Recent Heat Spike Unlike Anything in 11,000 Years

Incorrect. As a reviewer, McK was bound by the rules of the journal. He blatantly violated those rules. Muller was under no such obligation to not talk about his paper publicly, although whether he did or not is irrelevant to McK's ethics violation. At any rate, his involvement in the peer review process lead to the rejection. How the political hack McK was selected as a reviewer is an open question. Remember that Muller was close with the McI/McK crowd in recent years, buying whatever denier nonsense they come up with - that is, until he started digging into the evidence himself.

I see now you're just parroting recent Watts trash (apparently too scared to cite it) via the woefully confused Easterbrook crank, trash which is actually not so recent. Easterbrook basically rolled out the same generic argument.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

The GISP record is a local one. You can confirm from Richard Alley, who has worked extensively with the GISP data and has published on the topic. He knows far more about ice cores than any denier can grasp.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

Basics on how temperature is determined from ice cores:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-are-past-temperatures

 

I ninja edited my link the next day??? I don't think you understand this forum all to well.

 

No, you ninja edited at 4:14 PM that day, after I had already quoted your link.

 

I edited in a link as soon as I posted it. I never changed my link stop lying.

 

And Muller was also under rules by JGR. I love how you think that this isn't a two way street.

Actually I'm not quoting Easterbrook. Easterbrook is right however that GISP2 data is more than just local but the I don't think I've ever heard him argue why O18/O16 ratios are a global measure. It is well noted that even though Easterbrook is an expert on glaciation with numerous published journal papers you discount his expertise on ice cores.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

What makes Richard Alley such an expert if you say that Eastebrook is not?

I'm sorry Richard Alley does work with it but he is no atmospheric chemist so his understanding of O18/O16 is not sufficient. And if you read his full quote he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. One the one hand he mentions generic locations but then goes onto admit that GISP2 data does match well global temperature. Given his quote I'm inclined to believe that Dr. Alley has as much understanding of what O18/16 ratio represent as you do.

Thank you now would you please read it. Perhaps if you did you would start to understand why O18/O16 are proxies for global temperature not just local. It is a little to simple though some more in depth research might be required.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/

 

Looking over Dr. Richard Alley's resume his claims on paleoclimatolgy remind me a lot of Dr. Mann in so far as Dr. Mann used trees as a proxy but didn't know the first thing about trees and how they actually were a proxy for temperature. Dr. Alley doesn't know the first thing about how O18/O16 actually work he simply crunches the numbers.

 

Incorrect. Muller was under no contract to not discuss his paper in public, which is the excuse McKitrick used to breach his contract as a reviewer.

None of his trash regarding the study or GISP data is supported by anything he's published.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

You have a good imagination, trying to twist his comments to support your claims. In reality, of course there is a positive correlation of local records to the global record. There is also strong positive correlation between the Greenland GISP records and the global record found in the new study. Just like in the new study, there's the gradual cooling trend since peak Holocene (disregarding the fact we may have surpassed peak Holocene very recently).

Depending on the time period though, different regions can be radically different. It took much longer for the high northern latitudes to warm from the last ice age than the rest of the planet.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html

On shorter time scales, there is obviously strong regional variance.

What you are inclined to believe is irrelevant.

I read it in full. It does not support your claim. Nor does Dr. Alley or anyone who has published on the topic.

 

If you are trying to pass someone else's ideas off as yours, you are plagiarizing. The GISP arguments you are making are recent denialsphere trash. In contrast, I take care to provide citations to my argument. SkS does the same, citing the peer-reviewed literature, and unlike deniers, accurately doing so. There are those more knowledgeable than me on the topic. You aren't one of them, however. You are a victim of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

I will take the view of a highly-credentialed scientist who has published on the topic over an anomymous troll who has not. Further irony here is that your claims relies on the work that Dr. Alley has published. See that Easterbrook post for example.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.html

Are you trying to look foolish?

A Dr. Alley conclusion:

"An extensive scientific literature exists on this topic, and I believe we are pretty good in the community at properly qualifying our statements to accord with the underlying scientific literature; the blogospheric misuses of the GISP2 isotopic data that I have seen are not doing so, and are making errors of interpretation as a result."

 

What I want to tell you right now is against forum rules. My understanding of why ice cores represent global temperatures and not local are based on my own research of how O18/O16 serve as proxies.

I have researched it fully over the years. Something you have not. Do not accuse me of plagerism. You are a human link machine who has never had an original idea in your life.

You never provide your own argument you just link to someone else's argument and hope they are right.

So far you have posted not one piece of scientific evidence as to why O18/I6 ratios are local. Only someone else making the same claim also with no evidence.

And how do you know???

You have linked to that (*)(*)(*)(*) so many times it is beyond pathetic. Its just an ad hom because you are affraid to debate.

 

Contract care to point to this contract. Peer review is gentlemans agreement. Muller broke the agreement first.

Says SKS. I suggust you go to his own page and look at his publication history.

I'm not twisting his comments at all because my understand if O18/O16 proxies do not cone from him. You won't find anything from him at watts or elsewhere on this new paper that address the nature if O18/O16.

You are just cowardly accusing me of plagerism because you have nothing else.

The only problem with that argument is that O18/O16 are not local.

That is a rather myopic argument that ignores the Minoian warm period, roman warm period, and Midieval warm period, all of which are prounced in the O18/O16 yet hardly present in this trash

That word matter if O18/O16 were local.

You wouldnt know what the link I gave you means if it stood up and bit you. If SKS isnt there to guide you by the hand through it you wouldn't understand it

Yet you accuse me of plagerism.

 

Well it looks like this paper is dying a quick and brutal death.

McIntyre is all over it. It seems that the young author had done a similar study for his recent doctoral thesis. Unfortunately he got the "wrong" answer. So he shifted his proxies a few hundred years so he would get the "right' answer.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

 

More "scientific review" jiggering.
Those people just never stop do they?
Caught at every turn.

 

Well how often are they punished for it? This paper despite its flaws will get into the IPCC AR5. The young PhD. has gained his place amongst the team and has secured a promising career by doing what Dr. Mann wanted. It is now leaking that despite his attempt to act like he had just read that paper Dr. Mann may have been a reviewer for this paper.

 

They are never punished. But maybe we can embarass them into the shadows. Like "Cold Fusion".

 

The climate has been changing due to natural causes for billions of years. The climate has been changing due to humans for only a couple of centuries.

We can start with those two billion persons who live near current sea level, and who would lose everything they have if the polar ice caps melt.

 

Oh right. So, since you claim that Greenland temps reflect global temps because of this alleged well-mixed nonsense, we can see from your own graph that the global temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was -30.5° C !

Brilliant falsification, Sherlock. (And you wonder why we laugh at climate deniers?)

When you're done trying to explain your way out of that one, maybe you can let us all know: why do Greenland and Antarctic ice cores show different δ18O levels at the same time periods? And, why do different sites from within Greenland show different δ18O levels at the same time periods? Wouldn't you say that's a very odd way -- shall we say, a local way -- for allegedly "global" data to behave?

Here's a clue: stop reading WUWT, and start reading the science.

 

Nonsense. The data are adequate to detect century-scale rises and falls in temperature, and the data shows precisely zero such rises prior to the Industrial Revolution that are as rapid as the rise that was caused by the Industrial Revolution.

And whose "agenda" is causing the Arctic Ocean to melt?

 

I'm happy to do so.

Your "study" fails peer review, because it lacks:
1. An author.
2. An abstract.
3. A section on methods.
4. A complete description of conditions.
5. A list of references.
and most importantly,
6. The conclusions are not supported by the data.

 

Nothing unpredicted or unnatural about it.
1. Atmospheric CO2 levels were lower 11,000 years ago than they are today.
2. Earth was emerging from an ice age 11,000 years ago: ice sheets were retreating, and as they retreated Earth's albedo decreased, resulting in more solar radiation absorbed and less solar radiation reflected.

 

And your source for this piece of absurdity is ... what, exactly? WUWT?

 

Too, too funny!!

This is utterly hilarious. If Alley doesn't know the first thing about δ18O ratios, why are you using Alley's work yourself, and posting Alley's work on this very thread to support your arguments?

Don't you remember? This graph here?



So, where did that graph labeled "Greenland GISP2 Ice Core Temperature Last 10,000 years" come from? Any idea? The graph that you posted yourself?

It came from Dr. Richard Alley, that's who.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pa...gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

 

How did you miss this thread where the Marcott, et al study you are championing is exposed as a fraud?

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...y-stick-marcott-et-al-dubious-fraudulent.html

It deserves comment from someone like you. Real Climate and 'Science' won't say a word.

After that we can debate rates of change validity and resolution in multi-proxy time series reconstructions. Using REAL data.

.

 

I dont deny that he gathered the data and crunched the numbers. I see his O16 numbers as being fine. The problem is that much like we have seen in dendroclimatology with tree rings he doesn't know what the O16 numbers represent. That is the only conclusion one can make when he says something as ignorant as O16 isotopes being a local proxy. The O16 trapped in the ice didn't come from Greenland.

The amount of light and heavy oxygen trapped in the ice is representative of global evaporation not just local Greenland temperatures. As such it is a global temperature proxy not local. In fact it isn't a very good local proxy at all. Ice core proxies during the instrumental era do not track well with measured local Greenland temperatures due to the nature of O18/O16.

 

Ah PD wants to play. How cute. You lurk for months and then when you think you have something to go after me with you come out of hiding.

Have I not trounced you enough in the past for your to learn your lesson? Lets not have another argument that descends to the level of you arguing that two equally opposed perpetual motion machines do not violate the first law.

Actually I don't think you will find much on Watts about O18/O16 despite your ridiculous insinuation.

Despite accusing me of lying, plagiarism, suffering from a mental disorder, and numerous other personal attacks that I did not reported him for because I am a far better man, GMB has reported all of my responses despite being far more tame than the personal assaults he laid upon me, a great deal of what I posted deleted. Such is the current state of our forum and why this forum is dying, but I digress.

I have personally done a great deal of research into O18/O16 ratios. And how they serve as a temperature proxy. The link I provided is a great place to start.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/

Now sadly for the SKS crowd it wont take you by the hand and spell it out like a 3rd grade science class like SKS tends to do. But if you read it critically you will understand what heavy and lighter oxygen represent and why O18/O16 are global not local proxies.

 

Where oh where did I "champion" Marcott? Can you post a quote? Didn't think so.

Another denier liar exposed.

Meanwhile, the question I asked you goes all unanswered (and here's predicting it will remain so):

Whose "agenda" is causing the Arctic Ocean to melt?