Recent Heat Spike Unlike Anything in 11,000 Years

You're kidding, right ? I mean, you DO realize that this , most certainly IS the BEST, don't you?

 

Notice that he even has a label for the science based community. He calls them "warmists".

Never heard that one before. Where would these morons be without thier silly little labels and code words.

 

Here I asked the science based community explain to me how did it happen that the planet could be colder 11,000 years ago than today defeating natural laws. I am all ears. What has made it it warmer, what is that unpredicted source of heat ? http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-anything-11-000-years-20.html#post1062387923


Here I predicted that the reaction of the science basing community will be trolling:http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-anything-11-000-years-20.html#post1062387923

In physics they predict behivior of the dead matter. Thank for the confirmation of my prediction.

Ignorance AND ad-hominem attacks, Zero substance, zero relation to the topic, pure 100% trolling as it was predicted: http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/293017-cult-science-14.html#post1062388064

 

One of these things is not like the other!

http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.php

http://berkeleyearth.org/

[video=youtube;6b0ftfKFEJg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=6b0ftfKFEJg[/video]

 

The explanation was very clear. You just didn't want to hear it because it didn't conform to your preconcieved notions.

 

It is always amasing and amusing to see how the science based community see any explanation or any attempt to address my post from the previous page.
It is always amasing and amusing to see the science based community yelling - "It is warming" in the midst of snow blizzard
Overwhelming majporities of the scientific community are so enterteining.

 

The science based community isn't yelling.

It doesn't yell.

It doesn't need to.

It doesn't have anything invested in a particular poltical ideology and it doesn have large investements in fossil fuel infrastructure and assets that need to be protected.

 

Stop yelling.

Where do you see the explanations I asked for on the previous page #20?

 

No. Obviously you do:
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...-anything-11-000-years-14.html#post1062385217

 

No its not the same thing because pimptight says so.

He doesn't even know that Dr. Curry was part of the BEST team but she left when Muller started pushing conclusions that weren't supported by the data.

 

I don't have to say crap, my posts above speak volumes!

 

If it is the BEST study, then why does it take you to two different links, and have a different title?

 

Holy ninja edit Batman:

This is what this link used to say:

This is where the link takes you now:

LMAO!!!!

 

Here is the study:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract

The study's conclusions are very similar to previous studies done, but with the added conclusion that warmth is unprecedented for the last 4,000 years (other studies have covered 1,000-2,000), and the rate of warming the last 100 years unprecedented for at least 11,000 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

We've already surpassed the peak Medieval Climate Anomaly period around 1000 years ago and will pass peak Holocene levels within the next few decades. This will place global temperatures higher than seen in millions of years (previous interglacial periods did not peak as high). This is uncharted territory for not only modern human civilization but humanity in general.

On a somewhat related note, one of the study's co-authors has a nice article on CO2's role, past and present.

http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/about/stories/JeremyShakun.html

ScienceDaily has a write-up.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130307145303.htm

So yep - another hockey stick independently supports the broad conclusions of the early multiproxy constructions, but with a much longer handle extending back much further.

 

Any justification as to why this hockey stick contradicts the GISP ice cores and others.

Are O18/O16 ratios now wrong?

 

The link I gave still takes you to Dr. Curry's criticism of the BEST study aka Rhodes Muller et. al.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/

And yes we know that the paper was eventually accepted for publication in Vol. 1 Issue 1 of the unheard of Scitechnol journal. Which is why it is considered a joke by both skeptics and warmmongers alike. After being rejected twice by JGR Muller and BEST lost all credibility.

 

Local records are not a global reconstruction.

 

O18/O16 ratios are not local.

 

Ken Caldiera said it "best"...

"I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago. The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. "

So to the science-minded, their results were mostly boring and redundant, and that typically doesn't get published. To deniers, it was a slap in the face, after Koch funded it, Muller said some skeptical things initially, and they even let that dunce Watts "review" it. Then it concluded what the rest of the science community concluded many years before, and they scrambled to disown it.

I'm glad you value publishing in quality journals over obscure ones. Remember that deniers tend to favor the denier rage E&E. Lindzen also was rejected by PNAS because his reply was of such poor quality, not addressing the criticism, so settled for obscurity. Creationist Roy Spencer was also rejected, and did the same, settling for an obscure new journal with no established record.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/15/lindzen-goes-emeritus/

- - - Updated - - -

GISP ice cores are not global.

 

I think you are forgetting that one of these things is not like the others. For a warmmonger article to get rejected by JGR is far more of a statement to its credibility than a skeptic article. You are also misrepresenting why JGR rejected it. It had nothing to do with the novelty of the article but that its attribution conclusions could not be supported by its data and Dr. Curry points out. We are talking about McIntyre or some other critic we are talking about someone who was a member of the project and as such has knowledge beyond just he paper.

No they are not. I suggest you go research what O18/O16 represents. Ill give you a hint.

Why is Mauna Loa, a single site, sufficient to measure atmospheric CO2 levels? If you know the answer to that you should also know why O18/O16 ratios are more than just local temperature.

 

Non-sense, your second link shows the BEST study was sourced in Curry's paper. You have shown nothing of any critisim of the BEST study as i have shown by quoting the first two pages of the link where there is no reference to the BEST study.

 

Ross McKitrick, a political hack, happened to be a reviewer on the JGR submission, and (no surprise) rejected both submissions. We know this because he blatantly violated his confidentially agreement with the journal.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/0...ey-earth-extends-record-upholds-findings.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick#Affiliations

Few really care if BEST is published or not. It's merely redundant to the work that's already out there, all that have been published in quality peer-reviewed journals. For deniers, it's a crushing and humiliating blow either way, after the Koch funding gave them such high hopes. They can go off about it having a hard time getting published but deniers don't care about peer review anyways. They can go off about it being published in an obscure journal, but then there goes all those deniers who publish in even more obscure denier rags like E&E, or Lindzen and Spencer who are routinely rejected from mainstream publications.

About the only mildly interesting question left is how a hack like McKitrick is chosen as a reviewer. Could be those Koch dollars at work. Could be that Muller himself had him on there as a recommended reviewer initially, or maybe Curry did initially when she thought the results would be skeptical (he did after all send a draft to your TV weatherman denier). Perhaps he kept McK on there, not figuring out how quickly deniers were willing to turn on him, and unable to turn back once McK was involved.

That explains your confusion. Atmospheric CO2 trends and temperature trends are not the same.

CO2 trends, local vs global - essentially identical (atmospheric physics at work).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_global_mauna_loa.gif

In contrast, local temperature records vary substantially between regions, and that includes the instrumental record.

 

By JGR's rules McKintrick alone couldn't have killed the paper. At least one other reviewer had to agree. And the only reason McIntrick went public is because Muller did. Ill ignore you conspiracy theories.

Notice the part I bolded for you.

What are O18 and O16? How do they get into the ice and how are they used to determine past temperature.

If you knew how ice cores are used to determine past temperatures you would know that they are not local. You should realize that by now you are getting into an argument you cant win.

 

this garbage was disscussed here, what is the need to bring it up again on another sub-forum?
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ski-jump-brick-wall-end-5.html#post1062387849

 

Says the guy who ninja edited his link!