Climate Change Banter

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

Now I understand why they wanted to shut this section down in the past..

 

When will they get a clue.

 

Hard to have a decent conversation...for sure. 

[AvantHiatus]

 ^

 

The ocean is everything but a buffer and it is your worst enemy in a AGW world, mabye if you live in Ontario Canada.

 

Right now the ocean is running warmer than land areas on a 1:1 ratio. Impossible without rapid dynamical shifting in the energy imbalance caused by AGW.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

 

 

A dynamical system is a concept in mathematics where a fixed rule describes how a point in a geometrical space depends on time. Examples include the mathematical models that describe the swinging of a clock pendulum, the flow of water in a pipe, and the number of fish each springtime in a lake.

 

[Polar Vortex 2014]

I apologize in advance. This will be a long post because I expect it to be my last here. I'm coming out. It's been four years in the making and six months is too long to stay in the closet. I'm the artist formerly known as OHSnow, and previously known by multiple other names. I've been here since 2003-2005 period, and I've been consistently right - and banned for it. You deniers have been consistently wrong.

 

I've watched as you guys have continually changed your positions as your original positions became more and more untenable. In the 1990s, the mantra was "it hasn't warmed." This was shown to be completely wrong. Fast forward, a few years. The argument became "it's warmed, but not that much" and/or "it's warmed, but it's natural" and/or some variation of the same. All wrong. Of course, at that time, the favorite line was "nobody is denying it's warming, it's just the cause that's unknown." This despite these same people arguing just that a few years prior. Go figure. 

 

I was here when Professor Mueller, of UC Berkeley, announced to the world that he had received funding from Koch Industries to commission an independent study of global temperature records. This new independent data set was going to use all available stations and would not employ the various methods of adjustments used by Hadley Centre, NASA GISS, and NOAA. The deniers were chomping at the bit for this to be released. You fully believed - incorrectly, I might add - that this new data set would disprove global warming (or at least find less warming). As an aside, this is quite ironic, considering you guys liked to say you weren't denying that it had warmed. Of course, BEST actually showed more warming (although, admittedly, it is only a land-based data set). And it did so without adjustments! Instead, they treated known discontinuities in the record as entirely new data, and identified unknown discontinuities by comparison to surrounding sites.  But that hasn't stopped you deniers from continuing your moronic attacks against Dr. Hansen. I correctly predicted that BEST would confirm the accuracy of the surface temperature record. You deniers said it would not. You were WRONG!

 

When Climate Gate occurred, instead of expressing concern over private e-mails being hacked in an attempt to disrupt important scientific research and embarrass hard-working professionals who are just trying to do their jobs, you deniers attacked the scientists! I correctly said it was no big deal - there is no widespread misconduct among climate scientists. This was mere subterfuge being employed by the Climate Denial Industry ("CDI"), attempting to stifle research by turning public opinion (which had gradually grown to accept climate change in the wake of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and the reality that it was becoming blatantly obvious that the climate was changing). And it worked - and it's still working to some extent today.

 

But I, I correctly identified this for what it was. An attempt to stifle the inconvenient truth that Al Gore shared with the world in 2006. That's right, I'm a fan of Al Gore. So you deniers can take your puerile, petulant Al Gore jokes, and shove them where the sun don't shine. I even authored a law review article calling attention to these McCarthy-esque tactics and unsettling attempts to stifle academic research. That's right, I'm an attorney. Shove it.

 

I also correctly stated that the temperature adjustments everybody was so critical of were 100% necessary. In fact, I correctly stated that, if anything, the temperature needed adjusted further upwards in the United States. Years later, it has turned out I was prescient with these views. Ironically, espousing such views was a bannable offense back in the day. Everybody was just so enthralled with that mental midget, Anthony Watts, and his infamous Surface Station review. The CDI was in full force, grasping for whatever straw they could find. Of course, the whole premise was flawed from the beginning. But that didn't stop the CDI. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some problem with the U.S. surface temperature network, that says nothing about the long-term trend. The reality is today's modern fan-aspirated temperature sensors in ASOS and MMTS installments are far superior to yesterday's whitewashed Stevenson screens. Of course, the change imparted a negative temperature bias into the records. Furthermore, there are various biases that are still unaccounted for in the temperature record. In the early days of the Signal Corps and Weather Bureau, it was common for these shelters to be mounted on rooftops in dense urban areas. Obviously, today, it is known that this is a major no-no. Regardless, the temperature record is independently corroborated by a host of natural changes - earlier leaf outs, shorter periods of ice cover on inland lakes, etc. Moreover, the U.S. is but 2% of the global surface.

 

A lot has changed on this forum in the past four years. It used to be a haven for deniers, especially before Friv entered the scene. I was literally the only person carrying on a serious discussion about these issues prior to the historic Arctic ice melt of 2007, which got Friv and a few others interested in the topic. Unfortunately, like myself, many of these newcomers were victims of the long arm of a corrupt law - designed to stifle honest discourse, and only promote the quote-unquote lukewarmers. The reality is this: if you call yourself a lukewarmer, you're a denier. Lukewarmer is just a way to create a faux middle ground, but the goal is the same as the CDI. In fact, it's a new CDI tactic to legitimize the denial of climate science. Well, I got news for you so-called lukewarmers - if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig!

 

Ironically, one of the biggest surprises was seeing ORH vehemently defend the temperature adjustments! Oh, you may be fooling some - but you ain't foolin' me, hun. When I defended temperature adjustments years and years ago, I was a "troll" or a "fool" or "nuts." Actually, I was prescient and 100% correct. It helps when you've got a high-IQ and can actually look at data, understand, and make sense of it. Unfortunately, too many people are incapable of this.

 

 

This is total crap, IMO.  A science board has no room for opinions that can't be supported by fact.  Its not about tit for tat.  I am not calling for anyone to be banned, but your admittedly post that you're viewpoint isn't supported by science.  So then why is that your view?

 

I am capable of scrolling past your ridiculous posts and 95% of the time I do.  I've learned that you offer nothing to this discussion and not once has one of your posts helped me understand anything.  But what really gets me is your "get in line with my way of thinking OR ELSE" mindset.  You're terrible at convincing others of your viewpoint with facts - likely because, by your own admission, they don't exist - so instead you try to ridicule and shame people.  There is nothing scientific about that tactic..

 

Don't be fooled by ORH's schtick, he's a hardcore denier. The evidence is there for everyone to see. Just look up my post history. It's still there for anybody to see. In 2011, ORH was giving me sh*t about incorrectly projecting 2010 to be a record-breaking low arctic ice extent. Of course, it wasn't - but it was still the second lowest on record. Not a bad projection, all things considered. But that didn't stop your idol from harassing me.

 

ORH didn't criticize the 70% of respondents who predicted that 2010 would be cooler than normal globally. Yes, 70% of respondents here believed 2010 would be cooler than normal! That's the type of forum this is. It's not here for real science. You won't find real science here. You'll find fantasy. Where magical technology will magically be invented to suck out all of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

Let's just take a look at a sampling of posts from this era, shall we?

 

 

 

Oh, forgive me! Last year was the second lowest extent on record, instead of the first. How could I be so wrong? I should have known the ice was fine and recovering... I'm sure it will be above average soon with all of these volcanoes and Maunder Minima.

[sarc on]And how could I be so wrong about the temperatures? Man, I thought last year would be near record warmth with the El Nino. But yeah the vast majority of this board went below average! And last year was definitely below average, was it not! That makes three straight years the VAST MAJORITY of this board has correctly predicted below normal temps. Temps are frigid this year, just like the board predicted. Right? I should just take my climate information from this board, since you all are so amazing at predicting these trends.[/sarc off]

Seriously, grow up. It's so funny to see you all calling me out for a wrong prediction, while ignoring the 70% of respondents who said last year would be colder than normal. But like I said, I'm not playing your games anymore. I won't predict these things, but rather sit back and watch all of your predictions fall out the window.

 

Even skierinvermont, whom I have not always seen eye-to-eye on everything, defended me against ORH's attacks:

 

 

 

That's actually a good point.. you've been the butt end of jokes despite your predictions being not nearly as bad as the other 90% of the board that can't predict global temperatures within .3C.

I would say zucker's global temperature forecast this year was far worse than any of your sea ice predictions but I doubt you will see anybody (except me) calling him out the way he and the rest of the board mocks you.

 

And as I prophetically stated here, in 2011, one year prior to the record-breaking minima of 2012 (which I didn't get to observe from this forum, because I had been banned):

 

 

 

I can't speak for Zucker but I like our chances this year at a new record low. It's inevitable that we'll see a new record low soon, since carbon dioxide has continued its inexorable climb in atmospheric concentration in the years since 2007. Last year was a new record for carbon dioxide emissions, I believe.

 

And this is still true today. The ice is going, going, gone. I don't profess to know what the minima will be in September. But I know what it will be in September 2060. And that's all that matters. Whether it melts off entirely in 2025, 2030, 2040, or 2060 is immaterial, in the grand scheme of things. 25-30 years is a blink of an eye in a geologic sense. Not even a blink of an eye, really.

 

 

 

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

 

An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures

 

Philip J. Lloyd

 

Abstract

There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.

 

Not a legitimate paper. Not a legitimate journal. Stupid.

 

sounds ridiculous / anal-lytic / and borderline crazyhouse talk. 

 

Me and Weatherguy pretty much already expect to be banned , just because we talk the truth and generaly go against the grain here.   And also knowing the way this place operates..  (ban happy...for anyone that disagrees with a guy that has a Mod / Met tag )

 

Yeah, the banhammer comes down hard for sure. Have to tow the line.

 

"We talk the truth"...

 

Question: how would one go about defining objective truth when there isn't a known solution to the question(s)? Would we define truth as taking the mean ECS/TCR values across the spectrum of scientific literature? Would you define truth as the range of possibilities postulated by the IPCC? Or would you only define truth as your own opinion and nothing else? When there's such a variance in opinions on a particular topic (specifically, one that isn't settled), it seems inappropriate to apply the word "truth" to a subject which the specifics are still being debated heavily. For some subjects, there can be truth, as an answer is known. For this topic, I think probabilities are more applicable, I.e. "this is more likely to occur than that," etc. +3c temp increase would be more likely than a +7c temp increase in the next 100 years. You cannot claim to be talking the "truth" unless you possess some incredible foreknowledge that your opinion is the correct one.

 

Some things are more true than others.

 

Just for future reference, how would you define "denier". I see a lot of labels thrown around in this forum quite a bit, and it seems that the labels given are simply a deviation/disagreement from that poster's point of view (i.e., anything less extreme than one's view is a denier, and anything more extreme than one's view is an alarmist). In other words, like my previous post, there's no objectivity involved in defining these labels, it's just a matter of the person's impression of the validity of their own opinion.

 

A denier is somebody who generations from now will not be perceived too kindly. I doubt it will matter much what the individual denier's motivations were/are. Today, we don't bother to understand what motivated supporters of Nazism. We universally deplore them. I suspect climate deniers will be a very deplorable bunch as well.

[Rjay]

Ugh this thread is going to be a disaster.

Good call.

[blizzard1024]

This includes all peer-reviewed literature used by IPCC and doesn't include the work in recent years on WAIS melting or work involved in predicting the end of the hiatus.

 

None of my views are supported by IPCC, but that is not 100% of the story. You misread my post but I forgive you. You made the irrational decision to disregard all my posts based on stereotypes, so don't lecture me on science and reason.

 

We should try to avoid the personal attacks now. I am getting fed up with it now, and not because it is working against me this time.

 

It's simply a diplomatic offering, even if it seems shadey and unethical. I will sacrifice myself if deniers are banned from the forum. Science is not perfect, we don't live in a perfect world so you should expect surprises that were not compensated for by Science or even formally recognized.

 

I've voiced my opinion before about how the peer-review system is inadequate and how we need a new branch of the scientific process for climate change alone due to the field's bizarre intersection of social aspects and public relations.

 

At the end of the day, it's easier for deniers to scrape by with unsupported theories because the IPCC science is closer to the conservative side and it's not always obvious that their hypothesis is not scientifically tenable.

 

That's a good idea. Climate science doesn't follow the scientific method. It is different from all the other sciences.  /sarc

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

good post , Polar Vortex 2014 .

 

I've many times here called out the 'political' evidence of the deniers.

 

It's very ez to see who is what. 

[ORH_wxman]

 

 

Don't be fooled by ORH's schtick, he's a hardcore denier. The evidence is there for everyone to see. Just look up my post history. It's still there for anybody to see. In 2011, ORH was giving me sh*t about incorrectly projecting 2010 to be a record-breaking low arctic ice extent. Of course, it wasn't - but it was still the second lowest on record. Not a bad projection, all things considered. But that didn't stop your idol from harassing me.

 

ORH didn't criticize the 70% of respondents who predicted that 2010 would be cooler than normal globally. Yes, 70% of respondents here believed 2010 would be cooler than normal! That's the type of forum this is. It's not here for real science. You won't find real science here. You'll find fantasy. Where magical technology will magically be invented to suck out all of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

Let's just take a look at a sampling of posts from this era, shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol...what am I a denier of exactly?

 

 

If by "schtick", you mean scientific evidence, then I'll take it as a compliment. If you want to talk in an echo chamber for climate alarmism where facts aren't that important, then perhaps the comments sections of places like climateprogress are more for you.

 

There's plenty of posters in here who believe in higher sensitivity of GHGs and more disastrous consequences than I do, but unlike you and several other posters who receive criticism, they actually post their ideas with some science to back it up. It's really not that difficult unless you aren't here to post about the science...which it sounds like you have already admitted to.

 

So it's no surprise you would find nothing wrong with posts like these in a global temp thread:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/38652-climate-change-banter/?p=3571785

[SVT450R]

Lmao at people trying to attack ORH and calling him a denier.  Nobody else besides him and say Skier has contributed more in this forum with scientific and factual information over the years.  It's comical that those who add nothing to the forum and continue to post baseless opinions are the ones that think they have the correct views and would attack someone who actually does provide factual information on all aspects of climate change. 

[blizzard1024]

Lol...what am I a denier of exactly?

 

 

If by "schtick", you mean scientific evidence, then I'll take it as a compliment. If you want to talk in an echo chamber for climate alarmism where facts aren't that important, then perhaps the comments sections of places like climateprogress are more for you.

 

There's plenty of posters in here who believe in higher sensitivity of GHGs and more disastrous consequences than I do, but unlike you and several other posters who receive criticism, they actually post their ideas with some science to back it up. It's really not that difficult unless you aren't here to post about the science...which it sounds like you have already admitted to.

 

So it's no surprise you would find nothing wrong with posts like these in a global temp thread:

 

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/38652-climate-change-banter/?p=3571785

 

 

I agree nobody on this forum has been more professional and balanced than ORH and he is being called a denier??? Really??? Let's not let this thread be overrun by alarmists.

[AvantHiatus]

All I know is that this place used to be a mess. So congrats ORH and thank you for being professional, and sorry that you missed the 2012 season, Polar Vortex 2014.

[AvantHiatus]

That's a good idea. Climate science doesn't follow the scientific method. It is different from all the other sciences.  /sarc

Pretty much, it's two camps of people screaming at each other with semantics. But in 2015, you will find that the 2 camps don't include deniers. It will be the luke-warmers vs policy makers.

 

Deniers aren't even relevant anymore, and the US/Canada was the last safe haven for deniers.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

 Nobody else besides him and say Skier has contributed more in this forum with scientific and factual information over the years. 

 

 

old trees with deep roots are hard to move as well. 

[AvantHiatus]

JustForThisOneComment 2 points : 40 minutes ago reply

Im on a highway to hell~

 

 

Zodi 1 points : an hour ago reply

Remember when the world used to be that dark?God damn street lights ruined everything.

 

 

edgelineservices 1 points : an hour ago reply

A marathon near my house has a Speed-d-foods store in it. The "S" burned out so it says "PEE-D-FOODS"

 

 

acturi 1 points : an hour ago reply

Damn it, Caption!

[StudentOfClimatology]

This place has become almost unreadable lately.

[nflwxman]

This place has become almost unreadable lately.

It's the banter thread. Whether the CC forum should have a banter thread is another story

[ORH_wxman]

It's the banter thread. Whether the CC forum should have a banter thread is another story

 

Yep but it keeps filtering into other threads every now and then....I had to move that whole mess of posts out of the global temp thread last night.

 

Some people can't just stop trolling. They should go post in their own collective think tanks if they aren't here to post in good faith.

[Jonger]

It's the banter thread. Whether the CC forum should have a banter thread is another story

 

Why not?

 

When the banter thread was started, alarmists nearly lost their marbles... I'm not sure why it's such a touchy topic to banter over.

 

Every sub-forum has a banter section.

[superjames1992]

Wow, we're talking about climate change genocide now.     

[AvantHiatus]

Wow, we're talking about climate change genocide now.     

[AvantHiatus]

The 00Z GFS crushes the arctic.

It's coming bro. I don't know what to say, it's a shame Dr. Wadhams moved his prediction to 2017.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

from 0 to 40 feet in 24 hours..

 

nothing to see here folks...everything's normal.

[GaWx]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/former-un-lead-author-global-warming-caused-by-natural-variations-in-climate/

"'This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations,' Lloyd wrote in his study."

Any comments? Anything to this? This is from a former lead author of a UN intergovernmental panel on climate change.

I personally still question how much could have been due to the most active 50 year period solar wise in 350+ years during 1950-2000 though I'm still waiting for evidence of a cooldown to finally get going in the wake of the slow most recent solar cycle.

[blizzard1024]

Pretty much, it's two camps of people screaming at each other with semantics. But in 2015, you will find that the 2 camps don't include deniers. It will be the luke-warmers vs policy makers.

 

Deniers aren't even relevant anymore, and the US/Canada was the last safe haven for deniers.

 

 

Define denier in the climate change realm. If you don't believe that CO2 increases will destroy the planet are you a denier?

 

or if you don't believe CO2 has any impact on climate are you a denier?  Why do we have to label people anyway?  It all comes down to how much CO2 affects the climate.

 

I believe it will cause about a 1C increase at best. I don't deny CO2 impacts the climate. I believe the water vapor feedback and deep convection in the tropics counters any external forcing plus or minus and leads to a more stable climate system. Only when we are deep in a glacial pattern do I believe the climate is erratic. That is what the paleo records suggest. So am I a denier and of what???

[ORH_wxman]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/former-un-lead-author-global-warming-caused-by-natural-variations-in-climate/

"'This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations,' Lloyd wrote in his study."

Any comments? Anything to this?

 

 

Paywall. Meh.

 

We'd have to see how he reconciles all the components. It is certainly not in line with most of the literature which places a large majority of the warming in the 20th century as anthropogenic. There's a lot of studies that place the majority of the warming in the early 20th century on natural variation from a combo of increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and internal variability in the oceans...but there is still a smaller anthropogenic component and then you have the post-1950 warming which is mostly anthropogenic.

[GaWx]

Paywall. Meh.

 

We'd have to see how he reconciles all the components. It is certainly not in line with most of the literature which places a large majority of the warming in the 20th century as anthropogenic. There's a lot of studies that place the majority of the warming in the early 20th century on natural variation from a combo of increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and internal variability in the oceans...but there is still a smaller anthropogenic component and then you have the post-1950 warming which is mostly anthropogenic.

ORH,

But what about the fact that 1950-2000 was by a good margin the most active 50 years for solar in at least 350 years? I still wonder about that possibly having contributed a significant % of the 1950-2000 warming. Possible? I'm admittedly still waiting for a cooldown to finally commence in the wake of the recent very slow cycle.

[AvantHiatus]

Define denier in the climate change realm. If you don't believe that CO2 increases will destroy the planet are you a denier?

 

or if you don't believe CO2 has any impact on climate are you a denier?  Why do we have to label people anyway?  It all comes down to how much CO2 affects the climate.

 

I believe it will cause about a 1C increase at best. I don't deny CO2 impacts the climate. I believe the water vapor feedback and deep convection in the tropics counters any external forcing plus or minus and leads to a more stable climate system. Only when we are deep in a glacial pattern do I believe the climate is erratic. That is what the paleo records suggest. So am I a denier and of what???

Should be obvious, we live in society deeply rooted in labels and institutions. It makes it easier for us to isolate sources of conflict and resolve them, either diplomatically/integration or by one side destroying the other.

 

Of course, someone on the inside looking out might not see the situation as it truely exists from an external observer. As with the body, our inner emotions are biased and how society views itself is also faulty.

 

There is this exceptional misdirected optimism in America and other first-world capitalistic countries. Nobody alive today has lived without the comforts of modern 20th century civilization living and there is a tendency to believe a breakdown is simply not possible. What does this have to do with CC and Denial? It just implies that we are emotionally "conditioned" from the get-go to deny.

 

You don't really want to be on the wrong end of a conflict with such wide sweeping implications such as climate change. Any person who cares about their prestige would think twice and take the low road and listen to informed experts and policy makers. You are so entrenched but I want you to get out in one piece so here's your chance.

 

We are all human here. I think we forget that. Debating climate change is nowhere near the same level as debating gay marriage. That hasn't stopped institutions like the SPLC and similar from keeping racism and racial division alive and well. The problem with the left is that their opinion of humans is very diminished and they hate the individual. Infact, they think people are born sexual, born afflicted, born poor, born racist. and have to be indoctrinated, aka reminded of our horrible history in order to prevent it from happening in the future. The perspective has always been backward looking. We've never been forwardly optimistic and we are slow to leave outdated institutions and ways of thinking behind.

 

Thank goodness that the pope finally accepted climate change. Religion has been hurting us for a long long time and has lead to the worst epochs in human history.

 

Regardless, 1C of warming is enough to prompt action. We've had high damages from events with AGW influence in their signature. Don't respond with garbage about how it's not knowable, it's also not knowable that AGW did not influence these events.

[PhillipS]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/former-un-lead-author-global-warming-caused-by-natural-variations-in-climate/

"'This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations,' Lloyd wrote in his study."

Any comments? Anything to this? This is from a former lead author of a UN intergovernmental panel on climate change.

I personally still question how much could have been due to the most active 50 year period solar wise in 350+ years during 1950-2000 though I'm still waiting for evidence of a cooldown to finally get going in the wake of the slow most recent solar cycle.

 

 

The article is rubbish research.  It's published in Energy & Environment, the pal-reviewed denialist journal, and it's methodology is fatally flawed.  The author used a cherry-picked portion of ice core records, performed a number of questionable statistical operations, and conflates his finding to represent the entire globe.  

 

The Denier Choir has posted this on various forums, and will certainly continue to do so, but the kindest review one can make of this paper is that it represents the views of one of the 3%ers.

[StudentOfClimatology]

The article is rubbish research. It's published in Energy & Environment, the pal-reviewed denialist journal, and it's methodology is fatally flawed. The author used a cherry-picked portion of ice core records, performed a number of questionable statistical operations, and conflates his finding to represent the entire globe.

It doesn't matter what journal the paper was published in. All that matters is the content of the paper itself.

Anyway, I decided to purchase the paper and read it last night. There is a major flaw in the paper in my opinion, which is that the authors fail to tune for known/observed radiative forcings when assigning attribution to the 20th century warming. Their conclusion basically states that because the observed warming is within the natural standard deviation(s) of the Holocene, the observed 20th century warming is largely natural. In my opinion, this error undermines the entirety of the paper.

That said, their ice core analysis was good, as was their high resolution Holocene reconstruction (matches up well with GISP, GISP2, and GRIP).

[chubbs]

The article is rubbish research.  It's published in Energy & Environment, the pal-reviewed denialist journal, and it's methodology is fatally flawed.  The author used a cherry-picked portion of ice core records, performed a number of questionable statistical operations, and conflates his finding to represent the entire globe.  

 

The Denier Choir has posted this on various forums, and will certainly continue to do so, but the kindest review one can make of this paper is that it represents the views of one of the 3%ers.

You can tell by reading the abstract that the paper is junk science which that journal has a habit of producing. The abstract  equates ice core variability to global variability. There are several problems with that.  First variation in the arctic is much larger than the tropics. Second variability in one region is not the same as global variability. . Regional variability can arise from variation in mean wind or ocean circulation. However circulation variability balances out over the globe. Large variation in global mean temperature requires a change in forcing or a major change in ocean circulation and there is no evidence for that in the holocene. Secondly the paper doesn't identify any natural cause for the global warming over the past 150 years. Natural variability can be warm or cool. To conclude that natural variability has been a major factor in warming a natural warming effect or combination of effects comparable in magnitude to the over 2.5 W/m2 of man-made GHG forcing would have to be identified.

[StudentOfClimatology]

You can tell by reading the abstract that the paper is junk science which that journal has a habit of producing. The abstract equates ice core variability to global variability. There are several problems with that. First variation in the arctic is much larger than the tropics. Second variability in one region is not the same as global variability. . Regional variability can arise from variation in mean wind or ocean circulation. However circulation variability balances out over the globe. Large variation in global mean temperature requires a change in forcing or a major change in ocean circulation and there is no evidence for that in the holocene. Secondly the paper doesn't identify any natural cause for the global warming over the past 150 years. Natural variability can be warm or cool. To conclude that natural variability has been a major factor in warming a natural warming effect or combination of effects comparable in magnitude to the over 2.5 W/m2 of man-made GHG forcing would have to be identified.

I agree that the paper is fatally flawed, but too many people misunderstand what ice core proxies are actually measuring. The isotope ratios used to reconstruct temperature are governed by processes over the tropical, subtropical, and extratropical oceans, not over the Arctic. The heavier O^3 isotopes are mostly rained out by 50-60N, in fact.

The isotope ratios within ice cores are, for all intents and purposes, hemispheric SST proxies. The Arctic cores depict SSTs over the Northern Hemisphere, while the Antarctic cores depict SSTs over the Southern Hemisphere.