• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holocene Poses Difficulty for AGW Concept

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Holocene temperature record poses some problems for proponents of the AGW concept. They haven't really dealt with them well.


A Warm Period by Any Other Name – The Climatic Optimum

Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Holocene Megathermal, Anthropogene; Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball There is frustration and reward when an article appears on the same topic of an article you are completing – in this case the Holocene. Such was the case this week with Andy May’s article “A Review of temperature reconstructions.”…

Continue reading →

". . . Even a cursory examination of the Holocene shows why the period is problematic for promoters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). As Steve McIntyre pointed out, the problems began when skeptics noted that the temperature for most of the Holocene contradicted their claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. I know they never used the term ‘ever’, rather, it was left unsaid but implied in the message to the public and not contradicted when used by the media.
McIntyre wrote;
The Team has taken a preditable (sic) position on the Holocene Optimum: that it’s a regional and restricted event.
It was predictable because it was the same argument they used for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Prove an event was regional, and you essentially eliminate the Sun as a mechanism of change – an issue central to the AGW CO2 argument. The restriction included the claim that only summer temperatures were warmer. Even if true, it is not possible to say based on proxy records with 40 to 70-year smoothing averages applied. Interestingly, the IPCC clung to this “Team” view as recently as AR4 (2007).
The temperature evolution over the Holocene has been established for many different regions, often with centennial-resolution proxy records more sensitive to specific seasons.
Of course, this was before Climategate and the leaked emails that destroyed the Team’s credibility. . . ."

 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
128,853
Reaction score
39,740
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you get paid to add a sentence in spamming wattsupwiththat.com ?

Make an argument and cite an article. Don't just post articles with a meaningless title as your only contribution to the OP.
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,812
Reaction score
2,682
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
From Marcott et al 2013 (taken from Roger Pielke Jr's blog since I can't access my saved images from my mobile).
marcott2.jpg
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,429
Reaction score
38,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wait, these idiots think "earth has been warmer in the past" is problematic for AGW?

That makes no sense.

These dip****s also think anyone wants to "eliminate the sun as a mechanism of change?" How ****ing dumb do you have to be to buy this crap?

Jack, do you even read this stuff before you post it?
 
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,767
Reaction score
14,917
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you get paid to add a sentence in spamming wattsupwiththat.com ?

Make an argument and cite an article. Don't just post articles with a meaningless title as your only contribution to the OP.

To ask such a question, one must consider...

What is your frame of reference?

Do yo get paid for your spam, so you think others do?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,429
Reaction score
38,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To ask such a question, one must consider...

What is your frame of reference?

Do yo get paid for your spam, so you think others do?

Do you get paid for your spam, so you think others do so think others do?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you get paid to add a sentence in spamming wattsupwiththat.com ?

Make an argument and cite an article. Don't just post articles with a meaningless title as your only contribution to the OP.

That's already been done, which you would have noticed had you not been in such a hurry.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wait, these idiots think "earth has been warmer in the past" is problematic for AGW?

That makes no sense.

These dip****s also think anyone wants to "eliminate the sun as a mechanism of change?" How ****ing dumb do you have to be to buy this crap?

Jack, do you even read this stuff before you post it?

From further in the OP link:

The official story of weather and climate promulgated by governments through the IPCC and environmentalists’ state that current weather and climate are anomalous and exhibiting more extreme conditions than ever before. The message is amplified and further distorted by a complicit and duplicitous media. Recently, a UK Daily Mail headline read,
“Sizzling UK records hottest day ever.”
The story did not qualify the word “ever” by saying it was the record within the modern span of thermometer measurements. The headline is what stays with the uninformed. Put the claim in the larger perspective of the Holocene and a completely different picture emerges about the official claims. They are creating the Anthropocene to isolate it from the Holocene because it gives the lie to the entire anthropogenic global warming deception. Judith Curry provided an interesting discussion about the lack of evidence for the Anthropocene, especially its mythical threat to humanity.
Weather and climate conditions through the Anthropocene are normal; that is, they are well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. Despite official and media claims to the contrary, there are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will, and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From Marcott et al 2013 (taken from Roger Pielke Jr's blog since I can't access my saved images from my mobile).
marcott2.jpg

This is the most recent of ten posts about Marcott at Climate Audit.

[h=3]Ground-truthing Marcott[/h]Jan 8, 2015 – 10:35 PM
The MD99-2275 core offshore Iceland is a very high-resolution ocean sediment core, results of which over the past millennium have been discussed here from time to time. Alkenone and diatom results for the last millennium have been available for about 10 years. MD99-2275 results were used in PAGES2K Arctic and Hanhijarvi 2013, also Trouet et […]
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,239
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Wait, these idiots think "earth has been warmer in the past" is problematic for AGW?

That makes no sense.

These dip****s also think anyone wants to "eliminate the sun as a mechanism of change?" How ****ing dumb do you have to be to buy this crap?

Jack, do you even read this stuff before you post it?

And finally:

The Holocene is an interesting warm period that many believe marks the end of the last ice advance of the Pleistocene. It fascinated early scientific attempts to understand the events and mechanisms in the early days of climate reconstructions, which were complicated by a lack of standardized terminologies and central collections of data. For example, I recall long discussions about the need for centralized data banks on tree rings. The Holocene became ignored or distorted after the advent of AGW and the IPCC because the evidence of its existence contradicted most of their claims.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
128,853
Reaction score
39,740
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To ask such a question, one must consider...

What is your frame of reference?

Do yo get paid for your spam, so you think others do?

Must you defend every single wattsup spam? Do you get a notification when an OP of wattsup is posted? Every single thread, you suck wattsup as hard as he does. You're the wattsup bros. Blogspam ftw, ay? Is this your idea of "alternative education"?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,429
Reaction score
38,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From further in the OP link:

The official story of weather and climate promulgated by governments through the IPCC and environmentalists’ state that current weather and climate are anomalous and exhibiting more extreme conditions than ever before. The message is amplified and further distorted by a complicit and duplicitous media. Recently, a UK Daily Mail headline read,
“Sizzling UK records hottest day ever.”
The story did not qualify the word “ever” by saying it was the record within the modern span of thermometer measurements. The headline is what stays with the uninformed. Put the claim in the larger perspective of the Holocene and a completely different picture emerges about the official claims. They are creating the Anthropocene to isolate it from the Holocene because it gives the lie to the entire anthropogenic global warming deception. Judith Curry provided an interesting discussion about the lack of evidence for the Anthropocene, especially its mythical threat to humanity.
Weather and climate conditions through the Anthropocene are normal; that is, they are well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. Despite official and media claims to the contrary, there are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will, and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

Oh goodness, the Daily ****ing Mail used a nonspecific and somewhat misleading headline? No.

If you think the Daily Mail is trying to push some global warming agenda.... well, let me respond:

 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,429
Reaction score
38,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And finally:

The Holocene is an interesting warm period that many believe marks the end of the last ice advance of the Pleistocene. It fascinated early scientific attempts to understand the events and mechanisms in the early days of climate reconstructions, which were complicated by a lack of standardized terminologies and central collections of data. For example, I recall long discussions about the need for centralized data banks on tree rings. The Holocene became ignored or distorted after the advent of AGW and the IPCC because the evidence of its existence contradicted most of their claims.

Oh, well, if Watts says it contradicts something, it must contradict something.

Because, for some reason, you people think past climate changes somehow disprove human influence on climate, I guess?
 

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
5,812
Reaction score
2,682
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is the most recent of ten posts about Marcott at Climate Audit.

[h=3]Ground-truthing Marcott[/h]Jan 8, 2015 – 10:35 PM
The MD99-2275 core offshore Iceland is a very high-resolution ocean sediment core, results of which over the past millennium have been discussed here from time to time. Alkenone and diatom results for the last millennium have been available for about 10 years. MD99-2275 results were used in PAGES2K Arctic and Hanhijarvi 2013, also Trouet et […]

It is misleading, hypocritical and rather dishonest for an article to make claims about Holocene temperatures in the context of global warming and specifically attack the notion that particular climate conditions were regional not global, followed up by an illustration of a proxy reconstruction from a single location.

Marcott et al 2013 provides a reconstruction of global Holocene temperatures based on 73 total proxies. But even Wikipedia's eight-proxy average would be an improvement on your GISP-only image:
330px-Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



Both suggest a Holocene thermal maximum c. 9000-5000 years ago, followed by a gradual long-term temperature decline until the 19th century or so, since which temperatures have again risen to match or even exceed the long-term average of the thermal maximum. (Though given the low resolution of the proxy stacks, there were almost certainly particular decades in the thermal maximum which were hotter.)
 

Quaestio

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
3,931
Reaction score
1,260
Location
Oz
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Title of yet another click-bait spam WUWT promotional thread posted with no discussion from Jack, should be:

"Grossly fraudulent claims from Slayer Tim Ball poses difficulties for skeptics."

Well maybe not. Most just ignore the obvious deceptions and congratulate the tin foil hat fraudster for a 'wonderful article!'.

Isn't it exceptionally dishonest for Ball to assert claims about the last 120 years based on deceptive mislabeled graphs? The GISP2 Greenland dataset ended in 1855. Where are the last 160 years let alone the last 120? Those dishonest graphs that Ball copied from another anti-science truther blog have been floating around the internet for some time.

Isn't it also incredibly stupid to claim that one location in Greenland represents global average temperatures? But what else can one expect from someone like Ball who is an author of the greenhouse effect denying book Slaying the Dragon.
 
Last edited:

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,520
Reaction score
14,492
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you get paid for your spam, so you think others do so think others do?

LOP already established that paradigm. You add nothing.
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,520
Reaction score
14,492
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, well, if Watts says it contradicts something, it must contradict something.

Because, for some reason, you people think past climate changes somehow disprove human influence on climate, I guess?

No, it establishes that the current climate trend is well within natural variation, even a bit on the cold side, therefor until we understand what drove previous climate we can't hope to establish what drives current climate or future climate.
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,520
Reaction score
14,492
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is misleading, hypocritical and rather dishonest for an article to make claims about Holocene temperatures in the context of global warming and specifically attack the notion that particular climate conditions were regional not global, followed up by an illustration of a proxy reconstruction from a single location.

Marcott et al 2013 provides a reconstruction of global Holocene temperatures based on 73 total proxies. But even Wikipedia's eight-proxy average would be an improvement on your GISP-only image:
330px-Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



Both suggest a Holocene thermal maximum c. 9000-5000 years ago, followed by a gradual long-term temperature decline until the 19th century or so, since which temperatures have again risen to match or even exceed the long-term average of the thermal maximum. (Though given the low resolution of the proxy stacks, there were almost certainly particular decades in the thermal maximum which were hotter.)

That graph is essentially the same graph presented in the OP with a different zero line.

Also, in a trend that long it isn't very compelling to attribute more to the current upswing than you do to the previous 14 or so, especially when many in the AGW church are already conceding that we will be cooling for the next 30 years or so.
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,520
Reaction score
14,492
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,520
Reaction score
14,492
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Must you defend every single wattsup spam? Do you get a notification when an OP of wattsup is posted? Every single thread, you suck wattsup as hard as he does. You're the wattsup bros. Blogspam ftw, ay? Is this your idea of "alternative education"?

Must you employ logical fallacy on every wattsup article?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,767
Reaction score
14,917
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Must you defend every single wattsup spam? Do you get a notification when an OP of wattsup is posted?
To always call it spam shows you lack intellectual reasoning. Poisoning the Well logical fallacy... You love poisoning the well, don't you?

And no. I don't get notifications.
Every single thread, you suck wattsup as hard as he does. You're the wattsup bros. Blogspam ftw, ay? Is this your idea of "alternative education"?
Again... I have to question and challenge your intellectual reasoning.

Think about it. Am I supporting Watts, or pointing out the stupid reason why you make fun of it?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,429
Reaction score
38,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, it establishes that the current climate trend is well within natural variation, even a bit on the cold side, therefor until we understand what drove previous climate we can't hope to establish what drives current climate or future climate.

Logical error.

"Within natural variation" doesn't mean we don't understand what is happening.

The earth has been much hotter, and it has been much colder. This doesn't detract from AGW in the least.
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
16,501
Reaction score
3,821
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh, well, if Watts says it contradicts something, it must contradict something.

Because, for some reason, you people think past climate changes somehow disprove human influence on climate, I guess?

Well, yes. If the climate warms and cools without human interferance then why does the present climate's temperature cause concearn?
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,520
Reaction score
14,492
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Logical error.

"Within natural variation" doesn't mean we don't understand what is happening.

The earth has been much hotter, and it has been much colder. This doesn't detract from AGW in the least.

No, that is exactly what it means. Until we actually understand the processes involved in natural climate variation we have no clue what the future climate with and without anthropogenic influence will look like.

Example:

You have three variables that you have determined produce a given, directly measured outcome - A+B+C=100

We believe we know the value of A and B, and we have a lab value for C... the problem is that A+B+C<100. So you create some models based on the assumption that outside the lab C behaves differently. You then rewrite the equation to A+B+(C*f)=100 where f is the assumed amplification of C outside the lab. Now the modeled C becomes very important to balancing the equation.

Later it is discovered that A+B+(C*f)=100 is not the complete equation, and that there is also a D and E to contend with that are not entirely understood. So you end up with the following equation: A+B+(C*f)+D+E=100

If A and B and C are actually known then any contribution by D and E can only effect the value of f.

So, until you evaluate all contributions in the given equation f will always measure not just any assumed amplification of C, but also the uncertainty inherent in the equation itself.



For as long as this debate has been going on, Aerosols, including clouds, have been D+E+... in the climate equation. If we don't understand that enough to accurately model historical values for these climate contributors then we understand little, and certainly nothing worth hijacking our world economy over.
 
Last edited:

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
128,853
Reaction score
39,740
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Must you employ logical fallacy on every wattsup article?

When i see a title and article copy/paste with, at best, a personal contribution of restating the title, I call it out for spam. I don't mean Forum Rules violation spam (though it may be), I mean copy/pasting articles at a debate website. This website is not "copy/paste your favorite blogs . com"

That the OP does not place the argument/point/poition in his own words and cite the article as support, instead of copy/paste, demonstrates that he has no real understanding of the issue or specific point. It's bad enough to make an argument and support it with a citation to a blog, just flat out copy/pasting a blog is worthless crap.

Don't like my opinion on the opening statement/claim? To bad, this is a debate website. If you don't like such OPs being brought into question or criticized, perhaps you should tell him to spam that blog on another blog instead of a debate website.
 
Top Bottom