Ice Core Data

Oh right. Citing a blog instead of real science. And you wonder why we take you guys so lightly. Get back to me when you learn how to read a scientific journal.

So you're denying the physics now? Do you realize how foolish you look?

Then how come you're citing blogs when I ask for real evidence?

It's not hard to discount "Kobaski" when there is no such scientist. And it's not hard to discount anyone who cites the work of a non-existent scientist because he read about it on some blog, rather than reading the actual peer-reviewed paper. In fact, if you had read the actual paper before rushing to cite it, you might have realized your mistake and saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

 

Spencer's credentials are quite fine in the "gee can I make a graph of temperature prediction versus actual department" thank you very much. I realize you don't like it, him having the training, paid experience and job pedigree, as well as access to data and understanding how to process it, that the "science is settled" gang would just as soon not deal with.

Get back to me when you've written them. I've got 5 in Natural Resources Research alone. Certainly don't pay that much attention to all that many climate change articles though. In the geologic world it is just a given, all the bad temperature projections being dreamed up just seem like a distraction when any geologist can take a glance back at the earths past and giggle at what passes for UNPRECEDENTED CHANGE among the geologically ignorant. Hell, ice core ignorant.

Do you realize that "have you stopped beating your wife yet" questions don't work against those who understand that regardless of the strength of a spurious relationship, it does not change the nature of the problem? And pretending that "PHYSICS" is what is causing bad temperature predictions is ridiculous, poor understanding of natural systems is doing that.

So I can't spell. "I don't give a damn for a man who can only spell a word one way". Mark Twain.

Knock yourself out, I didn't realize you knew less about this source than even I apparently do. Do you only read the articles which agree with your preconceived notions, that must be how you missed this one?

Takuro Kobashi, Kenji Kawamura, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean‐Marc Barnola,Toshiyuki Nakaegawa, Bo M. Vinther, Sigfús J. Johnsen, and Jason E. Box, High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444, 2011

Figure 1 works for me.

 

Lets check out that 'bloggers' credentials then shall we ?

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Now call me presumptuous but I'm getting the impression that this 'blogger' might know a little bit more about what he is talking about than you do and he has dramatically illustrated what a bunch of crap your beloved models are ... and I do mean ALL of them !

The physics is fine its your misinterpretation of it that isnt

Always remember the burden of proof is all yours to provide. You are the one with the increasingly dodgy hypothesis to defend after all

 

I've got no problem with Spencer's credentials. If he has something important to say, with the evidence to back it up, he can publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, in which case you can cite that and I'd happy to consider it. But if he can't back up what he says with evidence, he publishes on his blog, which means I discount it entirely. In fact, outside of his peer-reviewed work, Spencer's ideas range from overtly political to notoriously nonsensical.

So go ahead and cite Spencer when he's peer-reviewed. But don't cite his blog.

In other words, you don't read climate journals, you have no expertise in the subject, you can't cite one to save your life, and you are absolutely certain that they're wrong, whatever it is they say. Ah, there's nothing like the open mind of a climate denier.

Get back to me when you can find a geological citation that shows a geological climate change proceeding at a pace of 0.8°C per century. I'll be waiting. In fact, I'll be waiting a long time, because we both know there isn't one.

I'm pretending no such thing. I'm saying that physics explains the current temperature rise, which is a damn sight better than your non-explanation.

I didn't miss it at all. In fact, I read it when it first came out and I still have it in my files. Unlike you, however, I know the difference between "Greenland" and "global". Next time, you might want to check a map.

 

Right, and he's so darn sure that he's right that he has refused to subject this alleged illustration to peer-review. Which means, he's the one that's full of crap and he knows it. Get back to me when his illustration is actually published in a scientific journal.

Yet oddly enough, physics expert flogger can't point to a single error in physics on my part. I would say "nice try", but you're not even trying.

When you make utterly false statements, the burden of proof is on you. And it's a burden you have repeatedly failed to meet on this thread. Face it, flogger, your whole argument is built on a tissue of lies, for which you have provided zero evidence.

 

Why does it require a peer reviewed study to compare modelled temperatures with actual ones ? Do you have some reason to believe Spencer is deliberately trying to mislead us ? If so present your evidence ?

On the contrary most skeptics hold thier positions because of the science not in spite of it. I didnt become a skeptic until I went looking for the truth behind the media soundbites . Thats when I found there wasnt any !

Nonsense. There are dozens of such studies from all over the world

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

Both poles show the same too

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

 

Please cite any 'utterly false' statement I have made on this topic ? I require no evidence whatsoever as I have no hypothesis to defend. You cant seem to get your head round that part at all sadly

 

Why? I am only interested in the change from top to bottom, certainly in a constant area works for me as a proxy for past change versus present change, and Kobashi seems to have done a more respectable job than Easterbrook, that sets the bounds on the possible, even if only in that area. 4C seems completely reasonable, it isn't happening now, today's temps in the same area certainly aren't near as high as they have been before, so what are you getting your panties in a twist about? If Greenland, most of which lies in the Arctic can't see this UNPRECEDENTED warming, it feeds right back into, those who assert must also prove, besides for the rest of the world, if it ain't happening in the Arctic, where IS it happening? More than a decade of all time high emissions of CO2 and the temperature hasn't budged in that time frame.... things are looking a wee bit dicey...

 

Everything can be made to look unprecedent by the simple expedient of ignoring the precedents. This is how this crisis was first invented then maintained. The emperor can go without clothes for only so long before someone eventually calls him out on it though

 

Kobashi (2011) tends to shove a pretty nice scientific peer reviewed article right through the ability to do this...which then begs the question, WHY is the IPCC discounting paleoclimatology?

Debaters most recent dodge is very, very interesting because now that he is claiming only GLOBAL measurements matter, this is an indication he can't discount Kobashi's work, so he has to change the conditions somehow to avoid it. So he has basically run to satellite data which is all post 70's because obviously there was no GLOBAL temperature record prior to then, just smatterings of measurements, highly dense in some areas, completely missing in others. Undoubtedly he will try and defend this partial information as "global" next, and that obviously is just another dodge to avoid talking about Spencer's website and temperature measures from those satellites showing not so much warming as of late, and certainly nothing commiserate with the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since 1980 or so.

 

You can average it for 10 years. That doesn't mean it has a 10 year resolution. One 10 year block is indistinguishable from a neighboring 10 year block etc. etc.

 

Just plain wrong (again). Have you actually looked at the data you criticize? Apparently not. If you did, you would acknowledge the obvious: that you're just plain wrong. Again.

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

 

There isnt a single model has gotten it right yet and If that fact is upsetting you I cannot help that.

When you have decided that you alone are the arbiter of what is or is not false you mean ? Remember I have no shaky hypothesis to defend and you do

 

And yet your so-called "evidence" that models are wrong falls apart so badly when examined, that even you refuse to defend it. Face it, flogger, your entire argument is based on a tissue of lies.

On the contrary, YOU are the one who claimed, on the basis of zero evidence, that climate models are wrong. Your only defense of that statement fell apart like a house of cards.
YOU are the one who claimed, on the basis of zero evidence, that "todays temperatures and rate of change are quite unremarkable". You have not defended that statement, because you cannot. There is no evidence for it.
YOU are the one who claimed, on the basis of zero evidence and contrary to conservation of energy, that the oceans absorb energy without getting warmer. You have not defended that statement, because you cannot. There is no evidence for it.

 

You have been presented with all this now and multiple times across multiple threads and flatly rejected everything so stop wasting my time

 

So you're not defending your position? I win.

 

Good grief !