Recent Heat Spike Unlike Anything in 11,000 Years

Since this thread is about Marcott et. al. and you posted.

What exactly where you referring to???

 

Truth...the Earth then (after thousands of years) began to slowly return to the next ice age. Unfortunately, the natural cycle has been interrupted by an artificial release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.....similar to dramatic vulcanism.

 

0. The Q was – what’s this unexpected source of heat?

Understand? Yes? No?

1. Who did measure CO2 11,000 years ago?
1.2. Where did CO2 go?
1.3. What does CO2 have to do to?

2. Do you have at least a photographic evidence?
2.1. Where did they retreat to?
2.2 How could it result in decreasing albedo?
2.3 Who and when have observed radiation during the night time?

 

Have you figure out what is the greehouse effect you believe in, yet?

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/293017-cult-science-15.html#post1062395136

 

...Nope...nor has anyone else. Thus we developed a thing called science, and extrapolated on it to the point where it became specialized when needed...we even gave these specialized sciences names...how silly of us.

We came up with such stupidity as Physics.
Language.
Ecology.
Biology.
Mathematics.
Physiology.



Oh...and Chemistry.

Damn....what a pisser when factual data messes with ideology.

 

Utter nonsense, and you don't have a shred of evidence to support that slander.

The only conclusion one can draw from anyone saying that δ18O is not a local proxy, is that the person saying them is ignorant of the vast scientific literature that clearly shows otherwise. And further, that said person is just making stuff up off the top of his head with not a shred of evidence to support his position.

Who ever said it did?

What you're missing (because you've never read the literature -- but hey, you're a denier, that's par for the course. What's unacceptable is when, having not read the literature, you proceed to pretend that you have, and just make stuff up off the top of your head that is completely false) is that condensation occurs locally, and isotopes condense at different rates, depending on temperature. Which means that the δ18O in condensed (i.e., precipitated) water varies according to local temperature. Which is why there is a clear linear relationship between local annual temperature and local δ18O, as research has shown for decades. You know, Windy, if you would start reading the relevant literature today, in a few years you might catch up to where climate science was in 1975.

 

You posted on this thread too. Are you saying that you have championed Marcott?

Or shall we just admit that you've deployed another logical non sequitur, and your idiotic comment should be ignored?

I'm referring to globally averaged proxy temperature data prior to the Industrial Revolution. What did you think I was referring to?

 

I made a post which did not mention Mercott, quoting a post of yours which also did not mention Marcott. Only in the fevered and fantastical mind of a denier could that be "clearly" sticking up for Marcott.

Wrong again, Radio. Apparently you missed McIntyre's latest posting, in which he admits that his earlier "refutation" of Marcott because of re-dating was wholly trivial, because the re-dating was in the single digits of years.

But I'm betting that won't stop you from continuing to claim that it's still a refutation, even after McI himself has abandonded it.

 

He didn't? Gosh, somebody claiming to be Steve McIntyre must have hacked into CA and posted under his name!

 

You read that about as biased as anyone in the history of the world. Look at again and you will see that the focus in ice cores is far more on O16.

Perhaps this picture will give you a better understanding.

The relative balance of O16 and O18 tells you what the temperature was for the entire life cycle of the water vapor. Not just what happened in Greenland.

 

It was caused by a polar vortex the kind of weather event that is global warming when it melts arctic ice but isn't global warming when it causes an Asian cold snap.

 

Then of course you will be easily able to answer these questions, most of which I've already asked on this thread:

1. Why are δ18O ratios from the same epoch different at different sites from within Greenland?
2. Why are δ18O ratios from the same epoch different at different sites from within Antarctica?
3. Why are δ18O ratios from the same epoch different between Greenland and Antarctica?
4. Why are δ18O ratios from contemporary snowfall linearly correlated with average annual temperature at the site where that snow fell?
5. Why are δ18O ratios across Greenland broadly correlated with both the altitude and latitude of the site?
6. Provide two citations from peer-reviewed literature that claim that δ18O ratios in ice cores are reflective of global, rather than local, temperatures.

Since you claim that you've studied O-isotope ratios thoroughly, these questions should be a breeze.
If you can't answer number 6 (and you can't), you'll have to admit you were lying. But then, we knew that already.

 

If it's just weather, why hasn't it ever happened before in recorded history?

 

No in the other thread where you repeated this lie I posted the quote from day one. You know the one you didn't quote or link to. The one where you made up what he had said. That one. I suggest you take your ball and go home.

Yes you did. You made a bad calculation that had the troposphere as a perpetual motion machine in the positive direction so the Stratosphere had to be a perpetual motion machine in the other. Somehow you thought that opposed perpetual motion machines don't violate the first law.

 

Recorded history??? You mean 1979 when the satellite went up.

 

You mean this quote?

You're saying I made that up? Why then does it appear on this page in Steve McIntyre's blog?

Utter and total fabrication. Mendacious prevarication of the most unscrupulous type.

And to prove it: you didn't post a quote of mine to back up your false claim. You can't. Because you're lying.

 

Once again you show your ignorance of climate science. Here's the reality:

 

What you argued was this.

You provided no link to the original statement of McIntyre claiming that the carbon dating was off. Because no such statement existed. You just give your statement of what you say he said rather than linking to it directly.

Then in another thread you made your claim more specific when you posted this

Again no quote or link to what Steve had said on day 1. Just your own words as to what you say he said. And as we all know you are not to be trusted at all.

Of course it was easy to show that on day one his focus had been on the core tops just as it was on day 3.

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

And what he said on day 3 is the same thing he said on day 1.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/

I'm saying that you made up your claims that "Day 1, Steve gets all hyperventilated about the fact that Marcott et. al. re-dated some proxy data using the latest-and-greatest 14C calibration model" are a lie. It never happened. You made it up. That is why you are trying to deflect to what he said on day 3 and ignore that you have yet to provide one link or quote to what he said on day 1. Its a lie. A fabricated argument McIntyre never made, an issue over the carbon dating, in his original posts he recognized that the carbon dating was more or less correct.

McIntyre's focus since day 1 has always been the dating of the coretops. That is why you have provided no link or quote to what McIntyre said on day 1. You cant. You know what you are saying is a lie.

Oh my little friend. The forum reboot wont save you now. You managed to skate the last time you screwed up by waiting until the forum wiped old threads and then demanding to see the thread which you knew no longer existed but not today.

First you made this silly little amateur calculation.

To which I responded

To which your responded

Still not getting the point.

Following this post you disappeared for 3 months.

 

Note that at no time did I claim the stratosphere was radiating more energy than it takes in. (I said only that it is radiating more energy today than it was 50 years ago.) Since my actual argument is unassailable, you simply make up some fictional nonsense and pretend it's my argument. Then you lie and claim I said something that I didn't say. And then you repeat your lies, over and over and over.

Which makes you a liar.

I will not debate anyone who deliberately lies about me, or about what I'm saying. And you're still ducking the question.

 

Looks like deniers are still throwing mud at the wall, unable to get anything to stick. I notice this happens most when some study that might concern people starts getting press coverage, showing once again that global warming denial is about politics, not science.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html

One of the standard ruses put forth by deniers is to pretend to discover something that was already given a strong caveat in the paper, such as the end section of the data being based on limited proxies, then claim some sort of nefarious intent. It's also irrelevant because the conclusions on recent warming aren't from the proxy record. They are from the modern instrumental period, and the proxies used (not tree rings) don't require calibration with the temperature record.

For informed analysis, a recommendation:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

If there's anything notable lacking in the study, it's adequate on of Holocene temperatures in the context of recent warming and future projections. There's some discussion in the paper but a picture speaks a thousand words.



As Marcott noted, the proxy data is low-frequency, such that short-term changes are smoothed, so a similar spike in the past can't be ruled out entirely, but he notes it's not very likely.

The overwhelming evidence on causes of current warming indicate the spike is not a coincidence.

 

The fact that you didn't know what you were saying doesn't change what you said.

Look the radiation influx to the stratosphere has not increased. If anything it has decreased as TSI is down from 1959. By arguing that the stratosphere is radiating more today than it was in 59 you are saying that the stratosphere is radiating more energy than it takes in. The only way the stratosphere could be radiating more energy was if TSI increased.

Your entire argument was one giant frack up by you. You created a system of the total atmosphere then tried to break up the system into parts. You cant do that!!!! Do you have any formal science education what so ever??? Once you create the black box you are stuck with the black box.

P.S. Its not lost on me that you didn't even try and address your fraudulent claims about McIntrye. The guilty always know when they are caught.

 

The fact that you don't know what I said doesn't change the fact that you lied about it.

Wrong-headed mistake #1 from the self-described radiation transfer expert.

Wrong-headed mistake #2 from the self-described radiation transfer expert.

Wrong-headed mistake #3 from the self-described radiation transfer expert, and Lie #1 about my position.

Wrong-headed mistake #4 from the self-described radiation transfer expert.

Lie #2.

Wrong-headed mistake #5 from the self-described radiation transfer expert. (This is actually done routinely by climate scientists, and by real radiation transfer experts.)

Wrong-headed mistake #6 from the self-described radiation transfer expert, and Lie #3. I never created a black box.

As much as I enjoy seeing you twist in the wind, I'm going to be generous and give you a big big hint. Our self-described radiation transfer expert seems to be laboring under the delusion that the atmosphere's effective final emitting layer is in the stratosphere. It's not.

Oh, and it is not lost on me that you still haven't answered my simple question. (The guilty always know when they are caught.) But maybe my big big hint will allow you to take a guess. And maybe even get it right.

 

I'm not the one who is reduced to trolling because he cant make a cogent argument.

Go take another 3 month vacation.

Simple fact of the matter is you argued that the stratosphere is radiating more energy than it was in 1959. Since the influx radiation is unchanged and actually down then you are arguing that it is radiating more energy than it is taking in. You are arguing that it is a perpetual motion machine.

You think that if the troposphere can radiate less energy than it taking in then the first law is preserved. No its not. Equally opposed perpetual motion machines are not possible and violate the first law.

P.S. I still note that you have addressed your fraudulent claims about McIntyre. The guilty always know when they are caught.

 

True.

False.

False.

False, and a lie.

False, and another lie.

False, and another lie.

P.S. I still note that you have not answered my simple question.

 

You still dont get it.

If its radiating more energy than in 1959 where is this energy coming from? It cant be the troposphere as that would be directly opposite of AGW theory, and the mesosphere is insignificant.