The bottom line is that the rate of warming over the past century is very rapid and probably unprecedented for the past 11,000 years.
The bottom line is that Cook’s BS is probably unprecedented in the last 11,000 years.
Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.
Steve,
This Marcott quote is taken from your link: “Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios.”
So they directly contradicted themselves, threw in some BS about projections, and that impressed you.
So? Look up! Four years ago the Sun was its most active for 9,000 years.
Solar direct and indirect warming caused half of the temperature rise last century. The oceans caused another third. CO2 and everything else caused 1/6th, which coincidentally fits LC2011 and SB2010 measurements of climate sensitivity like a glove.
From the RealClimate link:
“Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?”
……………….A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Cook is contradicting Marcott by making stuff up. 🙁
Bruce,
4 years ago would make that 2009 — right?
This is from NASA: “2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.
Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year’s 90 days (87%).
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.”: http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
T.O.O. – You are entirely correct. I wrote ‘4 years’ and when I looked at the post I realised with that number I conflated the end of solar cycle 23 with the peak, which was in 2004-5. I decided to leave it uncorrected, but I see that was a mistake. Sorry.
I should have said ‘solar cycle 23 completed 4 years ago was the most active solar cycle for 9,000 years’.
And you are entirely correct about the deep solar minimum. On the basis of solar cycle 23 length this current solar cycle should average a degree or so cooler than SC23. So far this is holding up, as the CET has been very cold for the start of this year.
The point about the new solar minimum is it confirms that the recent peak in global temperature was mainly about the Sun.
I’ll add the finding from NASA GSFC of the impact of GCR’s on Earth’s climate. NASA is starting to get it, slowly.
Marcott also says that Michael Mann has no idea what he is talking about.
From Dot Earth, 4/6/2013, Mann commented to Revkin that the Marcott et al. paper demonstrated that modern temperatures were the highest in 4000 yrs, and the modern rate of change was the highest in 11,400 years.
Chris,
Mann was exactly right in what he said according to Marcott’s own quotes taken from Steve’s link, : “We find that global temperature was relatively warm from approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years before present. FOLLOWING THIS INTERVAL, global temperature decreased by approximately 0.7°C, culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene around 200 years before present during what is commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age. The largest cooling occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.
Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the EARLY HOLOCENE,”
And I have already pointed out the quote where Marcott stated that the past 100 years has seen a dramatic temperature turnaround.
Sometimes I think you global warming people make noise just to relieve boredom.
Your lives must seem pretty insignificant
Brian,
Steve began this post — one his many thousands (how much noise is that?) — and this particular one was all about what Marcott had to say. And isn’t that just what i have been doing — providing direct quotes from Marcott?
T.O.O, are you Tony B?
Traiter,
No I am not and neither am I the original Lazarus or anyone else you care to name.
T.O.O-
After *carefully* reading the paper, Mann sent this to Revkin prior to the posting date of 3/7/2013 at Dot Earth-
“The key take-home conclusion is that the rate and magnitude of recent global warmth appears unprecedented for at least the past 4,000 years and the rate at least the past 11,000.”
Revkin then asked a follow-up question-
“Separate from the potential northern bias, are you confident that jogs similar to the one recorded in the last century (a well-instrumented century) could not be hidden in the “smear” of millenniums of proxy [indirect] temperature data?”
Michael Mann responded-
“Regarding the resolution issue, this was my main concern initially when I looked at the paper. But I’m less concerned now that I have read the paper over more carefully, because I think that Figure 1a and 1b give a pretty good sense of what features of higher resolution reconstructions (specifically, our ’08 global reconstruction which is shown) are potentially captured. Based on that comparison, I’m relatively convinced that they have the resolution to capture a century-long warming trend in the past were there one comparable to the recent trend.”
Marcott’s supplemental information absolutely eviscerates both claims made by Mann.
I’m completely convinced that Mann is a climate activist who will spew any specious drivel for his cause.
Chris,
What is the “supplemental information” that Marcott uses to “eviscerate” Mann?
T.O.O-
“What is the “supplemental information” that Marcott uses to “eviscerate” Mann?”
You’ve got to be kidding!
I assumed you knew something about this garbage paper that you are trying to defend.
But thanks for once again confirming David Roberts’ hypothesis at Grist-
“For the most part, those who strongly support climate action do not do so because they’ve been rationally persuaded; in fact, they tend to be quite ignorant of the scientific details. People who reject climate science tend to know the most about it, because they’re motivated to learn about it in order to reject it.”
Marcott supplementary material is pretty unequivocal-
“The gain function is near 1 above ~2000 year periods, suggesting that multi-millennial variability in the Holocene stack may be almost fully recorded. Below ~300 year periods, in contrast, the gain is near zero, implying proxy record uncertainties completely remove centennial variability in the stack. Between these two periods, the gain function exhibits a steady ramp and crosses 0.5 at a period of ~1000 years.”
Note that the claimed CACC signal has risen above natural variations for only about 40 years.
The Marcott filter generates the following smoothing (real temp span and magnitude vs Marcott result)-
200 yr, 0.9C gives 0.20 C blob, slope max = 0.7 mC/yr.
400 yr, 0.45C gives 0.19 C blob, slope max = 0.6 mC/yr.
200 yr, 0.9C centered gives 0.04 C blob, slope max = 0.1 mC/yr.
20 yr, -20C volcano gives -0.45C blob, slope max = -1.7 mC/yr.
1 yr, 85C gives 0.09 C blob, slope max = 0.4 mC/yr. (Hansen’s boiling oceans!)
Now, IPCC dogma states that anthro-forcings did not impact temp record until around 1960.
That corresponds to about 0.5C in 52 years, and 10 mC/yr.
Marcott filters this to 0.03C, and 0.1 mC/yr.
This all assumes that the Marcott dataset hasn’t been tampered with to adjust 20th century signals.
But John Cook has written a TEXTBOOK on climate change — Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/9400757565
John Cook says that he is NOT a climate scientist. So why write a book on such a complex and contentious issue? Has it been peer reviewed for major errors?
He also says that he is driven by his religious beliefs. Would that include creationism?
Cookie also claims to be a skeptic, in order to suck in fencesitters. Leftist have issues with veracity.
After the CAGW scare is over Cook will realise that he has been a very useful TOOL. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank and Cook gets some chicken change from his fairy tale pamphlet.
The bottom line here is that I had forgotten RealClimate still exists, until you had to bring them up again. Any time you mention them, you should just put in a picture of Homer/Hansen with his axe.
Marcott’s press release had no correspondence with their study. When sceptics dug into the claims they immediately backed away from the wilder assertions they had made. I suspect they didn’t want instant hockey stick mockery.
Will,
Do you have any evidence supporting those remarks?
“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
How stupid are you? The man is back pedaling on his press release. Can you honestly ask why? Of course not.
gator69,
You left out what proceeded that quote and what followed it:
“Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. . . . . Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193;
No back peddling here just a simple explanation showing that the methodology used in their own study was not suited to making conclusions based on time frames of less than 300 years but that other, well-documented, studies were.
Then who wrote the press release Laz?
I told you that you were incapable of honest questions, and that is what makes you so very stupid. It is self inflicted ignorance. 😆
Gator69,
your quotes and mine all come from the same source which Steve provided at the top of the page. I don’t know about a press release and that is the reason for my question to Will.
So you stayed under your rock when the press releases were made? 😆
Honesty is not you strong suit, and never has been. 😉
Gator69,
You get smaller with every angry illogical comment.
Please show the lack of logic, or STFU stupid. 😆
PS – Brainiac, that is a laughing face, andnot an angry one. 😆
You are a joke. See? 😆
T.O.O.
I do, straight from the MetOffice, you know, THE MetOffice where over 150 Climate Scientists work?
http://www.myclimateandme.com/2013/03/12/new-analysis-suggests-the-earth-is-warming-at-a-rate-unprecedented-for-11300-years/#comments
“In the light of this statement from the authors, we no longer consider our headline to be appropriate.”
I’ll answer for T.O.O. and will presume his response to be,
““In the light of this statement from the authors, we no longer consider our headline to be appropriate.” You see, they only considered the headline wrong, not the data within the paper.”
Get ready Ben, it shouldn’t take long.
Ben,
Now I understand why you are all so confused. You thought that the person who created a headline trumpeting Marcott’s paper was actually Marcott himself. Let me clear this up for you. The headline was written by someone trying to get you to notice a new study and it was Marcott et al who actually wrote the study.
Journalism can be tricky.
Yes telling the truth is nearly impossible for leftists, including Marcott, who said nothing until skeptics pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
T.O.O
Now I understand why you are so confused. You thought that the person who created a headline just made it up.
The headline came directly from the interview with Shakun, you know, the co-author of the paper?
Gator69,
Well that absolutely made no sense.
That’s because you have none! 😆
Ben,
If that was true then why does Shakun make this statement? (From the top of the page on your own link):
“We previously posted an article entitled “New analysis suggests the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented for 11,300 years” covering the paper by Marcott et al in Nature. The title of our article drew on the original press release for the paper. However, WE NOTE THE AUTHORS of the paper have since issued an extensive response to media coverage.”
Ben,
Apparently the person who issued the press release was was Candace Major, program director in the National Science Foundation’s Division of Ocean Sciences, which co-funded the research with NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences.
But this information still doesn’t answer the question I put to Will which was how the press release contradicts the study?
RE: T.O.O – “If that was true then why does Shakun make this statement? (From the top of the page on your own link): ”
I think you need to amend your attribution of the statement, especially the “WE NOTE” phrase that you highlighted.
Read the original press release. Then, watch the March 7th New York Times interview with Shakun. The extreme headlines came from the Shakun interview. The co-author of the paper is Shakun. The press release is tame by comparison.
RE: T.O.O – “Apparently the person who issued the press release was was Candace Major”
You may want to verify your assertion that Candace Major is the person who issued the press release. She quotes herself in her own press release? LOL
You may verify the provenance of the press release with Cheryl or Mark. Good luck.
Press Release Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, NSF (703) 292-7734 [email protected]
Mark Floyd, OSU (541) 737-0788 [email protected]
Candie was in fact the NSF program director for Marcott’s grant.
Evidently very proud of herself over this, at one point. Now she probably gets indigestion if somebody brings up the subject (and ill tempered if she perceives “mockery” over it …)
The graph is meaningless, if you think about it. They made a “negative” temperature “anomaly” (using an albedo for a radiant equilibrium temperature) for an “ice age,” then called it “positive” for “non-ice age.” Then what constitutes “no anomaly” has no meaning
Excellent point!
T.O.O.
“Let me clear this up for you. The headline was written by someone trying to get you to notice a new study and it was Marcott et al who actually wrote the study.”
Where’s your link and supporting data for this irrational supposition?
tckev,
It has all been outlined in previous comments. Ben erroneously said that it was one of the Marcott team, but his own link disproved that. Anyway the whole stupid issue was raised because Will said that Marcott was distancing himself from his press release. Of course, he has provided no proof. Just so much white noise amongst the static.
Yes I agree this is a stupid issue and any fool that tries to justify that lazy, trough feeder on this matter is a complete idiot. Marcotts so called work was nothing but a ‘me too’ paper proving nothing from an egotistical fool.
I said the headline came from the Shakun interview. I never said he wrote it. You are the one in error, attributing the “WE” in the article statement to Shakun
Compare the hyperbole in the Shakun interview to the press release. The hyperbolic headlines come from the hyperbolic interview, not the tame press release.
I wrote a letter to Marcott’s program director at NSF, asking her why she gave some post doc a big grant with no evidence that Marcott could do anything meaningful with it. Then the program director was silent when Marcott essentially retracted his study in “blogworld” – even though she touted Marcott’s “study” on her NSF web page.
No response from the NSF program director, even though we are both civil servants. When it comes to this “global warming” nonsense, the government just gives out money to “do what you want no matter how bad it is as long as you tell us you can prove AGW, somehow”
“Prisoners in the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Dachau and Natzweiler were gassed so that Himmler’s scientists could experiment on their bodies. Chillingly, the anthropologist involved in both the Tibet expedition and the murders of camp inmates, Bruno Beger, survived the war unscathed, was photographed with the Dalai Lama in 1994 and, when interviewed by Pringle, proved stubbornly unrepentant about his wartime role.
Pringle has built on previous research in this field – notably on Chris Hale’s 2003 account of the Tibet journey and its consequences, Himmler’s Crusade – and has delved diligently on her own account into this murky corner of Nazi history. Her conclusions are grim, and her message is deeply disturbing. Few scientists were able to resist Himmler’s cash and patronage; and most obediently produced the twisted conclusions he was looking for – without worrying over-much about the amoral methods used to reach them. I closed the book with the nagging feeling that what Churchill called in a famous speech Nazism’s ‘perverted science’ may still be with us today.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3650745/whatever-results-himmler-wanted-from-his-scientists-he-got-says-nigel-jones-Master-Plan-Himmlers-Scholars-and-the-Holocaust-by-Heather-Pringle-FOURTH-ESTATE-20-463-pp-T-18-1.25-pandp-0870-428-4115.html
What the government pays for, the government gets.
Nobody ever believed in eugenics, everybody thought is was perverted science, etc etc.
This guy did, along with many Fabians and Progressives…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryBLR7ttzrQ
Attention T.O.O:
Does Bernard Shaw remind you of Paul Ehrlich at all?
Well, they are both writers of fiction, and doomers…
“Shaw endorsed Sanger, Birth Control, and EUGENICS..
In the June 1929 Birth Control Review, George Bernard Shaw supports Sanger’s efforts to promote birth control when he, ” We are up against an overpopulation problem created by Capitalism…Socialists say quite truly that Socialism can get rid of it…But it cannot wait for Socialism.”
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/george-bernard-shaw-hitler-and-margaret-sanger/
Major Fail: Met Office withdraws article bout Marcotts Jockey Stickhttp://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/14/met-office-withdraws-article-about-marcotts-hockey-stick.html
Ask T.O.O. “Deniers” did this to Marcott, discrediting him mercilessly.
Brian,
All been covered.
Here is the situation (1) Marcott does a study; (2) A funder of the study issues a press release and references other studies as context; (3) Journos, and perhaps, the Met Office conflate the two in their headlines for articles (4) Marcott conducts an interview to clarify his position; (5) Sceptics try and prove that Marcott is back peddling from his own press release (which, of course, is utter nonsense); (6) Goddard writes a blog stating more nonsense; (7) Sceptics shovel more nonsense into the pile; (8) Goddard starts entire process over again with a new blog.
It’s all Goddard’s fault, no Goddard, no “smear campaign” against Marcott, ruining him.
Marcott would have more useful purpose with his government grant had he spent it on prostitutes and drugs.
March 7th…
“The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.”
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127133
March 11th…
“The Marcott et al. conclusions that “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history” and “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 ….are warmer than 82% of the Holocene” are clearly contrary to measured, accurate, real-time data and thus fail the Feynman test, i.e., they are wrong.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/
March 12th…
“Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.”
http://www.myclimateandme.com/2013/03/12/new-analysis-suggests-the-earth-is-warming-at-a-rate-unprecedented-for-11300-years/
Any questions? (Except from the peanut gallery)
T.O.O. – You’re dissembling.
I think if you watch the visual interview that Revkin did with Marcott here:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/
you’ll find Marcott purporting to claim that “boom, we’re outside the elevator” for temperature today – and he draws a hockey stick graph in the air with his finger to demonstrate what he says is happening and is explained in his paper. Marcott sure did clarify his position on what he said his paper concluded about the 20th century, and that visual interview commentary accorded quite well with the press release headline.
However, when statisticians and others actually looked at his data and the presentation of it, his conclusions were not in agreement with his interview or the press release- and he was called out on it. He then issued a written explanation that has been widely repeated and publicized that said “Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.” He thus said that he agreed with the critics, that his commentary and conclusions on that point was incorrect. And lets face it, the only real publicity he got on that whole 11,000 year thing was because he claimed the 20th century was very anomalous. He admitted his paper actually said no such thing. All the rest of it was rendered entirely unremarkable and uninteresting. Its all old ground.
So please drop your stale and hollow arguments that the Marcott paper has anything accurate to say about the 20th century.
Mikegeo,
How can I take you seriously when you insist I pay attention to Revkin’s interview of Marcott when, in fact, he didn’t interview Marcott? And then you claim Marcott agrees with his critics and offer up a quote as proof but you leave out the before and after statements of that same quote which, quite clearly, refute your own argument?
T.O.O = Nick Stokes ect these guys you will find are probably PAID to come here and WUWT and other skeptic sites because they and the team would be very worried indeed of losing their jobs if they cannot keep the AGW thing going. I’ve noticed this of late.. However the guys are so obviously wrong or appaer childish/brainless that they help the skeptic cause and I plead for these guys to be allowed to keep coming here and other skeptic sites please!!! LOL
No Mariana Torres, they would not lose their jobs, they would be free to peddle as much alarmism as they wish to peddled. The difference is that the warmest would no longer be paid to peddle alarmism on the scale that they were paid to peddle it in the past. That is their greatest fear.
Mariana,
Nick Stokes is a scientist in Australia NOT a climate scientist. Who or why would pay him to keep the AGW going?
What keeps AGW going are observations of ice loss in glaciers across the world, loss of both Arctic and Antarctic ice mass, increased acidification of the oceans, an increase in night time temperatures and an accelerating sea level rise plus other factors.
Sea levels are not accelerating, glaciers are so variable in rate of gain or loss that eco-worriers love them. They can cherry picker to their heart’s delight. Antarctica is unlikely to be loosing ice mass, but if it is, it cannot be explained by AGW theory, as SMB remains unchanged. Oceans have become more ‘acid’ but there is no evidence that the rate of change is harmful. Night time temperatures have increased. That’s a wonderful thing. Hope it stays that way. The Arctic has warmed, but it was also very warm in the ’30’s and this isn’t disputed in the scientific literature. Whether it is warmer now then back then is debatable (although certainly not impossible).
So there is nothing much on your list. You seem to be dealing in scraps.
Will,
From the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“Shrinking land ice — glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets — contributed about half of the total global sea level rise between 1972 and 2008, but its contribution has been increasing since the early 1990s as the pace of ice loss has accelerated. Recent studies suggest that land ice loss added nearly half an inch to global sea level from 2003 to 2007, contributing 75 to 80 percent of the total increase during that period.”
Also; A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise
John A. Church1,2 and Neil J. White1,2
Received 6 October 2005; revised 22 November 2005; accepted 1 December 2005; published 6 January 2006.
Also: Ice Sheet Loss at Both Poles Increasing, Study Finds: “In a landmark study published Thursday in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years. Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.”: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html
Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year as they were in the 1990s
=====
Well that’s stupid…why wouldn’t they?
We’re in a short hiccup of rising temps…when the overall trend is down
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Latitude,
It is refreshing to hear that you agree with those 47 researchers, but doesn’t that also mean that you disagree with Will Nitchke and his (unsupported) beliefs regarding sea levels and ice mass?
nope, sea level rise has slowed, obviously ice is increasing, and temps have flat lined, greenland is adding ice, etc
Will, is right
And by oceans being “more acid” I’m sure you mean a tiny bit “less Alkaline”, closer to neutral.
The Union of Concerned Scientists are activist whack jobs. As soon as anyone starts quoting them you know they are desperate.
The Union of Concerned Scientists makes The Church of Scientology seem almost credible in comparison.
They claim their political advocacy has a scientific basis. As you’ve suggested, that’s like claiming your religion beliefs are superior because you’re a scientist.
Very little of what they advocate has any basis in “science.” It is all emotion, based on their love of pink politics
Will and Brian,
It must be nice to make broad pronouncements without having to deal with that pesky little thing known as evidence.
– “nope, sea level rise has slowed, obviously ice is increasing, and temps have flat lined, greenland is adding ice, etc”
– “We’re in a short hiccup of rising temps…when the overall trend is down”
– “The Union of Concerned Scientists are activist whack jobs.”
– “The Union of Concerned Scientists makes The Church of Scientology seem almost credible in comparison.”
– “As you’ve suggested, that’s like claiming your religion beliefs are superior because you’re a scientist.” (?!?)
– “Very little of what they advocate has any basis in “science.” It is all emotion, based on their love of pink politics.”
And that’s being kind about them!
BTW DMI ice graph still FROZEN for 5 days now. What is happening? Is it going up? Mustn’t let them see that! LOL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
The sea level graphs had the same delay , and then months later, a new revision and adjustment when itr became obvious that SL rise was all but stopped. perhaps the ice is now v shaped, and so, although the surface shows a lot, there is less beneath it.
This paper must be defended AT ALL COSTS. Even when the authors of the paper disown all the dramatic claims they made about it in their press releases and media interviews.
This paper is TOO IMPORTANT for the activists to ever acknowledge what is now indisputable by all rational parties, It just keeps getting more and more pathetic doesn’t it?
yes indeed, but it is fun to see them squirm.
the house of cards is crumbling
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Have the poster here noticed how many climate change critics are from an engineering and geology background, computer/electronics engineering seems to figure quite high as well. Maybe they are more used to the failure of computer modeling in the real world more than most others.
“Climatology” used to be a rather unscientific discipline 40 or 50 years ago, looking at “patterns” to predict global or regional trends based on historical data and known oscillatory phenomena.
To give the field a more scientific basis (or add credibility), computer modeling was applied to resolve such issues as the origin of the El Nino oscillations. The models were expanded to project global trends based on modeled phenomena, and for that purpose the approach was and remains a terrible failure because the past could not be reproduced without extraordinary force fitting to account for observations.
This modeling was and remains the only “scientific” basis to AGW claims, which is to say, there is no basis and there never was.
If you read a scientific paper on global warming from 50 years ago it sounds pretty much like a scientific paper you’d read today. The field has not progressed much. Understandable, it’s a tough nut to crack.
It’s a tough nut to kill! Each time it is debunked, 100, years ago, 30 years ago, 10 years ago, …, it continues with a Zombie-afterlife as a result of “intelligentsia” interest in controlling the “stupid unwashed masses”
Lies, lies, and more lies. Marcott says no such thing about John Cook!