Recent Comprehensive Studies

[bdgwx]

Actually...it's worse than that. Present for paleoclimatology is defined as 1950. The chart is missing the last 145 years of warming prior to 2000. If it had include the last 165 years of warming up to 2020 then you'd see that today's temperature is at least as high as the Minoan Warm Period and probably would exceed the boundaries of the y-axis. The x-axis is also not scaled linearly which makes the temperature changes in the past appear more rapid than they really are. For example, the abrupt change around 8000 years ago only had a warming rate of 0.1C/decade as compared to about 0.4C/decade observed today. 

The chart comes from Dr. Easterbrook who actually used it in congressional testimony (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk). I have no idea how a PhD geology professor could bungle something so badly. And his predictions are just as bad. He predicted 1998 to be the peak and his middle of the range estimate for the cooling by 2020 is 0.7C below 1998. In reality 2019 ended 0.3C above 1998. Dr. Easterbrook's prediction is off by an astonishing 1.0C in only 20 years! 

 

 

[skierinvermont]

13 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

If there was a warming or cooling spike of similar magnitude as today's say in the 1300s would the proxy data be able to detect it given how coarse the dataset is and that it is in fact proxy data?  The proxy data shown in this first paper of this topic shows little change in global average temperature during the Roman Warm Period, Dark age cold period, Medieval Warm period, It does show LIA cooling to some extent. The greenland ice core data clearly shows these temperature fluctuations back for much of the holocene with an overall trend similar to the first paper's results. However as you can see there are a lot of rapid fluctuations. How can we be sure this wasn't global in nature?

 

The answer to your question is yes. The coarseness of the proxies is taken into account when calculating uncertainty ranges displayed in the gray shading. This is the uncertainty for mean annual temperature. Not decadal or century scale temperature.

Also if I am reading the graph correctly, it does show a modest MWP and LIA. with temperatures 150 years ago about .25C colder than 1000 years ago. 

What you are doing by fixating on one ice core from one particular location is called cherry-picking. The Kaufmann study uses data from all of these locations and sources to arrive at a best estimate with appropriate mathematical estimates of uncertainty.

 

[blizzard1024]

8 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

Cause he’s a dumb ass.

You're done on this forum. You will get banned now. I will make sure of it. 

[skierinvermont]

11 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

You're done on this forum. You will get banned now. I will make sure of it. 

Just like you swore you were leaving the forum and came back about 18 hours later. Folks had a good laugh at that.

[blizzard1024]

16 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

Just like you swore you were leaving the forum and came back about 18 hours later. Folks had a good laugh at that.

Well this statement clearly violates policy and this user is going. And your rudeness should not be tolerated either. This is very classic since you can't back up your claims or are insecure about the science (which is FULL of holes) you resort to attacks.  I don't attack you. You can believe what you want. That is your free choice. My scientific opinions ARE valid and really common sense. But you can see things your way. I won't attack you. Why should I? 

[blizzard1024]

Just now, blizzard1024 said:

Just like you swore you were leaving the forum and came back about 18 hours later. Folks had a good laugh at that.

I decided not to let folks like you chase me off this forum like you did with many others in years past. This should be a climate change forum not a climate activist forum. That is ultimately why I changed my mind. Laugh all you want. But I won't let people that attack others chase me away. Have a nice night 

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

Well this statement clearly violates policy and this user is going. And your rudeness should not be tolerated either. This is very classic since you can't back up your claims or are insecure about the science (which is FULL of holes) you resort to attacks.  I don't attack you. You can believe what you want. That is your free choice. My scientific opinions ARE valid and really common sense. But you can see things your way. I won't attack you. Why should I? 

So I'm rude and insecure but you don't resort to attacks. OK. You're leaving the forum but you're not. Make up your mind. You post blogs funded by political action committees and fossil fuels, most other posters post peer-reviewed literature. It's a credit to the patience and intelligence of Don, bdwx, and Chubbs that they are willing to take the time to try to reason with some of the gaping errors in what you post. I mean you didn't even understand the time of observation adjustment required in the USHCN temperature data so that we're not comparing temperatures from 3pm in 1900 to temperatures at 7pm today. Or don't adjust, just treat them as separate stations when the time of observation changes. To those of us who have been studying climate science for the last 15 years we know the details of these papers and methods like the backs of our hands and your posts aren't telling us anything we haven't heard 100 times before. I literally made the exact same arguments myself, word for word and citing many of the same sources and all the same authors as you, in campus newspapers and on my radio show until I realized I was an idiot. You could at least try to understand the level of frustration that incurs. The argument that USHCN adjustments are wrong is old old old news and has been debunked many many times before on this forum.

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

It's a credit to the patience and intelligence of Don, bdwx, and Chubbs that they are willing to take the time to try to reason with some of the gaping errors in what you post.

Climate scientists and their followers are so insistent that they have it all figured out and don't tolerate dissenting scientific opinions. So they need patience? These folks above engage in civil debate. Science generally welcomes debate with the exception of climate science. And yes these folks indeed are intelligent and I enjoy reading their posts. They are also civil which I appreciate. 

 

5 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

To those of us who have been studying climate science for the last 15 years we know the details of these papers and methods like the backs of our hands 

And you are not open to any debate at all or any uncertainty at all when there is a lot of holes and downright bad science in this climate "crisis" mantra. Almost every major storm or hurricane, wildfires, record heat, record cold, snowstorms etc are now somehow enhanced by CO2?  Okay I will give you the USHCN adjustments are needed but the different way daily average temperatures were calculated I believe before 1922 (correct me if I am wrong) and after, leads to datasets that are measuring two different things. So the error bars are much larger. Comparing apples to oranges. I don't agree with Karl et al 2015 who erased the inconvenient pause between 1998 and 2015 right before the super El Nino of 2016. I don't agree with the RSS who again warmed up 1998-2015 also to erase the pause before the super el nino by retaining the warmer NOAA-14 satellite. Both of these methods are controversial in climate science. 

But let's look at what we agree on.  I agree with the basic physics of the infrared active molecule CO2. It absorbs IR radiation in a small IR band around 15 microns and emits radiation in all directions. All else holding equal, a doubling of concentration of CO2 will lead to around 1.2C of warming. No one debates this. The feedbacks are where the problems begin and disagreements start. You know where I stand on this and other climate scientists on "my side" for lack of a better term. I do agree with you that we should be looking toward other cleaner energy sources for the future. So I am all for that. The disagreement is on how quickly we divest from fossil fuels and its impacts on economies. 

Plus peer review literature is not proof of anything. It is the concepts that are the proof. Many un-peer reviewed blog posts are actually very scientific and in fact a new way to communicate science. Judith Curry is a credit to this. 

Look I will remain civil and on this forum. I question everything it's my nature. I have been studying this problem for 30 years and I too was once a strong believer in dangerous global warming until I dug deeper. I have NO stocks or any funding at all from fossil fuel companies. Ziltch. I have reviewed many papers too in atmospheric science for scientific journals for many years. I have seen a noticeable decline in quality of what is accepted and now passes as peer reviewed literature. Journals have gotten fatter and fatter these days vs 25 years ago. The process was extremely rigorous back in the day. Now it has become much more lax. That is so these journals can publish more and more papers and get more and more money. I also find it interesting that in meteorology two scientists can completely disagree on something and yet maintain a civil and open discussion and actually work together. In the end more is learned by this collaborative approach. Climate science shuts down anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow minded view that CO2 drives the climate. And that is the main reason why I didn't leave this forum. I will not be shut down. Many on "my side" have left this forum and that is a shame. No other science that I know of does this. Why is that? 

Anyway, I am skeptical of a lot of peer reviewed stuff not just climate science but in the broader atmospheric science and meteorological fields. Ok that is enough for now. Have a good day.