Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene.. due to CO2 emissions. [W:121]

Real Climate (you know, the site that actually is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to TV weathermen like others like to cite) has a nice post on the temperature from the holocene.

RealClimate: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene

It also refers to a nice reconstruction of temperature since the last ice age - 10,000 years before Marcottes analysis begins:



I expect the usual knuckle dragger comments and retorts based upon the ravings of TV weathermen, failed English non-scientist Lords, creationist scientists and retired oil company statisticians, but I thought I'd actually post some real climate info given that this section has descended into pseudoscience.

More junk science. Those past temperatures can never be validated. The idea that anybody can establish accurate global temperatures 10,000 years ago via proxies( they couldn't even do now---hide the decline) is pie-in-the sky fanatsy Fun to to do, but not real science. Next.

KLATTU said:

More junk science. Those past temperatures can never be validated. The idea that anybody can establish accurate global temperatures 10,000 years ago via proxies( they couldn't even do now---hide the decline) is pie-in-the sky fanatsy Fun to to do, but not real science. Next.

Click to expand...

I guess the journal Nature hasnt been told its not real science. You might want to let them know.

Threegoofs said:

Real Climate (you know, the site that actually is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to TV weathermen like others like to cite) has a nice post on the temperature from the holocene.

< snip >

I expect the usual knuckle dragger comments and retorts based upon the ravings of TV weathermen, failed English non-scientist Lords, creationist scientists and retired oil company statisticians, but I thought I'd actually post some real climate info given that this section has descended into pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

So according to expectations, this is basically a bait & flame thread.

Threegoofs said:

I guess the journal Nature hasnt been told its not real science. You might want to let them know.

Click to expand...

Nature jumped the shark a long time ago. Specifically when they hired super triple liberal political advocate Donald Kennedy( disgarced ex-President of Stanford) . Of course I woouldn't expect a warmist acolyte to understand that.

KLATTU said:

Nature jumped the shark a long time ago. Specifically when they hired super triple liberal political advocate Donald Kennedy( disgarced ex-President of Stanford) . Of course I woouldn't expect a warmist acolyte to understand that.

Click to expand...

I guess that shows where you are coming from. An alternate reality.

I guess if you think Nature is no good, thats why you rely on blogs for your science. Good luck with that.

Reading Nature for Climate science is like reading Krugman for economics. You don't know if you are getting Krugman the economist or Krugman the hyper partisan political advocate. In the latter case everything said must be viewed with the utmost skepticism , because it's almost always unreliable ( read: garbage).
Exact same thing with Natur and climate science.

You wouldn't understand.

Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene.. due to CO2 emissions.

KLATTU said:

Reading Nature for Climate science is like reading Krugman for economics. You don't know if you are getting Krugman the economist or Krugman the hyper partisan political advocate. In the latter case everything said must be viewed with the utmost skepticism , because it's almost always unreliable ( read: garbage).
Exact same thing with Natur and climate science.

You wouldn't understand.

Click to expand...

Oh, I understand. Believe me.

KLATTU said:

More junk science. Those past temperatures can never be validated. The idea that anybody can establish accurate global temperatures 10,000 years ago via proxies( they couldn't even do now---hide the decline) is pie-in-the sky fanatsy Fun to to do, but not real science. Next.

Click to expand...

What about this medieval warm period that "skeptics" insist was definitely warmer than today?

EdwinWillers said:

So according to expectations, this is basically a bait & flame thread.

Click to expand...

What else did you expect from our resident troll

EdwinWillers said:

So according to expectations, this is basically a bait & flame thread.

Click to expand...

I think that's all he knows how to do, especially since the graph is inaccurate for past temperatures unless it uses a long term smoothing, and all past models have failed to properly predict future results.

Deuce said:

What about this medieval warm period that "skeptics" insist was definitely warmer than today?

Click to expand...

I know that I and others have shown you this a least half a dozen times now over the last year but it simply refuses to go in because ultimately you dont really want to know. Nevertheless I thought I'd waste my time with yet another pointless repetition. Needless to say you'll be flogging the same old horse over and over again in a week or so however many times you are shown this but why learn anything when playng to the political gallery at the expense of others is such fun right ?:roll:

CO2 Science

Medieval Warm Period

Lord of Planar said:

I think that's all he knows how to do, especially since the graph is inaccurate for past temperatures unless it uses a long term smoothing, and all past models have failed to properly predict future results.

Click to expand...

Ahyup. The key word there would be "models," something Revell knows a lot about, but something with which our "scientists" (er, climatologists) are struggling to come to grips - the very obvious fact that not only does a model model what is or was (never what will be), the model can never be what the real thing is, or do what the real thing does.

...which is sort of why we call it a 'model,' because it *isn't* the real thing.

flogger said:

What else did you expect from our resident troll

Click to expand...

Well I don't know him to be able to say that, but when he opens his thread with, "I expect the usual knuckle dragger comments and retorts..." I feel obliged to articulate more vocally what he could only utter under his breath.

EdwinWillers said:

Ahyup. The key word there would be "models," something Revell knows a lot about, but something with which our "scientists" (er, climatologists) are struggling to come to grips - the very obvious fact that not only does a model model what is or was (never what will be), the model can never be what the real thing is, or do what the real thing does.

...which is sort of why we call it a 'model,' because it *isn't* the real thing.

Click to expand...

The real thing, of course, has shown warming...as was predicted.

Threegoofs said:

The real thing, of course, has shown warming...as was predicted.

Click to expand...

LOL - give me a cyclical, sinusoidal curve; tell me where I am on it and guess what? I can "predict" what will happen next too.

flogger said:

I know that I and others have shown you this a least half a dozen times now over the last year but it simply refuses to go in because ultimately you dont really want to know. Nevertheless I thought I'd waste my time with yet another pointless repetition. Needless to say you'll be flogging the same old horse over and over again in a week or so however many times you are shown this but why learn anything when playng to the political gallery at the expense of others is such fun right ?:roll:

CO2 Science

Medieval Warm Period

Click to expand...

And I've explained to you the error in timeframe you are making regarding most paleoclimate reconstructions, told you about differing baseline temperatures and timeframes, pointed out that not all of those proxies even place the MWP in the same century, and that no effort has been made by that website to quantify those proxies into a global average.

Deuce said:

And I've explained to you the error in timeframe you are making regarding most paleoclimate reconstructions, told you about differing baseline temperatures and timeframes, pointed out that not all of those proxies even place the MWP in the same century, and that no effort has been made by that website to quantify those proxies into a global average.

Click to expand...

OK wheres your peer reviewed proof they all got it wrong ?

flogger said:

OK wheres your peer reviewed proof they all got it wrong ?

Click to expand...

Is that what you think you have?

Threegoofs said:

Real Climate (you know, the site that actually is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to TV weathermen like others like to cite) has a nice post on the temperature from the holocene.

RealClimate: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene

It also refers to a nice reconstruction of temperature since the last ice age - 10,000 years before Marcottes analysis begins:

View attachment 67153732

I expect the usual knuckle dragger comments and retorts based upon the ravings of TV weathermen, failed English non-scientist Lords, creationist scientists and retired oil company statisticians, but I thought I'd actually post some real climate info given that this section has descended into pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

Yes. Very nice graph. A little short to mean much in a rather long history of variability, though. 600.000 years is a bit better, but you should look more at say 20.000.000 or 50.000.000 years time frames. Also it is important to be able to explain what you see. Take the longish data rows and it begins to look as though maybe atmospheric CO2 is not the leading indicator we seem to detect in recent history.

Threegoofs said:

Real Climate (you know, the site that actually is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to TV weathermen like others like to cite) has a nice post on the temperature from the holocene.

RealClimate: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene

It also refers to a nice reconstruction of temperature since the last ice age - 10,000 years before Marcottes analysis begins:

View attachment 67153732

I expect the usual knuckle dragger comments and retorts based upon the ravings of TV weathermen, failed English non-scientist Lords, creationist scientists and retired oil company statisticians, but I thought I'd actually post some real climate info given that this section has descended into pseudoscience.

Click to expand...

RealClimate, the blog done by Michael Mann and his pals...Whom we all know from the infamous "hockeystick" graph... He made a site to try and defend his failed tree ring climate reconstructions..

And the really bad part.. From his "about us" page..

RealClimate: About

Disclaimer
The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor SCN nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.

Click to expand...

So they want us to know that their blog is just their views and necessarily those of anybody they may have worked for/with,either currently or in the past.. So it's really their opinion, got it.. The opinions of some known alarmists..

Also they give conflicting tales in the next part... They say...

RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations.

Oh good, I hate bias blogs...

Although our domain is hosted by Science Communications Network (and previously Environmental Media Services), and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content.

What? They just said they weren't affiliated with any environmental groups yet they state clearly that they in fact are... Science Communications Network, is the new name of Environmental Media Services... Heres the link to their "about us" page...

Home :: Science Communication Network

The Science Communication Network (SCN), a private non-profit foundation-supported educational organization, is dedicated to encouraging environmental public health scientists and medical practitioners to contribute to public discussions about their work through the media and thereby elevate the quality and quantity of environmental health reporting.

SCN was launched in response to what scientists themselves have told us would help: media training; tools for outreach that keep reporters, scientists and others informed of new research and other events in the field; and a network of scientists to whom they can turn for support and counsel on media-related issues.

SCN works to:

give scientists and other health professionals the media tools to make their work public in a planned manner;
ensure that environmental health research is better understood by reporters, so they can report accurately, and ultimately
offer reporters a greater pool of experts for interviews, with a variety of new voices from a wider range of fields.
Reporters may contact SCN for access to top experts in the field of environmental public health

Click to expand...

So they are a PR firm dedicated to environmental issues.. Got it... And if you follow the link and look on the right you see the Environmental Media Services tie in.. It reads...

Environmental Media Services (EMS) founder and president, Arlie Schardt, has retired effective 12/31/05, and as a result EMS has ended its accomplished 13 year run. EMS operated successfully as a nonprofit communications clearinghouse dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues.

The spirit of EMS will live on through Science Communication Network, however SCN will focus largely on environmental public health and science integrity, rather than the wide range of issues addressed previously by EMS.

Click to expand...

So the two are one and the same organization, just under a less incriminating name now.. But wait! there's more!

Remember in the realclimate blog's about us page they mentioned Fenton Communications? Well they are the lefts biggest PR firm. And the founder David Fenton has been far left his entire career.. But hey read for yourself...

David Fenton - Discover the Networks

Quite a list of accomplishments comrade Fenton has.. Helping the sandinista's candidate in Nicaragua and helped Angola's communist governments propaganda agency, are fine examples.. What a piece of work..

So back to the point.. According to Mann and companies own blog, they aren't being truthful.. Sorry but I don't consider them trustworthy... You can keep your warmer PR blogs dude..

joG said:

Yes. Very nice graph. A little short to mean much in a rather long history of variability, though. 600.000 years is a bit better, but you should look more at say 20.000.000 or 50.000.000 years time frames. Also it is important to be able to explain what you see. Take the longish data rows and it begins to look as though maybe atmospheric CO2 is not the leading indicator we seem to detect in recent history.

Click to expand...

Trouble with long timeframes is that the scale of the last century is shrunk down to an unviewable level. Even the chart shown makes the current temperature trend appear to be a straight vertical line.

Historically it is true that CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes, acting as a feedback rather than the initial forcing.

joG said:

Yes. Very nice graph. A little short to mean much in a rather long history of variability, though. 600.000 years is a bit better, but you should look more at say 20.000.000 or 50.000.000 years time frames. Also it is important to be able to explain what you see. Take the longish data rows and it begins to look as though maybe atmospheric CO2 is not the leading indicator we seem to detect in recent history.

Click to expand...

Not really, at least according to, you know, scientists.

CO2 wasn't a leading indicator in the past because no one was digging up long buried CO2 and releasing it into the atmosphere until recent times.

And the time frame concurs with our crop domestication and civillization.

Deuce said:

Trouble with long timeframes is that the scale of the last century is shrunk down to an unviewable level. Even the chart shown makes the current temperature trend appear to be a straight vertical line.

Historically it is true that CO2 has lagged behind temperature changes, acting as a feedback rather than the initial forcing.

Click to expand...

Sure. Long data series do tend to put things in a perspective that does not really fit the experience. But I have found that if you correct for trends and play with the numbers you get a feel for the meaning they are trying to uncover. Having in this case done it just for interest and not for the job I can only give an informed guess. But I did not get the feeling that the CO2/temperature correlation were giving me a fair insight but were hiding essential information.

Mind, I am not saying there is no forcing going on. But I would really want better models and information, before I would want to commit 2% of GDP p.a. (and I would say very probably much, much more after looking at the ipcc economic calculations), which is what is being proposed. I might be happy with 0,5% dedicated research in renewable energy and another 0,5% into climate change science. But we just do not seem to know enough to pay away the amounts of money on CO2 reduction. Resources are just too scarce for that and competing needs too existential.

Threegoofs said:

Not really, at least according to, you know, scientists.

CO2 wasn't a leading indicator in the past because no one was digging up long buried CO2 and releasing it into the atmosphere until recent times.

And the time frame concurs with our crop domestication and civillization.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean we have to step into the trap, though. I think we should reconsider the theory, rebuild the models, check the numbers and crunch the numbers some more. Mind, I think the issue is important. But ipcc were talking a Trillion Dollar global investment pa here and that seems more than the present knowledge base would support.