest motivated by the possibility of government secured income...

Do you have anything other than unsupported conspiracy theories to talk about? How many people would have to be going merrily along without revealing what is really going on with climate for your assumptions to have any validity?

Given your statements in this thread, I'd conclude you simply don't care about the benefits of scientific research. Even though you wouldn't have a television, microwave, or computer without it.

baby_hewey: I have only claimed two things, first there is not a consensus as to the cause or serverity of Climate Change

Which is wrong. There's a consensus that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring. There will never be a consensus on severity, but the severity will be agreed upon to be within a certain range-- that range defined, in fact, by the consensus. So your first statement is wrong, your second statement is simply silly.

As for the sillyness with heading to Antartica, I've been there I hated it, I don't want to go back. Nor to I wish to head north to the Artic since I spent plenty of time there as well. It wasn't bad when I was single, but with a family I have no interest in any of these now as I can be cold next time I have to go to Chicago in Febuary.

Moot.

baby_hewey: Now, I'll ask you. How many papers have you published? Reviewed any?

Okay, you're not a scientist. I'd guess IT.

Jon Snow: baby_hewey: Anyone interested in good information check out

http://www.co2science.org/

And think for your self.

Yes, please ignore the relevant primary literature and take the word of a fossil fuel industry front group[1][2].

Translation: Only listen to our paid scientists.

Zafler: communistsarestupid: baby_hewey: Give me more money is implied in several of them.

This is unpossible! Scientists are all purely altruistic beings who are not in the slightest motivated by the possibility of government secured income...

Do you have anything other than unsupported conspiracy theories to talk about? How many people would have to be going merrily along without revealing what is really going on with climate for your assumptions to have any validity?

Given your statements in this thread, I'd conclude you simply don't care about the benefits of scientific research. Even though you wouldn't have a television, microwave, or computer without it.

I thought we were talking about scepticism. I rather like the idea of federally funded research. But the point is made already that scientists have a vested interest in insuring that their research is of the greatest possible interest to those who cut the checks. I really don't have a substantive opinion on the climate that I feel should supercede the opinions of those who are real experts.

Zafler 2009-05-27 01:50:55 PM
baby_hewey: How about this little number:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

From the abstract:

Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely "flatten out" estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming,

If you read the full work you will find that over all the temp fluctuations for the last 100 years are with in a standard deviation. The theme of almost every paper is the same, we think this is happening, but we can't prove it. Give me more money is implied in several of them.

Holy out of context batman, lets see what happens when you continue with the rest of the abstract, not even getting into the swathe you cut out:

which expresses a more homogenous global "fingerprint." Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

See the bold part? It indicates that anthropogenic climate change is, indeed, global. The rest indicates that, if you know about current temperatures and have read the reconstructions, the warming trend now is warmer than it was then.

Oh, and this is from directly before your cherry picked quote:

Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades.

Now, get out of here and take your FAIL with you.

So sorry you fail to read the full artical. From the above quote the MWP was .7C about the mean temps of 1937-1946, which would mean that it is now 1.2C above the mean temps of the MWP. If you wish to use my own quotes against me, at least try to do it right. Give up on the half assed attempts an get serious about it. At least chimp_ninja gets his numbers right. As for the concept you are looking for it is that these temps are specific to warm period with in the LIA. They also explain as sampling of the records improve we should see the MWP global temps even out. Also, if you only look at the temps from the LIA up to present you fail to see what the temps were prior to this time during the Mid Holocene. I have previously posted this information, yet you want to play with small parts of my post and avoid the bigger picture.

communistsarestupid: I thought we were talking about scepticism. I rather like the idea of federally funded research. But the point is made already that scientists have a vested interest in insuring that their research is of the greatest possible interest to those who cut the checks. I really don't have a substantive opinion on the climate that I feel should supercede the opinions of those who are real experts.

Yet, your first statement in this thread was contradicting the conclusions of scientific inquiry. In addition, regardless of what their research indicates, the scientists will get paid in occordance with their negotiated salary. Your statement is simply conspiracy theory bunk.

Zafler 2009-05-27 01:42:58 PM
Here is the statement fro AGU (new window)

here is an index of released statements from various scientific sources. (new window)

Finally, the fact that some systems are not fully understood is not a subject that is unknown. Drastic and ubrupt changes in this context means within weeks or months, possibly years. Your "point", quite honestly, is nonexistent.

Ok, that first link of yours, are you serious? Are you trying to use an Anonymous post as a real scientific work? For those that might have missed the link:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO050006.shtml

And as an added bonus it cites the IPCC, a political body. That sir is a massive fail.


As for your second link, well how is it different from www.co2science.org? Oh, it's different because you say so. Right, go away and let chimp_ninja and JonSnow try to do better.

Zafler 2009-05-27 02:12:54 PM
Yet, your first statement in this thread was contradicting the conclusions of scientific inquiry. In addition, regardless of what their research indicates, the scientists will get paid in occordance with their negotiated salary. Your statement is simply conspiracy theory bunk.

You have never had your facilities or office based on Grant money have you? Have you even filled out a grant application? For that matter have you ever performed any research?

baby_hewey

Wow, you really don't understand what you read, do you? I mean, seriously, wow.

Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades.

This means that the MWP (warm) was .7°C COOLER than the late twentieth century and NOTHING to do with the LIA (cool) other than to point out that there was a 1.14°C from the coldest part of a later date (the LIA) and the 1937-1946 temperatures. Without access, I don't know what temperature average they are referencing for later twentieth century, but your summation is entirely wrong. I need to get a photobucket account just so I can post the cartoon panel that has "The stupid! IT BURNS!" on it just in reference to you and this post in particular.

Holy hell.

Oh, and we have temperature records going back 800k years and you have seen the damn thing, so stop being stupid.

Zafler: Yet, your first statement in this thread was contradicting the conclusions of scientific inquiry. In addition, regardless of what their research indicates, the scientists will get paid in occordance with their negotiated salary. Your statement is simply conspiracy theory bunk.

The definition of what is or is not scepticism is not scientific theory. My statement was meant to quantify the opinion that your view of what is or is not "True" scepticism is fundamentally flawed.

Employment out of university is not guaranteed. It is guaranteed by securing money to pay said salaries. Therefore there is no automatically negotiated salary. You fail at reasoning.

Obdicut 2009-05-27 01:58:03 PM
baby_hewey: I have only claimed two things, first there is not a consensus as to the cause or serverity of Climate Change

Which is wrong. There's a consensus that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring. There will never be a consensus on severity, but the severity will be agreed upon to be within a certain range-- that range defined, in fact, by the consensus. So your first statement is wrong, your second statement is simply silly.

Um, nope. Been there and discussed that. The only consensus is that the climate is changing.

As for the sillyness with heading to Antartica, I've been there I hated it, I don't want to go back. Nor to I wish to head north to the Artic since I spent plenty of time there as well. It wasn't bad when I was single, but with a family I have no interest in any of these now as I can be cold next time I have to go to Chicago in Febuary.

Moot.

Agreed.

baby_hewey: Now, I'll ask you. How many papers have you published? Reviewed any?

Okay, you're not a scientist. I'd guess IT.

What reasoning led you to that conclusion?

baby_hewey: Ok, that first link of yours, are you serious? Are you trying to use an Anonymous post as a real scientific work? For those that might have missed the link:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO050006.shtml

And as an added bonus it cites the IPCC, a political body. That sir is a massive fail.


As for your second link, well
how is it different from www.co2science.org? Oh, it's different because you say so. Right, go away and let chimp_ninja and JonSnow try to do better.

Wow, the second link contains links to the relevant websites for each scientific society, so you can read it yourself directly from the scientists.

Oh, and since you didn't like that link, here is another one, directly from the AGU website. (new window)

Look at that, this is the 2007 revised version and the other was the 2008 version published to reaffirm their position.

I'm archiving this thread just for the oh so precious cubic ton of being wrong you have provided everyone.

communistsarestupid: The definition of what is or is not scepticism is not scientific theory. My statement was meant to quantify the opinion that your view of what is or is not "True" scepticism is fundamentally flawed.

Employment out of university is not guaranteed. It is guaranteed by securing money to pay said salaries. Therefore there is no automatically negotiated salary. You fail at reasoning.

See this link courtesy of karmachameleon (new window)

Most relevant: Scientific skepticism (or rational skepticism) is when one questions the veracity of a claim that lacks empirical evidence, or questions a claim based on the existence of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Which means my characterizations of your posting habit is correct, you are not a skeptic in any way, shape, or form.

baby_hewey: Um, nope. Been there and discussed that. The only consensus is that the climate is changing.

What do peer-reviewed surveys of published articles and published scientists say?

Survey of published articles (published in Science):

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the [IPCC] position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Survey of published Earth scientists [PDF] (Published in Eos):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
...
Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered "risen" to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

What do professional scientific societies say? As a sampling...

American Meteorological Society:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.

American Geophysical Union:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system-including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons-are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

baby_hewey: What reasoning led you to that conclusion?

Mainly that you identify yourself in your profile (which is creepy as fark, dude) as a certified network security professional.

But also that asking someone if they've published or reviewed 'papers' is not a question a scientist would ask.

trofl

Yeah, I already provided him a link to a scientific consensus page that contains links to the releases from all major scientific organizations, yet he still denies he's so full of FAIL that his name should come up whenever that tag is used on Fark.

Zafler: Most relevant: Scientific skepticism (or rational skepticism) is when one questions the veracity of a claim that lacks empirical evidence, or questions a claim based on the existence of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Which means my characterizations of your posting habit is correct, you are not a skeptic in any way, shape, or form.


In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: 'σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:

(a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
(b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
(c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam-Webster).
In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:

Why is it uncertain? Because I am looking at the research and asking, what is the benefit and to whom. Cui Bono. A question which I have answered in detail. There are also problems with induction and the scientific method to which I could point. but you'd just try and discredit me rather than address the points.

communistsarestupid

So, er, you're using common usage skepticism in relation to the conclusions of scientific inquiry???

Do you have any idea how absolutely nonsensical that is?

Oh, and again, implying scientists are lying for the grant money (essentially) is STILL conspiracy theory bupkis.

Zafler 2009-05-27 02:20:24 PM
baby_hewey

Wow, you really don't understand what you read, do you? I mean, seriously, wow.

Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades.

This means that the MWP (warm) was .7°C COOLER than the late twentieth century and NOTHING to do with the LIA (cool) other than to point out that there was a 1.14°C from the coldest part of a later date (the LIA) and the 1937-1946 temperatures. Without access, I don't know what temperature average they are referencing for later twentieth century, but your summation is entirely wrong. I need to get a photobucket account just so I can post the cartoon panel that has "The stupid! IT BURNS!" on it just in reference to you and this post in particular.

Holy hell.

Oh, and we have temperature records going back 800k years and you have seen the damn thing, so stop being stupid.


Well there is so much that in this post that you lose on. Lets get started.

First: Wow, you really don't understand what you read, do you? I mean, seriously, wow.

Appearntly better than you do.

Second: This means that the MWP (warm) was .7°C COOLER than the late twentieth century and NOTHING to do with the LIA (cool) other than to point out that there was a 1.14°C from the coldest part of a later date (the LIA) and the 1937-1946 temperatures. Without access, I don't know what temperature average they are referencing for later twentieth century,

Yea, the fact that I included the referance point of 1937-1947 really didn't help did it?

I need to get a photobucket account just so I can post the cartoon panel that has "The stupid! IT BURNS!" on it just in reference to you and this post in particular.

They are free, also you can use http://imageshack.us/ with out an account.

Oh, and we have temperature records going back 800k years and you have seen the damn thing, so stop being stupid.

Here you are both wrong and ignorant of what the information contains. We have data gathered from the geologic record going back further than 800k years which show a cycle of ice ages and warm peroids. The ice cores only go back 800k years. Now as for what the data for that 800k years is, it shows a cycle of cold and warm during that 800k years. Some of these temps were above what we currently have and some were below.

Zafler 2009-05-27 02:28:15 PM
baby_hewey: Ok, that first link of yours, are you serious? Are you trying to use an Anonymous post as a real scientific work? For those that might have missed the link:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO050006.shtml

And as an added bonus it cites the IPCC, a political body. That sir is a massive fail.


As for your second link, well
how is it different from www.co2science.org? Oh, it's different because you say so. Right, go away and let chimp_ninja and JonSnow try to do better.

Wow, the second link contains links to the relevant websites for each scientific society, so you can read it yourself directly from the scientists.

Oh, and since you didn't like that link, here is another one, directly from the AGU website. (new window)

Look at that, this is the 2007 revised version and the other was the 2008 version published to reaffirm their position.

I'm archiving this thread just for the oh so precious cubic ton of being wrong you have provided everyone.

And you continue to swing and miss. Keep it up, you are entertaining in your lack of reading comp.

Obdicut 2009-05-27 02:39:54 PM
baby_hewey: What reasoning led you to that conclusion?

Mainly that you identify yourself in your profile (which is creepy as fark, dude) as a certified network security professional.

But also that asking someone if they've published or reviewed 'papers' is not a question a scientist would ask.

Yea, at least someone has a little reading comp. I am a network Security guy now. Back from 1991 to 1995 I was in the USCG as a Marine Science Tech. Ice Breakers above the Artic circle 3 months out of the year. Took a job with USGS when I got out and spent one season at Palmer Station, I have no interest in returning. Spent 1997 till 2004and completed my BS, Marine Biology and my MS in coral reef ecology. My Doctoral Thesis did not match previous studies, I was accused of falsifing data and I was denied my PhD. During the discovery period it was discovered that my data was good and reproduced, but at that point I was done for. I found that my training in the USCG in with computers was needed and I moved over to IT to make more money than I could with an MS. So, now everyone here knows where I stand and what my background is in full. Any questions?

baby_hewey: Yea, the fact that I included the referance point of 1937-1947 really didn't help did it?

Wow, you do realize that is NOT what they are referencing as the "late twentieth century" right? Which is the whole point of my addendum about not knowing which average they are using for comparison.

The rest of my post there was pointing out how wrong your summation was, and still is. Posted again:
As for the concept you are looking for it is that these temps are specific to warm period with in the LIA. They also explain as sampling of the records improve we should see the MWP global temps even out.

Which is fundamentally wrong, from wikia, but I don't feel like tracking down the one from the synthesis study:



You see how the MWP is before the LIA? The first part is comparing the warmest (regional) part of the MWP to current temperatures, and the second is comparing the coldest part of the LIA to the warm decade of 1937-1946. How can you POSSIBLY read that and conclude that "these temps are specific to warm period with in the LIA"?


Here is the quote from the abstract that you remain fundamentally incorrect on.
Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades.

Yeesh, I sincerely hope you are trolling and not a real scientist, because you seem to read at about a 7th grade level.

Bah, see if it will keep this one.

Fart_Machine 2009-05-26 07:41:08 PM
In before the climate=weather morans."


Oh, like the ones who claimed Katrina was proof of glowball warmism? Or that any varient hot spell or drought proves glowball warmism?


Four things:

1. Is glowball warmism really happening? I've read plenty of respected climatologists who say it's bunk, and politics are what's going on here. Great way for the gov to control everything you do. Libs want gov out of your bedroom and into every other aspect of your life.

2. Is it man-made? No proof of that either.

3. Can we do anything about it? Should we cripple our economies and doom developing countries to permanent 3rd world status just in case?

4. Is a rise in temperature necessarily a bad thing? Historically, it's not. The most prosperous times in human history were periods of much greater general warm climate than now. The whole Greenland/Vineland scenario. The greatest wheat harvests in Europe's history and an explosion of art, philosophy, science, culture and economic growth followed.

We shouldn't be freaking out and destroying our economy and giving up basic freedoms over this when the same jack-ass MIT geniuses were telling us a new Ice Age was coming 30 years ago.

Zafler

You do know that the hockey stick graph there has been shown to be flawed as it was generated using climate models and the newer graphs show a better representation of the acutual climate trend?

It junked the first one. (new window)

Zafler 2009-05-27 03:22:02 PM
baby_hewey: Yea, the fact that I included the referance point of 1937-1947 really didn't help did it?

Wow, you do realize that is NOT what they are referencing as the "late twentieth century" right? Which is the whole point of my addendum about not knowing which average they are using for comparison.

The rest of my post there was pointing out how wrong your summation was, and still is. Posted again:
As for the concept you are looking for it is that these temps are specific to warm period with in the LIA. They also explain as sampling of the records improve we should see the MWP global temps even out.

Which is fundamentally wrong, from wikia, but I don't feel like tracking down the one from the synthesis study:



You see how the MWP is before the LIA? The first part is comparing the warmest (regional) part of the MWP to current temperatures, and the second is comparing the coldest part of the LIA to the warm decade of 1937-1946. How can you POSSIBLY read that and conclude that "these temps are specific to warm period with in the LIA"?


Here is the quote from the abstract that you remain fundamentally incorrect on.
Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades.

Yeesh, I sincerely hope you are trolling and not a real scientist, because you seem to read at about a 7th grade level.

Sorry, you are right, the referance period was infact 1961-1990 which was also included in one of my previous post. I screwed up on that one, but the point remains that I did include the referance peroid(1961 to 1990) in the orignal post which you failed to read. The mean temps from 1961 to 1990 are the referance point with 1937-1946 being the warmer. Again, I screwed up the referance years, sorry for the confusion. Otherwise my point stands.

Zafler,

Yea, you do have some skills. Now can you find a good graph that shows the Milankovitch cycles and give us a reasoned post as to why they are not relivent? chimp_ninja never has given anything other than the tired old "they don't count because there is not proof" post. I hope that you can offer me something good.

Good luck, seriously.

docweasel 2009-05-27 03:25:42 PM
Fart_Machine 2009-05-26 07:41:08 PMIn before the climate=weather morans."


Oh, like the ones who claimed Katrina was proof of glowball warmism? Or that any varient hot spell or drought proves glowball warmism?


Four things:

1. Is glowball warmism really happening? I've read plenty of respected climatologists who say it's bunk, and politics are what's going on here. Great way for the gov to control everything you do. Libs want gov out of your bedroom and into every other aspect of your life.

2. Is it man-made? No proof of that either.

3. Can we do anything about it? Should we cripple our economies and doom developing countries to permanent 3rd world status just in case?

4. Is a rise in temperature necessarily a bad thing? Historically, it's not. The most prosperous times in human history were periods of much greater general warm climate than now. The whole Greenland/Vineland scenario. The greatest wheat harvests in Europe's history and an explosion of art, philosophy, science, culture and economic growth followed.

We shouldn't be freaking out and destroying our economy and giving up basic freedoms over this when the same jack-ass MIT geniuses were telling us a new Ice Age was coming 30 years ago.

And you were doing so good until the end. As has been previously posted the only evidence of claims of a new Ice Age from 30 years ago is a single News Week cover. That alone is not valid as the media will publish anything that gets sales of their product.

/sorry if I stole your snappy post chimp_ninja, but here we do agree.

communistsarestupid: This is unpossible! Scientists are all purely altruistic beings who are not in the slightest motivated by the possibility of government secured income...

You're aware that grants aren't income, right? That they don't arrive as giant novelty checks to be spent on hookers and blow?

baby_hewey: Otherwise my point stands.

No, no it does not.

baby_hewey: The referance level was the 1961-1990 mean of the instrumental record. So as of this publication we were .5K above the mean of 1961-1990, the MWP was on par with this same time, and the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above. Gee, it seems that this could be pretty normal when you look at the grand scale of the planet over time. And this one was published 4 July 2008.
The above quoted section was in reference to a TOTALLY different paper.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml

THAT is where that came from.

The part under discussion was from this release:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

"Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades."

In other words, you've got it ass backwards, and have repeatedly shown yourself to be wrong. Even with taking the paper you have that references 1961-1990 you get this:

"The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level."

Which still means we are warmer than any time since the mid-Holocene warm perido, which was caused by the Milankovitch Cycle by all indications. Hell, even wikipedia has references to the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 03:54:26 PM
communistsarestupid: This is unpossible! Scientists are all purely altruistic beings who are not in the slightest motivated by the possibility of government secured income...

You're aware that grants aren't income, right? That they don't arrive as giant novelty checks to be spent on hookers and blow?

Wait, am I doing it wrong?

Zafler 2009-05-27 03:54:58 PM
baby_hewey: Otherwise my point stands.

No, no it does not.

baby_hewey: The referance level was the 1961-1990 mean of the instrumental record. So as of this publication we were .5K above the mean of 1961-1990, the MWP was on par with this same time, and the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above. Gee, it seems that this could be pretty normal when you look at the grand scale of the planet over time. And this one was published 4 July 2008.
The above quoted section was in reference to a TOTALLY different paper.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml

THAT is where that came from.

The part under discussion was from this release:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006352.shtml

"Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600-1609) to warmest (1937-1946) decades."

In other words, you've got it ass backwards, and have repeatedly shown yourself to be wrong. Even with taking the paper you have that references 1961-1990 you get this:

"The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1-2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level."

Which still means we are warmer than any time since the mid-Holocene warm perido, which was caused by the Milankovitch Cycle by all indications. Hell, even wikipedia has references to the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

So you admit that I am right then. I am so glad that we were able to work this out.

For a recap of this little point: Our current temps are with in the normal ranges as documented from Holocene Climatic Optimum and as anticipated and predicted in the Milankovitch Cycle.

It took you long enough to put 2 and 2 together to get 4. Good god I thought I was going to have to spell it out and do a tap dance on your head before you figured it out. Good work by the way.

baby_hewey: Now can you find a good graph that shows the Milankovitch cycles and give us a reasoned post as to why they are not relivent? chimp_ninja never has given anything other than the tired old "they don't count because there is not proof" post. I hope that you can offer me something good.

Actually, what I've told you is that orbital fluctuations are negligible on a decadal time scale-- the three Milankovitch cycles operate on time scales of tens of thousands of years. It's like you're worried about how long your commute to work is, and you're blaming plate tectonics.

If you're doing paleoclimate work and want to look at Ice ages and the like, knowing that the Earth's axial tilt varies by +/- 1.5 degrees over a ~40,000 year cycle is important. If you're assessing what is driving the (geologically) dramatic shift in climate assessed over the last several decades, you're not even close.

Beyond that, you wouldn't even have to know about the Milankovitch cycles to detect that kind of change-- if the Earth's orbital eccentricity drifted, you'd know it because you'd detect the additional irradiance density via direct satellite measurements. Milankovitch cycles operate by changing the solar forcings, and as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, mean solar forcings have been declining for several decades even as temperatures continued to climb. (See Figure 1 for the most concise version of that statement.)

Do you really think the Earth has been drifting closer to the Sun and that NASA/NOAA/etc. simply don't notice? That the planet's axial tilt has gone way out of whack, but none of our bajillion satellites have picked it up?

baby_hewey: Zafler,

Yea, you do have some skills. Now can you find a good graph that shows the Milankovitch cycles and give us a reasoned post as to why they are not relivent? chimp_ninja never has given anything other than the tired old "they don't count because there is not proof" post. I hope that you can offer me something good.

Good luck, seriously.

How about that Milankovitch forcings operate slower than the man generated one that we are currently exploring? Or that the Milankovitch Cycle operates at 75k (ish) intervals? Or how about that we have more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than at any other time that we have a record for? All of which chimp_ninja has provided you explanations of, and citations for, in the past. I'm just leeching off others work:



See that minor spike where it goes back down a bit before going to current levels? Yeah, thats the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Now, that Zafler, is foaming at the mouth and looks like a rabid dog. He is both right and wrong. The temps during the Holocene Climatic Optimum were higher than today. Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present.

The data of the two previous referance works stopped prior to the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

So sorry I left that out of my previous post.

baby_hewey: So you admit that I am right then. I am so glad that we were able to work this out.

For a recap of this little point: Our current temps are with in the normal ranges as documented from Holocene Climatic Optimum and as anticipated and predicted in the Milankovitch Cycle.

It took you long enough to put 2 and 2 together to get 4. Good god I thought I was going to have to spell it out and do a tap dance on your head before you figured it out. Good work by the way

No, that is the whole point, you are NOT correct, as I stated in that post you quoted. Your summation was wrong and based on conflating 2 different studies. Even when you finally figured out you were wrong, I looked at the study you were ACTUALLY referencing, and it still does not say what you want it to say.

WE are not within variation because this warming is NOT Milankovitch Cycle driven.

Man, it's like you're 12.

Brockway the deserter Martian hasn't posted any
of his wharrinnumeragarbl charts.

Wonder why.

baby_hewey

Yet more fail, see the post just prior to and just after yours.

You're wrong on your assertion that this is a normal warming trend. You're wrong repeatedly through-out this thread.

As I said before, I seriously hope you're just trolling, because you have tons of stupid and fail all over you. Failed scientist my ass.

Kittypie070: Brockway the deserter Martian hasn't posted any
of his wharrinnumeragarbl charts.

Wonder why.

Wasn't getting bites anymore so switched to his other log in.

chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 04:09:41 PM
baby_hewey: Now can you find a good graph that shows the Milankovitch cycles and give us a reasoned post as to why they are not relivent? chimp_ninja never has given anything other than the tired old "they don't count because there is not proof" post. I hope that you can offer me something good.

Actually, what I've told you is that orbital fluctuations are negligible on a decadal time scale-- the three Milankovitch cycles operate on time scales of tens of thousands of years. It's like you're worried about how long your commute to work is, and you're blaming plate tectonics.

If you're doing paleoclimate work and want to look at Ice ages and the like, knowing that the Earth's axial tilt varies by +/- 1.5 degrees over a ~40,000 year cycle is important. If you're assessing what is driving the (geologically) dramatic shift in climate assessed over the last several decades, you're not even close.

Beyond that, you wouldn't even have to know about the Milankovitch cycles to detect that kind of change-- if the Earth's orbital eccentricity drifted, you'd know it because you'd detect the additional irradiance density via direct satellite measurements. Milankovitch cycles operate by changing the solar forcings, and as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, mean solar forcings have been declining for several decades even as temperatures continued to climb. (See Figure 1 for the most concise version of that statement.)

Do you really think the Earth has been drifting closer to the Sun and that NASA/NOAA/etc. simply don't notice? That the planet's axial tilt has gone way out of whack, but none of our bajillion satellites have picked it up?

No, you again miss the Forest for the trees. If you look at past climate events there are documented times when the shift was rapid. The change into the LIA was so dramatic that they have found tools and mines where none were known to exist. The tools were left in the mine as if the miners expected to return the next spring, yet they never did. These very same areas are where some glacers have receded past any previous records. So, yea climate can change pretty drasticly in short order and it has happend prior to the Industrial Revolution.

Zafler 2009-05-27 04:17:39 PM
baby_hewey

Yet more fail, see the post just prior to and just after yours.

You're wrong on your assertion that this is a normal warming trend. You're wrong repeatedly through-out this thread.

As I said before, I seriously hope you're just trolling, because you have tons of stupid and fail all over you. Failed scientist my ass.

I never said there was proof that the current warming trend was normal, I just said that there was doubt that it was not. Also, you like to call "fail" a lot, but you never offer anything to prove it. So come on and get in the pool and offer me some of the AGW koolaid and I'll see if I can do anything with it. So far you don't have a very good track record, but you were getting better.

/newt

baby_hewey

Oh, and the Arctic warming quicker than the rest of the world is no surprise and no shocker. Even now the Arctic has warmed something like 3 deg C in the last 200 years. So drawing conclusions for the world temperature based on that data, especially when the axial tilt during that time period meant much warmer summers in the Northern hemisphere, is faulty at best.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. (new window)

So, once again, FAIL.

baby_hewey

Err, one of the main causes of the LIA was the sun having a massively reduced output, known as the Maunder Minimum. In addition, there were a number of large volcanic eruptions during that time period, including Tambora.

Which, funnily enough, doesn't apply to the current situation since solar output has not increased. It has, in fact, trended negative for the last 30 years or so, while temperatures have continued to increase.

Yeesh, how about a talking point that is not fundamentally incorrect?

baby_hewey: For a recap of this little point: Our current temps are with in the normal ranges as documented from Holocene Climatic Optimum and as anticipated and predicted in the Milankovitch Cycle.

Again, you're going to have to be clear about how a cyclic forcing with a periodicity of tens of thousands of years would suddenly give a geologically significant boost to temperature over the course of a few decades.