Brandon Shollenberger: A couple series end at -50 BP (corresponding to 2000 AD).
Please forgive me if I am being dense again, but don’t they put the “present” at 1950 AD, so – 50 BP is 1900 AD?
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Matthew R Marler
↧
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Matthew R Marler
Ah, now I get it: that’s “minus 50″ BP.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by timg56
willard,
as torpedomen have a reputation for having strong backs and weak minds, I hope you will understand when I say I’m confused by your comment.
Not being critical, just wanting to understand the point and if it is directed at me.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lolwot
he says a lot. perhaps too much for his own good.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Edim
He’s left-wing too (cares about the less fortunate).
↧
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lolwot
“WHT and lolwot are caught on the horns of a dilemma between the mutually exclusive doomsday scenarios of “peak oil” and “CAGW”.”
No the world is caught on this dilemma.
“There are enough fossil fuel resources to last us 200-300 years and, even when they have all been 100% used up, they will not have theoretically warmed our planet by more than a couple of degrees.”
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. if there’s enough fossil fuels to supply the growing energy demand over the next 200-300 years then this implies CO2 levels in the atmosphere hitting 1500ppm at least.
Even under ridiculously low climate sensitivities that will produce more than a couple of degrees warming. In terms of ocean acidification: devastating.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lolwot
philjourdan, note that manacker cited a 30 year period (the 1961–1990 mean temperature level).
So try again.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Edim
lolwot, atmospheric CO2 is driven by climatic factors and the CO2 sensitivity is zero or maybe slightly negative, but likely insignificant. Ocean acidification is BS. So no problems. Aren’t you happy about it?
↧
Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by Jim Cripwell
Thank you Bart R. for your long response. I have read it carefully, and I will not move on from this issue. I will state this as a fact. No-one has measured climate sensitivity. If there was an actual measurement of climate sensitivity, this blog, WUWT, RealClimate etc. would no longer exist. There would be no need for any more discussion. We have excellent data on how much CO2 levels will rise in the future, and with an actual measurement of climate sensitivity, with a proper accurcay, we would know with considerable precision what the rise in global temperatures is going to be over the next decades.
The mere fact that we are having this discussion, shows that no measurement has been made. The implications of this fact are, I believe, enormous, but that is another issue.
↧
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lolwot
“ALL climate is regional. Put them all together and you’ve got a global picture.”
A global picture that has a cooler MWP than CWP.
“As far as Greenland is concerned, how do you explain the Medieval Viking farms found buried in the Greenland permafrost?”
Given permafrost takes time to thaw it can’t tell you whether current temperatures are above or below temperatures back then.
“temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.”
That’s CO2Science’s description of the paper. Their words and they can’t be trusted. Again it’s ice cores so what’s likely happened is CO2Science have failed to take into account the core graph ends in something like 1900 and so are assigning the “current warm period” as 100 years out of date.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lolwot
Edim you are simply wrong. Disastrously wrong. Evil even.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Timg56 asserts “I’ll be out at the Hopkins Demonstration Forest south of Oregon City this Monday with 5th graders, if you care to see science in action.”
Timg56 asserts “As for the future mattering past 2100 … it certaintly will not matter to you or I. We’ll be dead.”
Timg56 asks “Why can’t you provide evidence to [that sea-level rise-rate will accelerate].”
Perhaps we can accomplish a three-step trifecta, timg56!
S1 Begin by telling your 5th graders “We denialists don’t care about the world your grandchildren will live in … and you shouldn’t care either.” Don’t accept any back-chat, timg56! Insist upon libertarian-style short-term market efficiency as the criteria for caring about the future! If any rebellious child dares to argue with you, first mock them, then abuse them, then expel them (this will prepare the children to participate in forums like WUWT).
S2 Have your fifth graders read Hansen’s “Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature.” Hansen’s vocabulary is well-within their comprehension! Then explain to the children why Hansen’s moral case are wrong.
S3 When the children ask ask “Why do many scientists foresee that sea-level rise will accelerate?, summarize for them the physical science and paleo-climatology that are surveyed in Hansen’s “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications.” Then explain to the children why Hansen’s scientific arguments are wrong.
If you do these three things, timg56, then your 5th graders will arrive a solid understanding of (1) how climate-change science works *AND* (2) how climate-change denialism works!
It’s fortunate that 5th graders have plenty of common sense, eh timg56? It’s certain that the will learn a *LOT*!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffdd&fg=ff2200&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by philjourdan
@Lolwot – note the comment was in reference to a comparison of the AVERAGE for the MWP (which we can put at roughly 300 years) and a time period AFTER 1990 (up to 2008 as that was the latest data quoted).
Ergo, 300 versus less than 20.
And my response was in response to TempTerrain, not Manacker. Learn to read.
↧
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Edim
Well lolwot, IMO you’re wrong and mislead.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Brandon Shollenberger
Glad to. The more I look at this paper, the more confusing I find its results. The data file includes a number of different “stacks,” and they are weird. The prime example is the Northern Hemisphere stack. It shows a massive increase in temperature between 1920 and 1940, but the underlying data doesn’t. There is only one NH series that increases in that period, and it increases by a smaller amount than the NH stack.
Results like that suggest a serious problem with their methodology.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by lolwot
Ha it was in response to me not tempterrain. You learn to read.
Also try to read what I was responding to. In which the MWP was compared to a 30 year period. An *old* 30 year period 1960-1990.
That was apparently OK, but I note the Earth has warmed since the 1960-1990 period taking us above the MWP.
↧
Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by Bart R
manacker | March 14, 2013 at 3:52 am | Reply
You cite, what, EIGHT guesses in various states of contextlessness?
There are hundreds of Climate Sensitivity papers, peer reviewed and published. You cite EIGHT figures from a salad of cherry-picked partial sentences, and call it “laid to rest”?
What skeptic would accept such a nonsensical premise as you offer?
↧
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by BatedBreath
Jim D | March 14, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Reply
An excerpt I saw from the new e-mails had some other warmist calling Mann’s stuff “crap”. It probably doesn’t play well to the “skeptic” conspiracy theory that there was even a debate in the emails about Mann’s work,
Jim D is very obviously new to the substance of Climategate. Anyone even faintly familiar with it knows only too well that various parties thought Mann’s “work” was crap, and furthermore that great care was taken to conceal disagreement from the public, so as to support political correctness and its bogus notion of the science being “settled”.
Once Mann’s deliberate frauds became too much trouble to defend, the establishment focus was slyly moved elsewhere, it being said the issue no longer mattered. But now that this Marcott new great white HS fraud has emerged, suddenly the establishment pronounce the issue does again matter. But, already its head has thwacked against the canvas a few times, and it seems unlikely he will last long enough to finish Round 1. We can thus expect the ‘consensus’ to again revert to saying that the issue isn’t really relevant.
↧
Comment on New perspectives on climate sensitivity by Bart R
Jim Cripwell | March 14, 2013 at 6:47 am |
So, pretty much as predicted, you’re Socratic-Methoding and equivocating, not discussing meaningfully.
What a waste of all our time.
↧
Comment on Let’s play hockey – again by Beth Cooper
Time ter git out on the hustings I’d say. fer freedom
of the press … Say yr an Australian, tempt, what do
yew say??
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
