![Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/holocene_temperature_variations_rev1.png)
Excerpt from “Hello Anthropocene, Goodbye Holocene”:
: “As the official timescale keepers deliberate the introduction of the Anthropocene and a Holocene-Anthropocene boundary (Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy; Zalasiewicz, J., M. et al., 2010; http://goo.gl/wIm6X0 ), they should consider the alternative: Remove the Holocene Epoch from the geologic timescale. Whereas any timescale change is a contentious issue, let alone changes to an existing epoch, modern human society’s interactions with its planet and ecosystems, embodied by the Anthropocene, are sufficiently large to produce a lasting geologic marker that supports such modification. This new boundary would remain visible in the geologic record of oceans and continents (see also Corcoran et al., 2014 on plastics), meeting the stratigraphic requirements that ultimately underlie the timescale and marking a shift from the Pleistocene’s Milankovitch forcing to the Anthropocene’s human forcing.
The Holocene is a climate-centric placeholder for change after the latest Quaternary glaciation, but does not, as defined, match the accelerated changes in land, ocean and atmosphere that mark modern times. So, I suggest that (a) we remove the Holocene altogether in favor of a (young) Anthropocene Epoch that reflects planet-wide geologic changes since c. 1900 CE, or (b) we demote the Holocene to Stage/Age status, marking the end of the Pleistocene Epoch. The latter, perhaps more palatable compromise, would recognize historical precedent and allow continued use of Holocene in the literature as a temporal (“Age”) marker. Regardless, slicing the Quaternary Period in ever thinner epochs has no geologic merit. Given the degree and impact of modern, human-induced changes on our planet, a young Pleistocene-Anthropocene boundary seems justified.”
The journal titled The Holocene probably isn’t going to like this idea.
The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95% explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations, and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch. Thousands of paleoclimate papers show the Medieval, Roman, Egyptian, Minoan, and multiple other unnamed warm periods within the Holocene were warmer than the present. In addition, the Pacific Ocean has been significantly warmer than the present throughout vast majority of the Holocene.
Further, during the last interglacial ~120,000 years ago, Greenland was up to 8C warmer than the current interglacial warm period, and sea levels were up to 29 feet higher. Therefore, there is no evidence that warmth during the current interglacial warm period is unprecedented, unusual, or unnatural.
Therefore, there is no valid reason whatsoever to remove the Holocene Epoch “blip” from the geological timescale, despite how convenient it would be for the climate propagandists. Kinda bad timing too promoting the silly Anthropocene/Mannocene notion that man-made CO2 controls the climate given the 50+ excuses for the absence of global warming for the past 18-26 years despite a steady rise in CO2.
 |
| GISP2 Greenland ice core data in blue, the tiny 0.7C “Anthropocene” warming of HADCRU sea surface temperatures to present-day shown in red spliced at end |
 |
| Above GISP2 Greenland ice core data with labeled warm periods |
 |
| Present Greenland temperatures haves been exceeded many times over past 4000 yrs Full paper |
 |
| Temperatures during the last interglacial period ~120,000 years ago [and several other interglacials] were higher than during the present interglacial period. |
 |
| Holocene Epoch shown at lower right, as well as the lack of correlation on geologic timescales between CO2 and temperature. |
 |
| On geologic timescales, we are still in an ice age, because there are ice sheets present at both poles |
The Hockey Schtick writes:
“GISP2 Greenland ice core data in blue, the tiny 0.7C “Anthropocene” warming of HADCRU [sic] sea surface temperatures to present-day shown in red spliced at end”
“HADCRU” (actually HADCRUT) includes sea surface temperature data but it is not only sea surface temperature. HADCRUT also includes CRUTEM land surface temperature data–thus the CRU in HADCRUT.
Bob,
It was my understanding one can use HADCRU for Hadley Climate Research Unit (making the use here a reference to the provider of the data) and HADCRUT for the actual data set (making it a proper noun). I can see reading the sentence either way. ~”the data from Hadly C.R.U.” or with the T “the data set of these specific temperatures”.
HAD refers to Met Office Hadley Centre ( officially part of the ministry of defence) , CRU refers to U. East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
There is not ‘provider’ or organisation called HADCRU
We have entered a period of time when the science establishment does science fiction rather than science. It is unbelievable that anything that disagrees with their doomsday scenario must be eradicated, no matter how many papers and textbooks say it exists. I once read all of H.H. Lamb — but I guess he did not really exist since much of his work is the opposite of today’s delusions. (or will they just re-write his books?)
Why do they go to all the trouble of collecting temperature data from the field or doing proxy studies if they intend to just “adjust” the reading to suit theory? It would be more efficient to just make up whatever they were going to use anyway.
Good science fiction has to be believable
Nope.
Science fiction does not necessarily have to be believable but, it does have to suspend disbelief.
If Scotland breaks away from the UK then the UK average temperature will shoot up and the average rainfall will go down.
They use the climate models, and so must adjust the past until the climate models hind cast successfully, with CO2 dominant.
They do it because they have no understanding of the sedimentation of the Earth in time, planet they simply pretend to have a practical understanding of. They have done essentially zero geological field work or mapping of this planet so have no practical concepts or experience of the kind needed to grasp why geological time divisions exist, and why they have been to carefully described and divided as they have been in the first place.
As a result we have a bunch of ignorant coffee-slurping book worms addicted to air-conditioning and watching model-porn (the GIGO type) who are now telling the real observational scientists in the field to which they are not even connected or accredited in, as to how they should divide up geological time, and which terms geologists should use in their day to day professional work and research.
It’s as asinine as it’s pathologically ignorant and arrogant, so of course it’s a still-birthed nonsense from the outset and is much like a cohort of dodgy used car salesman trying to tell a Queens Council how to conduct themselves in a court of law.
Are you sure they don’t just make it up?
Field studies often have the merit of taking place in locations spread around the globe. The equivalent of a corporate executive packing the golf clubs on a business trip. One of the perks of the job.
In practical terms, exploration programs, seismic transects, drill core, geochem, dating then mapping the field relations and the structural histories of eight or ten deformed and overprinting major rock units within a 1,200 square mile exploration area, with rocks ranging in age from 90 my to 1600 my old. How are you going to sort that out?
Field studies on a junket with golf clubs and a cup of hot chips is not going to cut it. Doing it right keeps civilization’s lights on, allows it to eat and pays the bills to keeps people happy and oblivious to what goes into creating the ease and long life they enjoy. The alarmists have no understanding why things like the geological time scale matter or how it’s used and how it came to be the way that it is, so they have no place making any proposals about changing any part of it. They’re fools poking at buttons to get attention without a clue what the buttons they stab at even do.
Agree, it’s like the burning of books. It is how we lost so much info in the past as one civilisation destroyed all reference to the one that they replaced. Learning had to begin again and again from scratch. To think science is performing that very act now to fulfil it’s new theory is frightening and sickening
I can’t help but feel empathy to those who feel hopeless. The dilemma between a worldwide century long conspiracy of deluded scientists and the seventh mass extinction is a false one.
Humanity has harnessed nuclear fusion and have mimic’d the power of their sun without becoming extinct.
Humanity has caused and then diminished a hole in their ozone layer by modifying their collective behavior with respect to CFC emissions.
Humanity has caused and then diminished a major cause of lung cancer through controlling their collective behavior with respect to tobacco use.
Humanity has caused and then diminished acid rain that used to corrode their statues and poisoned forests, soils, rivers and lakes.
However, Humanity’s current challenge is coordinated action to mitigate its disproportionate impact on their own environment.
We become overly dependent upon a combustion technology that is creating a waste stream that alters the chemical composition of their atmosphere so that it retains additional heat.
This is a problem we can solve together.
Hanzo
hanzo says:
Humanity has caused and then diminished a hole in their ozone layer by modifying their collective behavior with respect to CFC emissions.
Well, well, another baseless assertion. Prove it, hanzo.
Likewise, the “acid rain” canard is verifiable nonsense.
There is no major “problem” with fossil fuels. On net balance, fossil fuels are indispensible. People are living longer, healthier lives as a direct consequence of fossil fuel use. I note that none of those telling the rest of us to stop using fossil fuels do without them. Hypocrites, no?
All of the climate alarmism we see is misguided nonsense. Sure, there are always problems. But every alarmist prediction has turned out to be flat wrong.
When someone is 100.0% WRONG in all their predictions, rational folks will disregard them as cranks and nincompoops. Start making correct predictions and people will start paying attention. But as of now, the alarmist crowd is promoting their religion based on always-wrong predictions; nothing more.
“…by modifying their collective behavior…”, “… through controlling their collective behavior…”, “…Humanity’s current challenge is coordinated action to mitigate…”, “This is a problem we can solve together.”
Wow. Quite a sermon Hanzo. I almost want to hold hands, dance around the Sacred Hockey Stick and sing Kum-by-ya. All you’re missing is the choir and the collection plate.
Should I shout “Amen” or “Forward !” after the last refrain ?
I think switching to an Anthropocene epoch at around 1900 would be beneficial to future historians – it could mark the end of the Age of Reason.
You almost made me destroy the keyboard with my morning coffee with that one, Eric… I am still chuckling. Thanks.
Quadruple + ^1
++1 ^^
Sad, but true
I was thinking 2009 … 😉
There is another way to consider this: How about: it is the beginning of the Age of Maturity – from 1992. After that, the ordinary person, educated, informed, thinking and rational, unafraid to ask questions, fearless in their tenacity to cleave to that which is right and provable, began to appear in numbers. They challenged the priestly pronouncements of the ‘elect’ and began a global movement wherein the independent investigation of truth became the norm for the average global citizen. The confounders and charlatans have had the upper hand, but are removing themselves from the ranks of the believable.
Thus freed from the constraints of the past (provoked by the unscientific ruminations of the self-appointed enviro-priests) Ordinary Men step forth from the shadows to take possession of their right to learn for themselves, to investigate and consider the evidence, to challenge the orthodoxy and to create a new foundation for a world based on truth.
The Age of Unreason extends far beyond mere matters of climate. We have a lot of things to undo, we investigators of reality. We are also laying the foundations of an ever-advancing civilization. Raging against the darkness brings naught. We must learn to turn on our own lights to dispel it.
Everyone, please let me know if you disagree with this thought:
They wish to remove the Holocene because the record of past (much) warm(er) periods is both a distraction from and a damning of, the current slight warming which they are trying to hype as catastrophic.
It doesn’t help their case if people are able to point to said record and ask why we haven’t already been destroyed.
(Mods, please don’t let my use of a possibly-banned word, block this from posting?)
They apparently don’t want to “remove” the Holocene, which is a geological period that can be differentiated from the Pleistocene by various lines of physical evidence. They want to place a termination on it and argue that the most recent past has been affected by human activity to the extent that it will be discernible geologically in the future. That may be true as far as it goes. The “climate” assumption is a fallacy. The definiton of a geological period requires some very well delineated evidence that separates it from periods preceding (and usually following).
Stratigraphic periods are formally recognized and defined officially by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (http://www.stratigraphy.org/) and the “anthropocene” has so far gotten very short shrift. There are two queries regarding an ICS official position on the “anthropocene” and no responses.
“The Earth’s Future” journal is plainly not geological, even though it appears to be an arm of the AGU. The “About” blurb states:
Journal Overview
A transdisciplinary journal exploring global change and sustainability. Understanding and managing our new and future relation with the Earth—the Anthropocene epoch, in which humans dominate Earth’s environment and ecosystems requires research and knowledge spanning diverse fields. Earth’s Future explores and fosters interactions among the Earth and environmental sciences, ecology, economics, the health and social sciences, agriculture and population research, and more. Its mission is to focus on the Earth as an interactive, evolving system to help researchers, policy makers, and the public navigate the science.
Entirely too squishy for geologists. Note that it specifically addresses the “Anthropocene.” BTW, what is the difference between “transdisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary”?
In 2009 the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) confirmed a change in time period for the Pleistocene, changing the start date from 1.806 to 2.588 million years BP, and accepted the base of the Gelasian as the base of the Pleistocene, namely the base of the Monte San Nicola GSSP. The IUGS has yet to approve a type section, Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), for the upper Pleistocene/Holocene boundary (i.e. the upper boundary). The proposed section is the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core 75° 06′ N 42° 18′ W. The lower boundary of the Pleistocene Series is formally defined magnetostratigraphically as the base of the Matuyama (C2r) chronozone, isotopic stage 103. Above this point there are notable extinctions of the calcareous nanofossils: Discoaster pentaradiatus and Discoaster surculus.
Thus, maybe the Anthropocene could be dated from the extinction of the passenger pigeon in 1914, or the great auk in 1844, or the dodo c. 332 years ago, or the moa, c. 600 years ago, or, switching to our fellow mammals, the Caribbean ground sloths c. 4400 years ago, or the last mammoths c. 4500 years ago. But how are those man-made extinctions any different from all the prior such species wipe outs?
Those extinctions are impossible to differentiate from “natural” extinctions, though it would seem that a statistical argument could be made. On the other hand, there are critters liken the ceolacanth that have no known fossil record for over 70 MY, yet there they are in Madagascan fish markets, so a statistical argument has its potential hazards. I can understand the argument based upon physical effects in the later Holocene due to the spread and rapid evolution of cities and agricultural effects, which are globally very extensive. However, removing the Holocene is a problem. Faunal markers change on a global basis at the end of the Holocene and there blank-all evidence that this is due to human activity.
Humans do expand remarkably following the Pleistocene, but there is every reason to argue that this is because basal H. sap. is a species that takes advantage of disturbed systems and there was an enormous disturbance at the end of the last glacial. Though it isn’t commonly considered, agriculture is an artificial local “disaster.” Swidden forms employ fire, while others clear trees, till soil and even fully disrupt sod formation. Rice agriculture uses both flooding and fire. When you turn to what’s planted, most plant species we use are descendants of “weeds,” that is, early succession-stage plants that follow fires and landslides and similar disruptions of local communities. That’s every thing from grasses to most berries. These plants all like lots of sun, which in forested environments is only present when something knocks the trees down or kills them. It is likely our early ancestors were drawn to smoke on the horizon, scars on mountain sides, floods and wind damage, just like other animals. But we are more efficient at it and learned to create our own “disasters.”
If you want a little climate alarmism, the figure showing the GISP2 Greenland ice core data with labeled warm periods always does it for me; not a good trajectory. We could use some global warming over the next several hundred years.
A warm planet is a happy planet.
This post highlights just what is so vile about climastrologists. It’s not enough that they push their pseudo scientific drivel –
“adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability..”
“DWLWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water free to evaporatively cool..”
“radiative subsidence plays no role in tropospheric convective circulation..”
“the oceans are a “near blackbody” not a selective surface..”
– no that’s not enough. They have to go and actively try and trash the work of other legitimate scientists. Climastrologists are not scraping the bottom of the barrel. They have clawed franticly through the rotting timbers of the base and are elbows deep in the feculant ooze below.
These scum know no shame. They have cost the world billions, killed thousands, yet they will just keep on lying to keep their ill-gotten grants flowing. The shame of it all.
But in the end there is a light. Sceptics have a permanent record of every name and every crime.
Sceptics never forgive and the Internet never forgets.
You sound like a crazy person. Take a walk and clear your head.
And you sound like someone who has no understanding of radiative physics.
I listed four false claims of the climastrologists.
Which do you dispute?
Go on. You called me “crazy”. You must be better at radiative physics and empirical experiment design than I am. (I’m sure I don’t know what alternate universe you exist in) Give it your best shot lukewarmner. Try your luck.
Or maybe it’s time to face facts. Lukewarmers were as scientifically illiterate as warmists. Oh the shame of it all!
Let’s get down to tin-tacks.
You aren’t that smart sunshine.
Questions?
You sound like a troll. Please think before posting and defend your argument with facts.
Hmm…
it is difficult to describe the irrational things the CAGW supporters are doing in a rational way, isn’t it?
The entire CAGW concept only holds up if one ignores reality or, as the OP shows, distorts it.
Brute, Konrad reflects my sentiments exactly. But to be more accurate, these so-called scientists have cost the world not billions, but HUNDREDS of billions.
> Sceptics never forgive and the Internet never forgets.
I disagree.
1) We were quite welcoming of Patrick Moore at ICCC-9, see http://climateconferences.heartland.org/patrick-moore-iccc9-keynote/
2) There are several things I haven’t been able to hunt down on the Internet, even things that used to be there.
Calm down, it’s not that bad.
I consider that Konrad has made some valid points, as regards the science and his comment that “They have cost the world billions, killed thousands…” is very probably an underassessment of what has gone on.
My understanding is that trillions of dollars has been thrown at this, and approximately 20% of the EU budget (which is vast) has now been ear marked for climate change matters. The last few years in the UK alone, there have been some 25,000 to 40,000 premature winter deaths, caused in no small part by the escalating cost of energy, and the wasting of government expenditure which if it had not been wasted could do more for the elderly and vulnerable. Just think what improvements might have been achieved had some of the money spent on climate science had instead been directed at cancer, heart, stroke.research etc.
The amount of grain exported from the US which use to form part of the WFP has been vastly cut back no doubt leading to starvation of many in Africa, and some commentators even suggest that the Arab Spring (that has led to tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of deaths) was partly caused by high food prices which in part was brought about by the biofuel programmes in the West.
I accept that some of Konrad’s language was somewhat colourful, but understandable in the circumstances. I suspect that at some stage in the future there will be a big backlash when people appreciate the full extent of the cAGW exagerations, the damage and costs of this to society, and the weak and distorted science upon which it was all based, and the overly politicised claims that it is settled science with the debate long over.
“They have clawed franticly through the rotting timbers of the base and are elbows deep in the feculant ooze below.”
now theres a sentence….
Yeah,I loved that. Got to say I agree with the basic sentiment though, I’m completely fed up with the utter mendacity of the alarmists and the apparent inability to take any cognisance of contradictory evidence.
Yet.
You can be sure that is being worked on as we type….
Feculant ooze sounds icky.
‘Given the degree and impact of modern, human-induced changes on our planet,’
They could have not made it clearly that is nothing to do with good science , everything to do with what they consider good politics to support their ideology.
Yes, exactly. Just commented the exact same thing to my Wife. This is a sickness.
And in response to Brute (just above). Konrad’s response is a normal acceptable human response to this madness. Maybe you should pay BETTER attention…… perhaps you’re not mad ENOUGH.
Yes indeed this is sheer madness, it truly baffles my mind the outright lies, fraud and propaganda put forth by these sick people we call alarmists. I hope Konrad is right and the day comes when they are to stand in judgement for their crimes.
How long?
And then they came for WUWT
[Please provide a legit email address. ~mod.]
The Anthropocene … when politics and ideology trumped science and reality.
It’s the thin-end of the wedge because then they’ll dig up some dopey quacks who want to eliminate the Quaternary, via pointing out that human ancestors were around for all of it, so that will have to go next.
Just tell them to get stuffed.
So now double-think and history revision time? “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia” No way geos are going to stop using the term Holocene. What’s next, eliminate the Archean to make a bunch of agenda driven fringe astronomers or creationists happy? If they don’t like science stuff they should just get a new hobby that doesn’t involve it.
Eastasia
The Holocene should have never been defined as an Epoch. It should have been defined as a Pleistocene interglacial stage. The only geological significance of the Holocene is the dominance of humans. Otherwise it is an unexceptional interglacial stage. If the ICC wanted to rename the Holocene Epoch as the Anthropocene Stage, it might make sense. The Pleistocene-Holocene transition left a much more significant ‘mark’ in the geologic record than anything humans have done over the last 150 years.
The reason why it is different is because the now and the most geologically recent is distinguished by being our very best observational resolution. Once the icesheet roll that goes out the window. It was defined differently because European geologists looking at the sediments in and around the Alps and other places recognized it was just the most recent and best preserved record of a post glacial warming within an ice age. So the Holocene division is entirely valid and a natural and necessary geological division of time that is not going to be abandoned.
The branch of Arts that has pretensions to becoming a science one day and which actually deals with human beings is called Archaeology and they can call it anything they want to because geologists have nothing to do with them, for the most part.
And if some malcontent warmer ‘climatologists’ want to admit they’re really just artists at heart and don’t like study of Earth, then they can combine forces with Archaeology and Anthropology, and make up their own terms to their heart’s content within the Quaternary and Holocene. As we won’t mind for no one cares what any of them do because we don’t use or abuse their ‘discipline’s’ nomenclatures and stuff.
Contrived nonsense quandry solved.
“It was defined differently because European geologists looking at the sediments in and around the Alps and other places recognized it was just the most recent and best preserved record of a post glacial warming within an ice age.”
Yup……….And exactly why the mad hatters want to get rid of it.
All the great scientists through the ages are turning over in their graves. Let’s get the historians involved too. What great fun to rewrite human history. I get dibs on the 17th century. Kind of boring. Needs a little juicing up .
IMO the 17th century was one of the most important and least boring in human history.
The climate obsessed in their most extreme form are destructive parasites, consuming history, data, and most of all our money. They ditch their critical thinking, ethics, integrity all in furtherance of their obsession.
The obsessed are as shameless as 19th century Millerites dressed in white gowns standing on their roofs waiting on the rapture, but with none of the Millerite redeeming qualities like caring for others.
removing all ref to the warmists and burning their books:-0 and film dvd etc etc
would be SO much better.
Keep some records as stark examples of the abuse possible by the self-decalred elites.
Like keeping copies of “Birth of a Nation” or propaganda films from tyrannies.
The Holocene is plainly visible here [at the left side of the chart; the clear warming during most recent ≈10,000 years].
I do not understand how they continue to call this “science.” It does not resemble ANY science I ever studied, with the possible exception of science fiction.
It’s a cult based on some bastardzed alchemy and thaumaturgy.
Deary, deary, me! What depths have they plummeted to when they stoop to the techniques of fabrication, adjustment, alteration, & re-writing of history, to further a political cause, that their forefathers fought & died to preserve their freedom & democracy, fighting against such tyrannical tactics! How long do we sceptics have before we’re rounded up & sent off to large camps for re-education or worse. I don’t think I am joking at this point. If the greenalists can oust reasonable people from senior positions through political influence, such as is rife at the BBC & other once great & hallowed institutions both scientific & non-scientific, if they can place false labels upon the likes of UK mathematician & educator & former childrens’ tv presenter Johnny Ball, maliciously linking them to paedophile websites purely to discredit them, there is no depth to which they will not sink!
There were people who liked to re-write history when it was inconvenient to their narrative, they were red on the outside as well as the inside. Same people, they just wear Barbour jackets now.
Gentleman,
Below is an opinion of an advocate of warming trend. I would appreciate opinions without sarcasm. It is important to me because my belief is that the climate change issue, if it is valid at all, was hijacked by politicians for political and financial gain. Anyway, this is the first Ive heard of the “Equilibrium” factor and would like to know if it is a valid point of contention.
WUWT articles have been influential in convincing me of my belief that CC and/or global warming was a creation of falsehoods and I do thank all of you that contribute in the reader comments.
Anyway here it is:
I want to make an honest effort to help you understand one of the key errors in your recent response. Please set aside all your anger and emotions and just read this as the set of facts that it is.
The concept you missed is called Equilibrium. It is the state that happens when all inputs balance out and the system is in a stable state.
That describes the climate (including water vapor) prior to our introduction. It had a specific energy equation that had roughly the same amount of energy entering the climate as was leaving the climate for a net balance that we call Equilibrium. As long as everything remains the same the temperatures on average will remain the same.
Systems like the climate are also known as chaotic systems. These systems, for various reasons too deep to go into here, respond with large outputs to small inputs. Think of a sand pile. It will remain stable as you add grains until suddenly a single additional grain results in an avalanche. One single grain is all it took at that point to cause the system to migrate to a new state.
The climate is very much like this. For millennia it was in a state of equilibrium that included the effects of water vapor and a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (around 200 ppm or so). The temperature of the earth at that time represents the equilibrium state of equal energy in to energy out.
Now we come along an add a massive (yes, Paul, massive) amount of CO2 to the atmosphere in addition to all the water vapor and existing CO2 that were part of the system when it was in equilibrium.
That additional CO2 traps MORE heat and therefore the system needs to increase in temperature to regain equilibrium. In other words the new state is achieved at a higher overall temperature. It quite literally cannot be any other way.
The point is that you missed the principle of Equilibrium. Your bloogers are counting on such ignorance to make their point which is why I think so little of them. They base their ‘arguments’ on bogus data that is contrived to sound good to an ignorant person.
Equilibrium is easy to miss, because it has never happened. Climate never holds steady for any period of time….dynamic as opposed to static. You are representing an optimum that is only “passed through” as temp rises or falls.
My other response did not include your term “traps the heat”, or your point in how massive the amount of CO 2 we put into the atmosphere. Are you referring to 3% of the total? The oceans release more in one day.
Paul, your friend could easily fool a lot of people with this charade. His entire premise rests on one statement: “For millennia it was in a state of equilibrium that included the effects of water vapor and a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere” Debunk the base assumption and the rest of his logic is obviously flawed.
So, simply prove a few things:
1. The temperature during the last “millennia” (12,000) years has been higher and lower then today.
2. In the past, levels of CO2 were higher, while temperatures were lower.
3. In the past, levels of CO2 were lower, while temperatures were higher.
Good luck!
Eric
And ask, “which changed first in the past, the atmospheric temperature or the CO2 level”?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor83826
Just saying equilibrium is simplistic. While true, the typical argument assumes a more linear response to the gas mixture than actually exists. Rational folks don’t deny that CO2 has some impact on heat content. The debate is whether it is dangerous or large. An understanding of the absorption characteristics of CO2 is required to understand the situation. Suggest understanding the info in this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/
Paul, No one here would accuse me of being a scientist. But the simple fact is that the worlds climate has NEVER been in “equilibrium”. His initial premise is flawed.
Eric Sincere says : “Paul, your friend could easily fool a lot of people with this charade.” That is a true but extremely sad statement. There was a time in the (U.S) education system that an average eighth grader could have easily and confidently seen fallacy of the initial premise.
Sadly education has taken a back seat to indoctrination and social “shaping”.
Paul,
Take a look again at that Holocene graph up top. It is characterized by a lot of bouncing and jiggling inside of a massive rise, then rounding over, preparing for the next plunge back into a glacial. There is NO equilibrium there.
It isn’t us who have ‘missed it’ somehow. It was never there. It is a fantasy strawman made up to use as a backdrop to confound natural cycles and excursion with human activity.
@ paul: September 16, 2014 at 3:57 am
“Anyway, this is the first Ive heard of the “Equilibrium” factor and would like to know if it is a valid point of contention.”
——————
Given the fact that the word “contention” is defined as a “heated disagreement” then “YES”, …. when injected into or presented for discussion, ….. the afore defined/explained “Equilibrium” factor, ….. as well as the “Mass Balance” factor, … are both of little more value than any other “junk science” claim and thus will usually always “spark” a heated discussion from a real scientist iffen he/she feels compelled to respond to said display of miseducated and/or intentional ignorance.
Paul
” … The concept you missed is called Equilibrium. It is the state that happens when all inputs balance out and the system is in a stable state. That describes the climate (including water vapor) prior to our introduction. …”
—
Paul, we are not “introduced” to this planet as you so strangely framed the reality of humanity. We evolved here, this is our home, we are the product of that equilibrium. You seem to regard humanity like some “introduced” pest which emerged from an alien spaceship to despoil a perfectly balanced paradise. That sort of stuff is pretty easy to dismiss, so I do reject the orientation of your whole argument that humans are disequilibrium agents from the very beginning.
This is our home planet, we were never meant to exist anywhere else, we are totally adapted to here and now. We are not adapted to the Permian Earth, we are adapted to right now, and so is everything else. We survived everything and WILL do as we see fit to further aid our interests and survival as we judge necessary. And yes, as anyone trained in the basics of palaeontology will tell you, we do in fact have a use by date, we don’t know what it is, but it will in fact expire at some point, so we will do what we do until then, and who knows what things we will do before that. Hopefully we will diversify and travel to the extent we can nullify that use by date.
Now if other critters and plants don’t wish to participate in a planet of the human apes, then that’s unfortunately not an elective at present. Equilibrate to that reality and you’ll see things a bit differently.
You need to re-read the beginning of Paul’s post. Your quote was Paul’s quote of someone else.
@ Jeff Alberts September 16, 2014 at 7:30 am
Ah, thanks Jeff, I see that now, I’d considered he must be referring to himself where he wrote, “Below is an opinion of an advocate of warming trend.” If there were quotation marks, some spacing and a source it would have been clear he was quoting someone else’s opinion.
Judth Curry addressed this () argument when testifying before Congress. She said
“All things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet. However, all things are never equal”
Real world chaotic systems are never in “Equilibrium”. Energy inputs to the system (radiation from the Sun, nearby stars, geothermal heat) are not constant. Energy loss into space is not constant either. Small changes in inputs can result in large changes to the state of the system.
Current thinking is that clouds play a far greater role on temperature then CO2. Perhaps an increase in CO2 does in fact lead to a wetter warmer world. Well a wetter warmer world has more clouds which reflects more sunlight which means a cooler world. And there are a bazillion other factors at play.
Personally I thing the best argument against the CAGW theory is that it is not happening.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman
I googled, what R.P. Feynman and A. Einstein said about climate Change. I found nothing. Then I wanted to Google what they said about thermal equilibrium. But I didn’t. Instead I thought about it. A thermal Equilibrium must exist – at least in the laboratory. Otherwise you can’t measure temperature reliably.
Id like to give a VERY BIG TY to all who too the trouble of replying to my post. All of your input was read and I sincerely appreciate WUWT now and into the future.
WUWT I have found to be somewhat of a group think tank and the give and take is of real value to me!
paul
GO back and study chaotic systems again,and then ask yourself honestly what ‘equlibrium’ you can apply to such systems: they have none.
Also another mistake you made. Chaos does not mean little things case big changes. It may mean that big things cause little changes.
Looking back at the last couple of million years reveals absolutely no equilibrium of any sort, nor any obvious connection between carbon dioxide and temperature.
What is man made here is a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature that is way beyond what the basic physics allows, made for political and commercial reasons, not scientific ones, a now demonstrated to be utterly at odds with reality.
The concept you missed is called Equilibrium
A concept which has nothing whatsoever to do with climate.
These systems … respond with large outputs to small inputs.
And conversely, low outputs to large inputs.
Climate is never in equilibrium. It fluctuates on cycles of various time scales, with everything from oceans of molten lava covering the planet to oceans of water ice. For the past 543 million years, it has been relatively stable, yet still fluctuating through about 20 degrees C average global T. It is now very near the low end of that range.
CO2 has varied widely, if not wildly, during the Phanerozoic, from several thousand ppm in the Cambrian to perhaps 150 ppm during the depths of ice ages. That’s about the level at which C3 plants starve.
During interglacials, global average CO2 gets into the 300s ppm or higher. The move from around 280 ppm c. AD 1850 to ~400 now (if the reconstructed and measured record is to be believed) is nothing special. It means about one more CO2 molecule per 10,000 dry air molecule (from ~3 to ~4). By contrast, the moist tropics have around 400 H2O molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules, ie 100 times as many as CO2 molecules. So the GHE of adding one more GHG molecule is at best negligible there. In the temperate zones and dry tropics, CO2 is still swamped by H2O (global average is around 30,000 ppm). Only in the coldest polar regions do CO2 levels begin to approach the lower H2O concentrations there, but that’s when the sun isn’t shining in the dark Arctic and Antarctic winters. So globally, the heating effect of CO2 is not significant, without making assumptions about positive H2O feedback which are not in evidence.
In any case, the effect of more CO2 is logarithmic (ie most of its heating effect occurs in the first 100 ppm), so that doubling the GHG from three parts per 10,000 to six (ie 600 ppm at some hypothetical future point) would increase global T at most 1.2 degrees C, and then only if the atmosphere behaves as gases do in the lab. That’s not likely.
I think the bigger point is that you missed what equilibrium is yourself. Most people who come to wuwt understand it much better than you do.
The entire concept of homeostasis and/ or equilibrium is nothing but a weird religious delusion you and other cultists use without any thought. This planet has never been in either state… And the data is clear that the one constant on our four billion year old planet is that the climate changes constantly often without a known reason. So where does your religious delusion come from??
Probably straight from Christian texts about this never changing garden of Eden that only exists in the minds of believers. You see, this garden of Eden was perfect until evil man wrecked it, and so you follow in the steps of other cultists who also believe that this promised land did exist and that we can somehow return there after a tribulation.
So in conclusion… Us skeptics do understand that alien concept of equilibrium, we just understand that it’s a delusion.
I believe that homeostasis and equilibrium are valid concepts, regardless of your religious beliefs, or lack thereof.
The problem is defining the system.
Paul – there is no principal of “equilibrium” outside of chemistry. The idea that there is such a beast is a fairy tale at best. If you actually do the literature research to develop an informed opinion – and that is not sarcasm though you may very well feel it to be – you will find that there is no geological period in earth’s history where climate has been at some equilibrium, ever. The nearest thing to evidence that might “support” a hypothesis of a climatic “equilibrium” is seen in a graph on http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm. This data indicates a maximum limiting global temperature of about 25 C, which is considerably warmer than the present, which is shown as about 11 C. Since equilibrium implies a central zone around which a physical system tends to, the upper boundary of 25 C really is not an equilibrium value, though it has far and away more presence in the geological record than lesser values.
Plotted against CO2 concentrations over the Phanerozoic, it is clear that unless you consider that limiting temperature at which the global climate has hovered for most of the last half-billion years a catastrophe, catastrophe simply cannot happen because of CO2. Otherwise, it would already have ensued long before upright apes began to develop delusions of grandeur. This is the difference between observational science and models.
I think we should get rid of WWII and the Holocaust. That War makes Germany look bad so I think we should put it aside, it is very inconvenient for me when I try to persuade people that Germany is a superior country. I suggest we consider that time Prehistoric and only consider after 1950 as a time when Man finally became intelligent and civilized. I think we will also need to adjust the Calendar so that 1950 is year 1. In 2145 my technique will work really good on the youth as they will understand Germany is the Superior Country.
I’ve loved science all my life. I’m just about done with it- and anyone who claims to be associated with it- as a result of shenanigans like this.
I think ithis can be explained with this well know phrase: For the love of money is the root of all evil…
…well known…
Well known, and the exact opposite of the truth.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. (First sentence from provided link)
Sorry Dav09, The phrase “money is the root of all evil” is a misquote from the Biblical premise/quote: “LOVE OF money is the root of all evil” (please no Biblical linguists.. I KNOW I’m simplifying). It has an entirely different meaning.
The excerpt you provide starts with the INCORRECT phrase and therefore has no validity or meaning in reference to the actual accurate phrase.
Please don’t get me wrong. I am a capitalists capitalist (lol whatever that means), and I have nothing against Ayn Rand.
It’s a common confusion … one that some have used through the ages to their conscious advantage.
“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? …” (Paragraph part way through link provided by Dav09.)
The “money speech” in Atlas Shrugged begins with a response to the common mistake of the quote, spoken as a cliche at a party.
The accurate quote (another cliche) is also dealt with in the speech, Lawrence. If you read the whole speech to which he linked, there is no cause for confusion. It is chock full of validity and meaning.
BillK, I indeed stand corrected … and embarrassed. I saw the “premise” in the first sentence and of course made the resulting assessment. My wife, who gets called by me on sometimes being less than careful in her reading and not “paying attention” is gleeful at the moment and I am receiving the appropriate “busting” as we speak. You have a fan. LOL
She is preparing the fresh crow now. 🙁
The public won’t buy what the AGWarmistas are selling unless it will help heat the home in the coming 30 year cool down.
The Anthropocene will be the AWP ca. 1900-2016. LIA2 next.
The article referenced in the link indicates 79 foot higher sea levels, but the text of link indicates 29. Both make today’s rising concerns seem rather silly, but I am curious as to which it is: “Further, during the last interglacial ~120,000 years ago, Greenland was up to 8C warmer than the current interglacial warm period, and sea levels were up to 29 feet higher.”
“1900 CE” …do these people based this on the bible?
Rather than just airbrushing out previous eras when Gaia was hot and frisky, why not pay a little visit to that discreet little shop in town?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/the-pause/
Pointman
We are drowning, drowning in nonsense! We’ll send 3,000 troops to fight ebola but only 300 to fight ISIL. Mods, if this is OT I’ll forgive you.
your president, secretary of state, and heads of the military have all announced the climate change is the greatest threat facing the US. because of course the results of fighting this enemy will only be seen long after everyone involved has retired.
IS, Ebola, forget about it. these problems will have immediate results and thus no one wants to fight them, lest their failures become all too evident. it is all about ass covering. that is the real problem they are trying to solve.
In my readings over the years evolutionists hide data, Baptists ignore data, and our society as a whole in the US is so politically oriented, We have lost evaluation judgment. We, in a way have become tribal and the Elite of the Washington Beltway do as they wish.
What data have “evolutionists” ever hidden? Creationism OTOH is based solely on lies. Evolution is an observed fact and a well-supported body of theory, like gravitation, plate tectonics, the atomic theory of matter and the germ theory of disease. The repeatedly falsified conjecture (not even a valid hypothesis) of catastrophic man-made climate change is neither.
What’s so offensive about Creationism or Intelligent Design, if one recognizes that evolution is the process by which it is accomplished?
I guess this is part of “improving the communication” that’s discussed about so much.
As George Santayana said
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Some ‘Climate Scientists’ have no higher ambition than to reduce the population of the world to a state ignorant infancy in which they will become the new shamans. Opposition will then become not just ‘denial’ but blasphemy,
They should recall the final option of the downtrodden ‘A bas les aristocrates. A la lanterne ‘
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
Before they are done the entire history of the world will be rewritten and this time will be known as the time that science was eliminated and replaced with propaganda.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Data, not models.
Scotese has had this, http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm, posted without change since 2002. He had it the same before, but added the light-gray line at the top (recent time). I suppose he was pressured by the alarmists.
Anyway, one of my favorites quotes:
“During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”
Dr. C. R. Scotese
Cold kills. Warmer is better. (Ask the dinosaurs.)
“[…] a shift from the Pleistocene’s Milankovitch forcing to the Anthropocene’s human forcing”
Milankovitch forcing supposedly OBSolete due to anthropogenic CO2 ???
Name the current political epoch:
The OBScene — an era when OBServations meant SFA (sweet f*** all).
in shorthand:
“The OBS”
where “O” = obsessive
and “BS” = BS (bullsh*t)
Better yet:
Let’s simply call it:
“The BS-cene”
If Milankovitch forcing is supposedly now subordinate to anthropogenic CO2, we’re definitely in the political BS-cene.
Has anyone informed the natural climate cycles the have been let go?
symptomatic of the mistaken belief that mankind is the center of the universe.
Their obsessive-compulsive anthropomorphism is a poor disguise for obsessive-compulsive misanthropy, which and threatens to pull a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde act at any moment.
Lets face it, the only way this type of stupidity is ever going to end is if we enter a new little ice age. Even then, I don’t doubt that there would be droves of climate scientists scrambling for grant money to prove how horrible and disastrous the warming will be once the “slight pause” in global warming ends. They wont be able to use climate change at that point because the climate would have changed against them, so they will return to using global warming.
I tend to agree with you on this.
With the exception of the planet at its birth and sometime after, and its predicted fiery demise when the Sun becomes a red giant, has there ever been a period too warm to support life?
Come to think of it, could average temperature of these hot end points, and all of the ice ages i between constitute an “equilibrium”?
Simply eliminate the Holocene from the record? Up to what date, 4004 BCE? Step by step they are inching towards Creationism to support their belief system.
I’ve got a better idea–forget ‘Anthropene’ as a geologic term altogether. If you consider the vast number of geologic events that left impacts on the Earth (Ice Ages, volcanic activity, tectonic events, etc) and compare it to the discernible, lasting impact of humans it’s laughable–what manmade, significant effect can you now see on Earth beyond the pyramids, Myan ruins, and Mt. Rushmore? Well, maybe the Panama canal, but is that worth naming a 10,000 year epoch after? Man is the flea on an elephant’s back–we’re just along for the ride. Humans have had virtually no lasting effect on the geologic record.
“The Holocene is a climate-centric placeholder for change after the latest Quaternary glaciation, but does not, as defined, match the accelerated changes in land, ocean and atmosphere that mark modern times.” Whoever wrote this is not only uninformed, they are just plain stupid! They want to redo the geologic time scale on this basis?
Is there no end to the climate dogma?
The “Panamacene”? 🙂
Perhaps the Arrogantscene?
Thank you Don! I was thinking this myself. What happens to our present world civilization in say 1000 years should we have a complete and utter civilization scale failure? What happens to all the superstructures of steel like suspension bridges and sky scrapers? Should the earth decide to go earth quake and volcanic on us followed by a good ice age, all the works of mankind shall be scraped, crushed, rusted and buried to oblivion. I have been in the New York City subways a lot the past five years, and I have to say as a professional builder I saw the underbelly of NYC simply rusting away, Anthropocene, or whatever “they” are toying with is just stupid and just another fabrication to keep the CAGW scam narrative alive while the earth is cooling….
I’ve never heard such a load of balls in my life
They can have the Holocene as long as they leave the Pleistocene alone, I have more relatives there.
HH Lamb would turn in his grave
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/hh-lamb-sea-level-changes/
Thanks, Paul.
Centinel2012: September 16, 2014 at 4:55 am
“….. and this time will be known as the time that science was eliminated and replaced with propaganda.”
———————–
Just another “repeat of history”, ….. like was the burning of the Library of Alexandria and thus all science was eliminated and replaced with Religious propaganda ….. and the subsequent 1,500+ years of what is now referred to as The Dark Ages.
And even though the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment reestablished science to its rightful place, there are, to this very day, tens of millions of individuals that believes in and/or adheres to the Religious doctrine that had its origin at the beginning of said Dark Ages.
I cannot think of anything that exemplifies hubris, arrogance, conceit or self-importance more than the term “Anthropocene”. The concept is truly laughable and pathetic.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens, maybe?
How about Homo not so Sapiens?
As Orwell noted, revising the past is so much easier than being truthful.
As with Team IPCC ™, unable to produce any scientific evidence for their policies, after all these years of policy based evidence manufacturing, they have reverted to that tried and true tool of Statists; Rewrite History.
The Age of Unreason .
I have wondered if the reality of our place in the Cosmos has made too many people believe they are so insignificant that they should give up now.
We are so insignificant in the face of natural events here on earth, that we seem too timid to tackle getting up out of this gravity well. Instead we have reverted to breast beating, delusion and waiting for the Asteroid.
Maybe those photo’s of this blue/green planet from the Apollo Era, had the opposite effect on our “Progressive” friends, I wanted to get out there, had great confidence we would, instead we have huddled in terror building an unsustainable welfare cocoon, where we bore our children to tears and supply them drugs to dull their boredom.
Is there a connection between the vastness of reality and our cringing self despite?
When did “I do not know”, become a mark of shame rather than wisdom?
I am at a loss between two Einstein quotes on this one:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
or
“The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.”
― Albert Einstein
lol, thanks!
I personally would like to eliminate all musical history starting right about the time disco was introduced.
One can only dream, kind of like certain climate scientists do.
I´m for removing the Holocene from the nomenclature, because it refers to the last 2.6 million years, the period of ice ages alternating with short term warmer interglacials. Eventually we will have another ice age, and the cycle should repeat until the continents move around.
Using the term anthropocene sounds a bit premature.
I meant it refers to the tiny tail end of the Pleistocene. THere´s no need to name a geologic time period when it´s so short and there´s no significant change in the overal planet´s condition.
Please see my comment below, advocating the same.
I always liked Wilson’s “Magpies of Picardy”, the penultimate stanza of which reads:
“He said that still through chaos
Works on the ancient plan,
And two things have altered not
Since first the world began—
The beauty of the wild green earth
And the bravery of man.”
Now the verse needs amended to read: “The power of the wild blue earth and the brevity of man”.
Ever feel like sometimes you are Winston Smith and the alarmists are O’Brien?
Somewhere along the way, science took a left turn and left reality. I think it comes from compartmentalizing – striving to find your own niche. Consider cancer research. At some point it left the playing field of trying to conquer cancer and went off into splintered areas “looking for carcinogens” instead of trying to understand how to reverse the process that causes cancer to happen. Billions of dollars have been wasted, literally, chasing after inconsequential knowledge, but niche science is where the money is.
The same goes with climate studies. Once the presumed relationship between molecular isotopes and various possible conditions was discovered, niches formed drawing grant money to pad the research. Some useful things have come from niche studies, but the trouble with niche studies is that they don’t always apply well to the total picture. Somewhere along the line, everyone seems to have forgotten that proxies are not data, they are presumptions based on guesses.
Proxies are based, in part at least, on the known temperature record. If the physical record is true, than the proxy based on it has some validity, but it is still a guess. All proxies are calibrated, if you will, from the physical record of information, yet in the past 30 years, that physical record has been manipulated so much that it is hard to know what actually is the true record, and yet the proxies based on those records are still assumed to be just as valid as they were when the record was vastly different than it is now.
In my mind, if the record upon which the proxies were calibrated has changed, then it is time to recalibrate the proxies as well. I wonder, if that was to happen, what would the ice core and mud cores then reflect? Was it warmer or colder, more CO2 or less CO2, higher water vapor in the air at 1000 meters or less? And that last statement is part of the problem as I see climate studies – assuming you can tell what the air or water temperature was 10,000 years ago at 1000 meters above or below the surface – based on proxies which are based on best guess, but treated as if it was absolute data.
Tom O September 16, 2014 at 8:55 am
but niche science is where the money is
You have it – right there. No scientist in academia appears to be interested in knowledge for its own sake, the research has to bring in research grants, more students, result in large numbers of papers cited by larger numbers of others. It is all about fame and fortune.
Worse still, research is expected to come up with a desired result or it has ‘failed’. But that is totally incorrect, a research result is valuable even if it falsifies the original hypothesis; but try to sell that to the Grants department who want a satisfied customer.
We are living Eisenhower’s nightmare.
You know when I first read the Headline I thought it made good sense. I thought they were going to suggest that we were still in the Pleistocene. I see nothing about the Holocene that makes it different from any other interglacial in the Pleistocene.
It isn’t. It was elevated to Epoch status before science knew as much about Ice Ages as now.
http://www.academia.edu/2708563/Formal_Subdivision_of_the_Holocene_Series_Epoch
The Holocene is the most recent stratigraphic unit within the geological record and covers the time interval from 11.7 ka BP until the present day. The term
Holocene, which means ‘entirely recent’, was first used by Gervais (1867–69) to refer to the warm episode that began with the end of the last glacial period, and which had previously been referred to as ‘Recent’ (Lyell, 1839) or ‘Post-Glacial’ (Forbes, 1846). It was formally adopted by the International Geological Congress (IGC) in 1885 to refer to this episode and to the appropriate unit in the stratigraphic record. Along with the preceding Pleistocene, the Holocene is now formally defined as a Series/Epoch within the Quaternary System/Period (Gibbard et al, 2005).
“Epoch” is pretty arbitrary, anyway. The reduced Pliocene now lasts only 2.75 million years, while the preceding Miocene about 17.7 million.
“It isn’t. It was elevated to Epoch status before science knew as much about Ice Ages as now.”
Periods, Epochs and Stages are under continuous review, it never stops. The years are continually adjusted and definitions continually tweaked but always based strictly on hard data not whimsy or theoretical fashion-sense. The Holocene is an Epoch because it’s needed as a discrete reference Epoch. It is not a mistake, nor a premature action which was not later rectified. It is perfectly correct as it now stands and it serve an indispensable intended role, and it isn’t going away.
Holocene translates to mean, “Entirely Recent”. The other interglacials are not entirely recent. We have nothing even resembling the direct knowledge of them which we have for the entirely recent. Which makes the geological context of the Holocene plenty different from all the other interglacials. Geology largely isn’t the slightest bit interested in the fact that human civilization arose in the Holocene, that is not what we study, it is the rocks and sediments of the Holocene that tell us a detailed story that no other period does and it is most definitely the Rosetta-Stone to decoding and understanding the past. And there is no other period that does that to anything like the same extent.
To moronically propose to call it the “Anthropocene” misses the entire point of why it is a geologically defined Epoch in the first place, it pertains entirely to the study of the rocks and sediments of the whole earth during that period.
So why the hell would we ever call it the fricken Anthropocene?! ROFLMAO!
No if people in the Humanities disciplines of Anthropology and Archaeology want to call it the Anthropocene I have no objection whatsoever. They can do anything they like as no one cares what they do in the humanities studies. No one in science will probably even notice if they use a different term for the Holocene. Who cares?
But the warmer/alarmist clowns can shutup about proposing to rename a geological Epoch after something which has nothing whatsoever to do with geology. Maybe we can then rename evolutionary biology studies “Alternate Creationism” to make the Church-goers happier?
We don’t care if people are not happy with our terms, it’s none of they damned business what terms geologists professionally use.
It will have everything to do with geology. All studies, measurements, and empirical observations will be found to support human-caused “tipping points” in earth systems in the Anthropocene Age.
The following should be understood as the decision of the “community of practitioners” for the new Paradigm:
“Remove the Holocene Epoch from the geologic timescale. Whereas any timescale change is a contentious issue, let alone changes to an existing epoch, modern human society’s interactions with its planet and ecosystems, embodied by the Anthropocene, are sufficiently large to produce a lasting geologic marker that supports such modification. This new boundary would remain visible in the geologic record of oceans and continents (see also Corcoran et al., 2014 on plastics), meeting the stratigraphic requirements that ultimately underlie the timescale and marking a shift from the Pleistocene…”
Those who wrote your text books can perfectly well re-write them.
Zeke
You wrote
Does that mean your real name is Winston Smith?
Richard
Good luck to them making it stick zeke, that are not playing in the kiddies end of the pool this time.
“We don’t care if people are not happy with our terms, it’s none of they damned business what terms geologists professionally use.”
—————–
And therein is the “root” of the problems that are responsible for 90+% of all the “heated” discussions about climate, weather and science in general.
When the pre-1970/80s professionals in/of all the science disciplines “didn’t care” what the terminology was that was being printed in the textbooks …. and subsequently being taught to all the younger generations of students, …. the results of the teaching of “science illiteracy” is now self-evident throughout the populace.
And worse yet, when 80+% of the currently employed Educators are the “product” of the aforesaid “science illiteracy” education ….. it is highly improbable that the “problem” can easily be corrected because it has now become “self-perpetuating”.
Absurdity at the highest level. The past 100 years being one of the most unchangeable(STABLE ) climate period since the end of the last major glaciation some 20000 years ago..
The “community” of “researchers” are just “structuring” a little “scientific revolution.” The new scientific paradigm is so shocking and different from the previous interpretations of data that new vocabulary and language is required, indicating a complete split from the previous prevailing paradigm.
One of the perks of Kuhn’s paradigm shifts is that researchers rewrite history to fit the paradigm. The new Anthropocene Age paradigm shift was announced by the NSF years ago and is proceeding in top-down lock-step fashion. This is an “inter-disciplinary” and “holistic” paradigm, so of course the arts and social sciences will be included, history will be revised, and the messaging will be every where.
This is how progressive scientists roll. In short, the Anthropocene Age is clearly not a religion, but a scientific paradigm shift.
Correction, “In short, the Anthropocene Age, with its human induced “climate change” and ubiquitous human-caused “tipping points,” is clearly not a religion at all, but a scientific paradigm shift.
Zeke
You wrote
Correction, “In short, the Anthropocene Age, with its human induced “climate change” and ubiquitous human-caused “tipping points,” is clearly not a religion at all, and not a scientific paradigm shift.
It is an attempt to bolster a failing political scam which is pretending to be ‘scientific’.
Richard
RSC, I have used terminology from the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” to show that the re-writing of history, and introducing completely novel language, meanings, and interpretations of data to conform to the new paradigm, is expected in Kuhn’s model. If you want to defend Kuhn, than do so.
What I am trying to show is that Climate Change and the Anthropocene Age are perfect examples of Scientific Paradigm Shifts.
You really do need to learn to be more courteous, and dispense with the name calling
beckleybud@gmail.com
No, I need to reduce my natural inclination to be kind to trolls like you.
I will try harder to fulfill this need.
Richard
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/15/global-warming-likely-to-cause-colder-and-snowier-winters/20962706/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D529696
Anthony this came out today about the decline in Arctic Sea Ice being tied into the behavior of the polar vortex and thus winter weather.
I think this should be exposed it being so absurd. If one goes back to the 1970’s one would see a similar atmospheric pattern while Arctic Sea Ice was extensive which blows this theory in the water.
Just a suggestion to expose this kind of nonsense without collaboration of data.
If geologists are to do anything with the Holocene, the sensible move would be to demote it from Epoch to Stage/Age status within the Pleistocene (recently adjusted at its other end, correctly IMO), since it’s no different from all prior interglacials. Indeed, so far it has been cooler than many if not most of them.
Sturgis, this is what I intended to write, but you put it much better.
It already does fit into the Stage category, it’s used as both a Stage or an Epoch, but what difference does it make anyway? We’re still going to call it the Holocene and know what it means.
Yes, but my point is that we should keep calling whatever it is the Holocene, since its onset had nothing whatsoever to do with humanity, but is merely the latest in a long line of interglacials. Nor is there enough of a human effect to label even the past century the “Anthropocene”, let alone the whole Stage or Epoch.
IMO science has a lot of good data on the Eemian and previous recent interglacials, too, back as far as the ice and sediment cores and other paleo proxies reach.
The people dreaming up the justification of markers should realize that forests, reefs, jungles, deserts, sea level, climate patterns and glaciers all migrated massively at the beginning of the Holocene.
To try and compare the puny human impact to the natural impact over the Holocene deserves a term like Egomaniocene, to reflect the absurd hubris and perceptual imbalance of significant global change. What it has to do with geology escapes me. Any human or cultural layer or marker sequence is the province of Archaeology and always will be, geology is not the slightest bit interested in it. We deal with silicate minerals not with plastic crap and used hairspray pressure packs. If the Archaeologists want a new term for the scrap piles and human coprolites on cave floor who even cares. The climate alarmers can borrow their second-hand jargon from them and everyone’s happy.
Sounds more like the “Lysenkocene” to me.
CACA is indeed Stalinesque.
OK, lemme see here. The Holocene, ostensibly the most recent post Mid Pleistocene Transition interglacial, was essentially declared over by noted professor William Ruddiman (“The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago.”, Climate Change 61, 261–293).
Generally speaking, most paleoclimatologists suggest that Gaia has two primary climate states, interglacial warmth and ice age cold. So in ending the Holocene (interglacial warmth) by extending interglacial warmth as the Anthropocene inevitably means that there is just one climate state left.
An ice age. Which, as it turns out, should have started thousands of years ago if we are indeed correct about GHGs, which necessarily implies Ruddiman’s Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis is also correct.
So let’s hop to it hominids! We need to remove the climate security blanket RIGHT NOW, so as to not further delay Gaia’s next glacial inception!
Did we bump our heads?
Actually the idea of changing the Holocene to a Stage/Age instead of Series/Epoch makes sense to me and always has. There is no remarkable change at the beginning of the Holocene that separates it from changes that occurred within the Pleistocene.
The designation of a new Epoch/Series at ca. 1900 is asinine though, ESPECIALLY if you are arguing global climate change for the reasoning behind the designation. If you were to argue that there should be an Anthropocene based on lithostratigraphy then you would be flat out wrong as well. There are places where human remnants comprise a significant part of the sediments, e.g. landfills, cities, but the vast majority of sediments deposited over the past 100 years would show no signs of anthropogenic activity. What would be they type section of the Anthropocene and what would be its exact definition? Why would 1,000 year old rocks with brass or other human remnants be considered part of the Pleistocene but 100 year old rocks with steel be considered Anthropocene? The bottom line is that it’s far too early to designate a new Epoch based on human influence because we don’t know yet exactly how our influence will manifest itself on the lithostratigraphic record.
As noted, it is already a Stage/Age, too, so all that would be needed would be to de-Epochize it.
Of which action I would approve, as I did for switching the Gelasian Age from Pliocene to Pleistocene. Also, with the Holocene back in the Pleistocene, the latter would be the same as the Quaternary.
Basic problem is one of scale. As you’d know the anthropocentric ape generally has zero practical grasp of time and if you view the geological timescale as printed on a landscape A4 sheet of paper, the Anthropocentric Period would be the last row of atoms on the bottom far right edge of the page. Which no one will ever be able to see, because anthropocentric humans simply haven’t been around long enough time to get two rows of atoms yet. It’s actually more like about an 1/8th of one wayward electron at this point. But let’s try and squeeze a new Period with the over blown text label Anthropocene on the bottom of the page and pretend humans rate such a mention in geological time. the time scale only fits on to an A4 page now because its plotted massively not to scale so that the Quarternary can even be seen on the page. If we stick an Anthropocene Period on it we’ll may have to ditch the Archean side of the page, but that’s only 2.04 billion years long, or about 45% of Earth’s geological history. But given the significance of the hairless ape which is full self importance, this is but a small price to pay.
Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if one sunny day a starship descends to earth and a noble ancient race of beings alights and greets us and does the ‘take us to your leader’ thing, and after the confusion dies down, and Ban-Ki-Moon and Legarde are told to sit down and keep quiet, and Putin is tasered into submission in front of the General assembly, big-ears walks over to them with all the dignity he can muster, to introduce himself and humanity. The Aliens ask in perfect global English, “what do you call yourselves?” After a short delay Barry proudly reads a teleprompter and announces, “We call ourselves Homo-sapiens-sapiens and we live in a time which we call the Anthropocene”. So the Aliens follow this by asking what Homo-sapiens-sapiens means? And after an uncomfortably long silence Barry says it translates to mean that man is the wisest of the wise on Earth. At which point the aliens begin to make sound rarely emitted, but after they quickly settle they continue; “And what does Anthropocene mean?” After a gruelling 15 second delay and more strange noises blurting forth from the back row of aliens, Bazza takes an upbeat tone and says that, “It means the age of Man, who is wiser than wisest, and who has full control of the planet and its environment, and is the greatest of all living species.” The aliens go dead-pan and slowly back away as one of them in the second row makes a quick but suppressed gesticulation of some kind as they re-enter the spaceship, and depart in an impressive display of not inconsiderable alacrity.
Let’s see now, Eocene means ‘Dawn of the Recent”, and Miocene means “Partly Recent”, so Anthropocene means “Man Recent”. Right? Is this geo-babble? Or did I miss something??
Careful, the nomenclature committee will see this and decide we are in a new Era called the Exituszoic.
How about the Manerozoic Eon?
Or Homocene Epoch, dated from the Stonewall Riots?
I think the reason of getting done with holocene seems simple.
Problem in question is LIA.
Till some time ago, few years ago (when still shouting about unprecedented warming while in reality only a pause at the best) they could ignore LIA like it was not there, enough warming up to that time allowing to ignore LIA to a point of considering it as non existent, but with the heat loss and no any warming anymore to show, ignoring LIA means no any warming can be shown, or any warming trend of any significance.
And with how things are going they can’t go further in past to lower the warming because with the LIA obstacle there is no much further allowed or possible to lower the warming in the past, and besides it will show that we still at the moment in the LIA if they stubbornly tried.
So to erase only the LIA part from Holocene is no good actually, makes things even worse for AGW, there will be no warming trend at all in one or two years from now if hiatus persist, and with the way data has been tortured thus far. .
With the LIA there they soon run out of room with data fudging and in no long time with the hiatus persisting they have to accept no significant warming trend, as next to none.
So why not cancel-out the whole Holocene and be done with the LIA problem,no problems after to keep fudging the data and desperately postpone the truth to be seen.
Is no way ACC-AGW can afford or tolerate LIA, if it has still to be for some time more as a scientific certanty or even as a louse scientific conclusion of some strange kind.
Besides from the LIA begining till now the climate has been not in the equilibrium, a rather long time to explain under AGW.
cheers
.
I suppose we’ll have to endure this anthropocene crappola and climate nonsense until all the real deniers are screaming at us through the icicles hanging out of their noses. My only hope is that I’m still around to see it so I can ROFLMAO.
In your heavily debunked graphic of GISP2 you show modern temperatures only .7C above the end of the GISP2 temperature series. This graphic (found here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/d1a5b-interglacial2btemperatures.jpg ) shows that the end of the temperature series stops around -31.5C so if you add .7C to that you get about -30.8C as our modern temperature.
However you also showed a graphic from this peer reviewed journal article http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
the graphic you showed was here, it is a version of the figure 1 from the paper:
Except you cut away the recent temperature data and only allowed the decadal average temperature to be shown. The current average shown in your average is about -29.8C which would be an ADDITIONAL .7C warmer than your previous graphic.
But you also decided not to show the graphic from the actual paper that has the 2010 temperature value of -27.5C. This value of -27.5C is higher than the Minoan warming period on the original GISP2 graphic.
what are you afraid of?
jai mitchell,
You have never made much sense, but right now it’s even harder to understand your comment. Who are you trying to communicate with? The voices in your head?
The graph you claim is ‘debunked’ is from R.B. Alley data. Go argue with him if you don’t like it. Unless, of course, you’re ‘afraid’ of something.
The version of the GISP2 graph that is here, has an annotation “years before present (2000AD)”. This means Alley must have had a time machine. The GISP2 ice core took 5 years to drill and finished in July 1993. When the graph was originally published “years before present” was conventionally taken to be 1950. Perhaps it is time to remove the misleading caption?
Debunked by who? By AGW trough-feeders whose academic business model is threatened by palaeo records like GISP2. That is the problem with the scientific system currently. A debunking does not count if the debunker has a direct financial interest in the science being discussed. Otherwise the sound that we might think is the sound of a debunking narrative is in fact just the sound of a pig squealing as it is pulled by its tail away from the trough.
Science is going to have to find a way of providing impartial review, if it is going to be taken seriously.
There should be a Hansenocene (pronounced han-SEN-o-cene) and it started in 1977.
Isn’t that the Hansen-Obscene period starting in 1977?
Or was it the Hansen-Obsolescence (Obsolescience ?) starting in 1977.
The names of the epochs in the Cenozoic era should now be,
Paleocene, Eocene, Oligicene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and the current epoch- OBscene.
If the Holocene is now the Anthropocene and it is defined as the era where we influenced climate by twiddling the climate control knobs, it would be very interesting to know for future reference which “knob” we played with to pull the earth out of the Ice Age. We may need to find this knob sooner than we think.
Just call it the “Obscene” for what has happened to science.
– – – – – – – – –
Zeke,
Redefining away the Holocene does lead to thinking of Kuhn alright. Thanks for offering it up.
Kuhn’s scientific paradigm shifts as he described them seem to describe the behavior of pseudo-science development also. The question for you and I is: ‘Has observation challenged CAGW theory and its assorted un-established hypotheses development been more pseudo-science than science? Corollary question is: ‘What are the clear demarcation criteria between pseudo-science and science?’
I suggest the clear demarcation criterion is in the use of precisely applied reasoning versus mimicking applied reasoning.
John
Good questions, all, and thank you for your fair remark. Someone brought up pathological science as well, which also describes many trends in science.
In particular, we often see incredibly precise measurements – in parts per million or thousandths of a degree, for example – and these precise measurements are then extrapolated out and used to make sweeping claims about how the whole system originated and how it operates. And naturally these scientific claims have profound implications for energy, agriculture, and education. Of course.
But the conflict between Kuhn and Karl Popper is instructive for us today in the way that science is carried out, and by whom. Popper showed plainly that agreement by experts on a paradigm was not necessary for scientific discovery, and more often would hinder and destroy scientific advancement. He was right, and we could not ask for a more perfect illustration than Climate Science. Popper should be recognized for having seen this coming, and for his refutation of Kuhn.
Zeke
Actually, there is a “clear demarcation” between science an pseudoscience: they are antitheses.
Science attempts to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking evidence to falsify existing idea or ideas and amending the existing ideas in light of new evidence and/or new understanding of existing evidence.
Pseudoscience accepts an existing idea or ideas as being ‘truth’ and seeks evidence to support that accepted ‘truth’.
Richard
Zeke said “In particular, we often see incredibly precise measurements – in parts per million or thousandths of a degree, for example – and these precise measurements are then extrapolated out and used to make sweeping claims about how the whole system originated and how it operates.”
Climate scientists are experts in statistical error analysis, however it is not intuitive for some folks to appreciate the power of globally positioned >3000 Argo buoys (each having a precision of ± 0.002 deg C) and multiple sampling. Studies have shown a statistically significant heat energy trend upwards, while giving a energy budget value that is not far from the radiation imbalance at TOA.
I think we can all agree that larger data sets reduce uncertainty. So when I see an uncertainty ± 0.1 W/m^2 and an ocean heat trend of +0.55 W/m^2 over the 2005-2010 Argo collection timeframe, I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’.
“Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) also estimate the errors in global trends from the period analysed, and also future error uncertainty. For the 2005-2010 period the error uncertainty is plus/minus 0.1 watt per square metre; quite large considering the global trend over the period is 0.55 watts per square metre. However, after 15 years of observations the uncertainty drops considerably, down to ± 0.02 watts per square metre. This demonstrates how longer periods of observation, along with the complete ARGO network, are critical to derive more accurate long-term ocean trends.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/11/286636/sorry-deniers-the-ocean-is-still-warming/
For folks who have some statistics background, this link is a nice demonstration in error analysis and shows how you can detect a change in a quantity that, for each measurement, is smaller than the uncertainty in each measurement.
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/illustrating-error-analysis/
Hanzo
Hanzo says:
Climate scientists are experts in statistical error analysis…
Hanzo, go back to bed. You’re delirious.
Hanzo continues with his crazy talk:
I can quite comfortably rule out ‘hiatus’ and ‘cooling’.
I can quite comfortably rule out your sanity.
Just about every alarmist organization, including the granddaddy of them all, the IPCC, has stated that global warming has “paused”, and/or is in a “hiatus”.
Those words mean that global warming has stopped.
Who should folks believe? Your iconoclastic nonsense? Or what Planet Earth is plainly telling us?
I’m prescribing you 30 mg of Xanax and a pint of cheap vodka.
Can’t hurt. Might help.
Dbstealey said “Those words mean that global warming has stopped.”
There are many lines of evidence to show that the rise of climate heat energy didn’t cease during this temporary plateau of surface temperatures, which has been seen before in the temperature record.
As long as the following four phenomena is happening, it would be premature to safely conclude that climate change had ceased. Additionally, I require an alternative explanation for this putative cessation after so many years of temperature rise. And it is insufficient to make a general and amorphous assertion of some natural forcing without defining it. As scientists we have a responsibility to explain, not merely to obfuscate and to generate unsupported doubt as if it were a work product.
1) no pause in radiative imbalance at top of the atmosphere
2) no pause in increasing ocean heat content (0-2000 m)
3) no pause in sea level rise
4) no pause in accelerating ice mass loss in the Arctic and in Antarctica.
I offer the following evidence and I challenge anyone to refute any of the following studies and without ad hominem assertions or conspiracist ideation.
COMPUTER MODELS: The Risbey paper linked below showed that any model-run discrepancy between calc’d and obs’d mean global SATs are minimized when the emergent stochastic ENSOs in the model are in phase with the observed ENSOs.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
STAT ANALYSES: “Statistical analysis of average global temperatures between 1998 and 2013 shows that the slowdown in global warming during this period is consistent with natural variations in temperature, according to research by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.”
http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/global-warming-pause-reflects-natural-fluctuation-237538
Yes, this is yet another line of evidence that further reinforces the understanding that there exists a continual GHG forcing that is causing a net upward long term trend in the heat content of the climate system that is either augmented or dampened by shorter term, natural, stochastic, and lower magnitude, heat redistribution events such as ENSO.
NO PAUSE-ICE: There was no pause in ice mass declines in the Arctic and Antarctic.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
NO PAUSE-OCEAN HEAT: There was no pause in the ocean heat content trend (0-2000 m)
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
NATURAL VS GHG FORCINGS: In the last 18 years, the temperature record shows excellent correspondence with short term well documented short-term cooling and heating events (natural variations). The link below illustrates the quality of the correspondence in the last ~30 years of volcanic activity (El Cinchon, Pinatubo) El Nino, La Nina and the very small solar effects.
If you remove the temperature skew by known natural variations, the upward trend is the same as the last ~30 years. No pause in the greenhouse gas forcing.
TRADE WINDS: The trend usually cited starts with an 1998 El Niño (heat transfer from ocean to air) and ends with La Nina (heat transfer from air to ocean). This artificially gives the impression of a lower trend. Evidence is put forward for the origin of the natural air/ocean heat transfer mechanisms (Anomalous trade winds) explaining the short ‘hiatus’
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
Hanzo
Hanzo says:
I challenge anyone to refute any of the following studies and without ad hominem assertions or conspiracist ideation… COMPUTER MODELS…
“Studies” are opinions; conjectures. So are computer models, where GI = GO. The scientific evidence shows that global warming has stopped. And not for just a little while, but for many, many years now. Planet Earth is busy debunking your belief system.
And: “conspiricist ideation”?? Any follower of the wretched Lewandowski has zero credibility.
100,000,000 years from now, the archeologists will encounter in the geologic record the period from Hansen’s testimony to congress to 2100. It will be so thick that it can be distinguished from the adjacent strata. They will call it…the blipocene.
Yes the previous inter glacial was 8 degrees warmer than this one AND we don’t know why. So when we do see more warming during this one, the nut jobs will scream “AGW!”
What is over is the Renaissance, the age of reason. This was the age where experimental inquiry of free-thinkers overturned dogma received from authority. Galileo challenged orthodoxy going back to classical times, exchanging authority of the ancients with observations from the telescope he made and experimental tests such as dropping stones of unequal size from the leaning tower of Pisa.
Likewise Andreas Vesalius was able to escape religious and superstitious restraint and accepted myths about the human body and dissected corpses and took a look for himself, establishing the structure and role of the blood vessel circulation and nervous system.
With acceptance of AGW dogma against evidence by corrupt politicians and trough-feeding academics and business people together with a servile uncurious craven and newly superstitious general public, free and honest inquiry is becoming outlawed again. Observation and experiment – the key of the scientific renaissance – could again become marginslised, even dangerously taboo activities.
In a nutshell, this misleading article on WUWT depicting GISP2 graphs with correct Greenland ice core temperatures…
…but the x-axis is offset by 145 years. Yes, the x-axis datapoint in far right of the graph labelled “2000” or “today” is not the year 2000, but is the year 1855, just prior to AGW. The GISP2 ice core temperature ends at 95 years before present (BP).
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-spgm2W9i4po/UWZMSlho3cI/AAAAAAAAFdQ/jvp-6ir2zgE/s1600/Figure5.jpg
Ice core data graphs are commonly presented in BP’s or years Before Present where ‘present’ is 1950 by common paleoclimate convention.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present
Let me show you how the mistake was made. The actual tabulated ice core data is available in the following link. This data was published by Prof Richard Alley (Penn State) in 2000 and this date was incorrectly defined by climate contrarians as “present”
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Column 1 shows the ice core ages in 1000xBP and Column 2 shows the corresponding temperature in Celsius.
The most recent datapoint in the graph is at Age 0.09514 (1000 x BP) and at -31.6 deg C. That’s 95.1 years BP or 1950-95.1 = 1855 AD (pre-AGW).
This misleading mistake has been discussed here…
http://washingtonlandscape.blogspot.com/2013/04/easterbrooks-messed-up-graphs-corrected.html
and here…
http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
If WUWT can mislead you here, is it possible that they can mislead you in other areas?
Hanzo
Hanzo, Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis. Please address “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.”
Thank You.
Lawrence
The statement you wish to discuss can neither be proven nor disproven using the GISP2 graph, and that is all I am talking about.
What can be disproven is the version of that graph quoted by Easterbrook.
Thank you for your honesty. I must admit that my concern for the truth tends to override my interest in Graph labeling. I’m a bit of a realist that way. Enjoy your world of graphs and models. I’ll be cutting firewood and looking out my window.
Peace.
[Someone] murders a child. His trial lawyer gains his acquittal by finding a small administrative error in the prosecution team’s sharing of witness details with defence lawyers.
That is is what is going on here. AGW believers will never address palaeo data that shows that most of the Holocene was warmer than the present. For them it is sufficient to find in a graph spanning 10,000 years an error of endpoint labelling of a century or so. Then purr in pedantic complacency imagining that the issue of abundant and irrefutable data showing most of the Holocene was warmer than the present, has simply vanished with the sleight of hand and wink of an eye of a corrupt judicial process.
A lot of confusion has arisen from Alley’s reference to ‘present’ in 2000 and just what that means–when Alley refers to ‘present,’ does he mean 2000, or before 1950, the beginning of the top of the core. I have the original data set from Stuiver and Grootes (1997), which I use for all my isotope plots. BP in the ice core is “AD 1950 summer to AD 1949 summer.” and the first oxygen isotope measurements were made 2.135 m from the core top at -36.88 years. Both the oxygen isotope curve and the temp curve show the same thing but based on different data. It’s interesting to compare the Cuffy and Clow (1997)original temperature reconstruction (Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland: Jour of Geophysical Research, 1997) with the Alley curve. According to Alley , his “temperature interpretation is based on stable isotope analysis, and ice temperature data, from the GISP2 ice, core, central Greenland. Data are smoothed from original measurements published by Cuffy and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).” He says “Period of record: 45 kYrBP – present.” So what did Alley mean by ‘present?’ HIs data set says 0.095 x 1000 yrs before ‘present’ but did he mean ‘present’ to be 1950 (top of the core) or 2000 when he published the data? Only Alley knows that and I tell people if they really want to know to ask him, not me –it’s not my data! All that Alley did was smooth the Cuffy-Clow curve so it’s important to look at that data–I’ll post more on that later.
The misleading label was addressed on this very site
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
The graph’s most recent date is 1855.
Any other suggestion is misleading (not my words – see the link)
Your addressing a span of 50 years. Please address “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present”. Thank You.
If the difference is important to you please feel free to address the statement “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.” from the standpoint of 1950 being P present and also from the standpoint of 2000 being P.
I’ll wait.
Correction : Span of 150 years. 1855 BP.
Sorry. Nap time.
Lawrence,
I do not know what the present day temperature of that part of the ice cap is. Do you?
What the graph actually shows is : one part of the Greenland ice cap has varied in temperature between -32C and -29C
How you relate that to present day world temperatures is up to you. I am simply pointing out that Easterbrook’s graph is not correct, and has been known to be incorrect due to the work of various contributors to this site, particularly ‘justhefacts’ – see the link.
…”What the graph actually shows is : one part of the Greenland ice cap has varied in temperature between -32C and -29C
How you relate that to present day world temperatures is up to you.”…
————————————————————————————————————————————————
I don’t. I relate it to a 10,000 year history.
It’s a graph… it misses a blip in that history.
Can you address for me : “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.”
Thank You.
[Comment to moderator deleted. ~mod.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Objecting to that graph is not a technicality – the graph is wrong and being used to mislead, and if sceptics do not stick to the rules and present data accurately they just let their case down. To draw any conclusion from that graph you need to compare paleoclimate measurements against present day temperatures, not those from 1855. If that is not done it is meaningless.
Hanzo,
So what? The point is that the alarmist cult, of which you appear to be a charter member, is trying to deceive the public by erasing the Holocene. Your long-winded complaint about the starting year for a graph is nothing by comparison.
The Holocene is an interglacial. That can be clearly seen here. We are in it, and we are fortunate that it is so beneficial for the biosphere. It is really a “Goldilocks” climate. Why does the alarmist clique hate that fact so much?
The fact is that you have lost the debate. Planet Earth is the arbiter, and she has ruled in favor of skeptics. Try being a stand-up guy for once and accept that you were wrong. There is no climate catastrophe. It didn’t happen. You were wrong.
Now, what is your opinion regarding the blatant propaganda of trying to get rid of an inconvenient epoch like our current interglacial? Is that A-OK with you, just because it supports the repeatedly debunked runaway global warming narrative?
Dbstealy says “So what”
So what indeed. I propose that we let future paleoclimatologists debate the end of the Holocene and the proper name of the next era. I think we need to be at least consistent with past practice. Did we rename the Triassic era based on the species (Methanosarcina) that may have been a key contributor to the Permian-Triassic extinction event?
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/ancient-whodunit-may-be-solved-microbes-did-it
After we filter out all the snark, ad hominems and conspiracy theory, we are left with he key scientific question that is continually debated at WUWT: What is the degree of natural vs anthropogenic attribution to climate change?
If that’s the context then:
So what, if GISP2 shows a variations in temperature in GREENLAND may have been higher than contemporary mean GLOBAL temperature? We all realize that climate variations are governed by both GHG and non-GHG-forcings and feedbacks and that REGIONAL effects may be different from GLOBAL mean effects.
Let’s not always get stuck in comparing some past solar or orbital-forced warming to contemporary GHG-forcing. They are not equivalent with respect to cause.
Would it not be more useful to compare the current GHG-forced warming to other natural GHG-forced warmings in the past? How were they similar, and how did they differ? We can confirm that the GHG is forcing, rather than feedback, by evidence of ocean acidification. You don’t have to go far. Just look at the mass extinction events.
For example, in a century, the global mean temp increased about 0.8 degrees during a relatively stable time for other known forcings. That’s 1 deg C over 125 years for a global mean. I’m not talking about any regional abrupt variation (although they are very interesting). Is that rate of global temperature rise precedented or unprecedented? Let’s examine this.
The PETM extinction event represents a “case study” for global warming and massive carbon input to Earth’s surface. In this event, the global mean temp rose 6 deg C within 20,000 years according to our latest chronology. That’s 1 deg C over 3333 years.
Sources: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM#Evidence_for_global_warming
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM#Comparison_with_today.27s_climate_change
If we compare the temp effect of GHG emissions from a massive NATURAL event (1 deg C over 3333 years), with the temp effect from our anthropogenic GHG emissions and land use (1 deg C over 125 years), we find that the effects of our industrial activities are 27x faster than the effects from the worst mass extinction event in history.
I find that fascinating and more important than any conspiracy theory.
Hanzo
katatetorihanzo
You say
Well, if we accept that nonsense as being true then it demonstrates there is no evidence for “GHG is forcing” because there is no “evidence of ocean acidification”.
Richard
@Hanzo:
After we filter out all the misdirection, and the refusal to answer simple questions, and the refusal to stay on the article’s topic, we are left with the key fact in the entire debate: gloabl warming has stopped. It did not stop recently; it stopped many, many years ago.
That single fact deconstructs the entire “carbon” scare, which you have woven into your entire being to the point that ‘runaway global warming’ becomes one with you. If you admitted that you were wrong about that central fact, your ego could not accept it. Therefore, you continue to flog the dead horse of climate catastrophe.
What is being observed now is simply natural climate variability. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Thus, the default position for rational scientists is that the *very* minor, 0.7ºC fluctuation in global T over the past 150 years is entirely natural. In fact, it is an amazingly unchanging global temperature, which is unusual during the Holocene. In fact, it is indistinguishable from noise.
You find really big numbers, which is indicative of all alarmists, who thrive on scary numbers:
…we find that the effects of our industrial activities are 27x faster than the effects from the worst mass extinction event in history.
The implication is that the ‘worst mass extinction’ happened due to rising CO2, and now it is rising at an astonishing twenty seven times faster! So the obvious conclusion is that we are just minutes from climate catastrophe. Right? Why else would you write nonsense like that?
The fact is that the biosphere is greatly benefiting from the rise in harmless CO2. More CO2 is better: the planet is GREENING as a direct result. Poor folks are being fed, who would otherwise starve. But everything you see is bad, bad, bad. Only bad. Do you ever wonder if you’re not just plain crazy?
You look at our wonderful climate and conclude that it is going over a cliff. Why would you believe that nonsense? To normal folks, that sounds crazy. We have been enjoying an excellent climate since the LIA ended. But all you see is a glass half full. Worse: you see catastrophe, when there is no indication or reason whatever for that strange belief.
Hanzo, global warming has stopped. The facts have changed since the 1990’s. When the facts change, you are supposed to change your mind, but you don’t. Get with the program, and deal with reality. The real world is leaving you behind.
An amorphous “climate null hypothesis” has been put forward as a strawman
In my opinion, any proper null hypothesis needs to be precise enough so that it can be tested.
Therefore, it is insufficient to propose a null hypothesis asserting that some ill-defined natural forcing predominately governs global mean temperature rise.
Why? Because that null hypothesis would not be specifically testable. What natural forcing would you specifically test to reject or fail
-to-reject the null hypothesis? No one ‘accepts’ a proposed null hypothesis on faith based on Occam’s razor. A particular well-designed experiment may only reject or fail to reject the null.
Any claim that the natural forcing is present but unknown is a fallacious argument from ignorance.
Hanzo
Smokey…..“global warming has stopped”
…
Did you see the news from NOAA today?
..
“The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.”
…
Reference: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8
..
Mother Nature is not helping you out
Bud Durant,
According to your NOAA link, global T is as high as it’s ever been.
I am 6’2″ tall. Amazingly, I am now the tallest that I have ever been!
For some needed perspective, see here [click in image to embiggen]. And read my comment above to Hanzo. It will do you good.
Hanzo says:
An amorphous “climate null hypothesis” has been put forward as a strawman
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer states that “the [climate] null hypothesis has never been falsified.”
That’s good enough for anyone but the most extreme religious climate cult True Believers. You, for example. All that has to be done is to show that current climate parameters, like temperature, have measurably exceeded past parameters, and the null hypothesis is falsified. So instead of arguing with pointless rhetoric, try to find something that falsifies the null hypothesis.
We’ll run it by Dr. Spencer, and he can arbitrate. In the mean time, the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. That means your belief in runaway global warming and climate catastrophe fails. But we knew that already.
All in all, the state of politicized climate science today is a pretty Hollow Scene.
If the Holocene is going to be renamed the “Anthropocene” then what name will we give to the glacial period after the Holocene ends?
The “what-a-load-of-crap-it’s-all-been”.
Don Easterbrook,
Re: GISP2 data set “before present”
“present” is indeed 1950 so the last data point of the set (the surface) is 1855 or at the very tail end of the little ice age.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/document/notetime.htm
There are three main timescales used on the CD-ROM. For both GRIP and GISP2, these timescales are in years before present (yr BP) where year 0 refers to northern hemisphere summer of the year 1950 A.D. For example, year 1989 (summer) is be referred to as the year “-39 yr BP” on this CDROM, following the convention of the radiocarbon dating method (see e.g. Stuiver and Reimer, 1993). It should be noted that, in general, GRIP publications have not used the A.D. 1950 convention.
saying “nobody knows” and throwing your hands up into the air isn’t really doing research or even basic science.
As the reference articles image shows, the location surface temperature in 2010 was -27.5C which places the GISP2 2010 temperature data slightly above that of the Minoan Warm Period, and SIGNIFICANTLY above the Medieval Warm Period.
jai mitchell says:
As the reference articles image shows, the location surface temperature in 2010 was -27.5C which places the GISP2 2010 temperature data slightly above that of the Minoan Warm Period, and SIGNIFICANTLY above the Medieval Warm Period.
Then your “reference articles image” is wrong. That’s all.
Nice try, thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts…
Someone should tell the authors that the Holocene is not the Holodeck. You can’t just ask the ship’s computer to make it be whatever you want.
The ice core data is important not for the specific temperatures, but for the trends it shows. Ice core data from both poles plus Greenland are in agreement as to trends. They all show the same global warming and global cooling cycles. They are in agreement. Therefore, when ice core data shows that temperatures began to rise, or to decline, that indicates global changes.
That principle is universally accepted by geologists and other scientists. It explains why ice core data is important. The alarmist crowd wants to erase the Holocene is because they do not like what it shows. But they cannot erase the fact that global temperature changes happen naturally, and without regard to CO2 levels.
By attacking the Holocene, the alarmist clique makes it clear that they have decisively lost the debate. Now they’re attacking one graph out of the seven posted in the article, plus graphs posted in the comments. But the big picture is clear: natural climate variability rules. That is what all the graphs show.
Well, perhaps we are not being fair here. I would recommend we give Hanzo, Jai and the dalek the time and space to show us how unbiased they are. I am sure it won’t be too much trouble.
Between the three of them surely there is a significant body of published, public comments and criticism by them concerning the “accuracy” and honesty (or lack thereof) in the IPCC “arts and graphs” being hoisted on the world as “TRUTH”.
With their driving concern for graph accuracy and the honest communication of the details and truth contained within versus “the facts”, I can’t imagine they wouldn’t have a strong opinion recorded somewhere about the ‘accuracy of the graphs” that influence the global debate.
Mistakes are mistakes and the IPCC has their own correction mechanism as each annual report has new data that might supersede older conclusions. But the only peer review available for blogs is the comment section. The goal is to establish the key facts and we can’t do that if there are mistakes in data or interpretation. For example:
This article asserts…”The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95% explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations…”
However, the above data link showed an unexplained graphical comparison of a “time integral” with the mean global temperature anomaly, rather than a straight forward comparison with total solar irradiance (TSI). The claim that “95% explained by solar activity” is therefore unsupported by the very same data that was referenced:
Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SSN-Guess.xls
In contrast, the following source refers to 19 studies that concluded that the contribution of solar forcing was minor during the 20th century and was negligible since 1975. There was is no significant trend in total solar irradiance (TSI), solar UV irradiance nor cosmic ray flux during the last 35 years.
Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Hanzo,
You say:
“This article asserts…”The fact is the tiny 0.7C recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850, which is coincidentally when the global temperature record begins, could easily be natural and 95% explained by solar activity and ocean oscillations…””
Let’s look at the part of the sentence you left out :
“…and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene Epoch.”
A) The link provided in your favorite part of the sentence has sources to back it’s premise. Including some from your “guy” the venerable Lief.org.
B) As you say “The article asserts… ~ … “and is not unprecedented or unusual within the past ~10,000 years of the Holocene.” The Graph in question AND OTHERS supports that.
C) I consider SKS to be as reliable, ethical and accurate as Wikipedia. And I don’t allow Wikipedia to stain my moniter. Peer reviewed my ***.
D) “…and ocean oscillations.” are we ignoring that ?
You say : “Mistakes are mistakes and the IPCC has their own correction mechanism as each annual report has new data that might supersede older conclusions.”
Your Faith is sad and dangerous.
As Lawrence Cornell points out, hanzo is cherry-picking whatever supports his confirmation bias. He always does that. Giant glaciers could once again descend on the midwest a mile deep, and hanzo would still be cherry-picking ‘facts’ that ‘disprove’ reality…
I only have 2 comments:
to show an intent for accuracy and not bias.
1. The GISP2 data indeed ends at 1855 as shown by my previous post, this is the end of the little ice age. At the GISP2 borehole site, a study of recent temperatures was displayed in this article. It is the 4th image from the bottom of the article and the image used in the article can be viewed here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/a36bb-greenland2b40002byrs2bcompared2bto2bpresent.png
The image above is referenced to this paper and indeed the image is taken from Image 1 of the paper titled, “High variability of Greenland surface temperature
over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core”
in the REAL image from the paper it is clear that the image used in the article above has deleted the top half of the image which shows CURRENT temperature data. This current temperature data indicates that in 2010 the measured average temperature was -27.5C.
2 In the article above, the GISP2 data with the “measly” .7C warming attached to the end of the graphic, (which by the way, assumes that the GISP2 data ends at 1905, not 1855), can be seen here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/7175c-holocene2bgisp2.png
if this image is compared with the actual GISP2 image (also used above) http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/d1a5b-interglacial2btemperatures.jpg one can easily see that the (measly) addition of .7C to the actual GISP2 data set yields a (measly) final modern temperature of -29.9C average.
To reconcile these two comments it is clear that the paper cited in this article shows a current modern temperature of -27.5C and the GISP2 analysis shows a current modern temperature of -29.9C. This is a +2.5C difference in temperature.
if the -27.5C temperature shown for the current value (2010) and taken from the referenced paper in this article was displayed on the actual GISP2 graphic it would look more like this: http://oi60.tinypic.com/28miyoo.jpg
which, if you compare it with this tried and true WUWT graphic is MUCH different.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/7175c-holocene2bgisp2.png
That is ALL that I have to say about that.
Correction:
GISP2 data set yields a (measly) final modern temperature of -29.9C average.
should say:
GISP2 data set yields a (measly) final modern temperature of -30.9C average.
and
This is a +2.5C difference in temperature.
should say
This is a +3.4C difference in temperature.
Jai,
1.) “…deleted the top half of the image…” NO, deleted the top THIRD of the image which has no bearing on the premise “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.”/ The link under the graph (in this article) that says “Full paper” indeed leads to the full paper where one can SEE the actual graph. No one is “hiding” anything.
2 Again and still … none of that has any bearing on the statement: “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.” which the graph(S) support. / In this article BOTH graphs you reference are shown close enough to see them in the same window at the same time and are referenced and sourced. Comparing and contrasting is not “hiding”, it’s a relatively transparent process. (seen above 😉
Also :
You have failed to show lack of bias on your part for the simple reason that you have failed to show proof of any criticism or even comment on any IPCC “arts and graphs”, or any other CACW graph or source anywhere, any time.
You have demonstrated no bias or deception on the part of this articles author. In fact by using primarily graphs and sources in your own arguments that are readily available here (in this article) you have shown just how transparent and resourced it is.
-dalek ?
Lawrence,
If the top third of an image, omitted from this article, shows that present temperatures are HIGHER than the entirety of the GISP2 dataset, then the statement “Almost all of the past 10,000 years was warmer than the present.” is patently false.
. . . as this image shows (with information derived from the data in THIS article) http://oi60.tinypic.com/28miyoo.jpg
The part of the image that was deleted shows a GISP2 temperature location of -27.5 degrees C. This is unequivocally higher than any data point found in the GISP2 record, in its entirety.
Really Jai, Please tell me you are not argueing against the accuracy of a graph here by presenting THIS unlabeled scribbeling. http://oi60.tinypic.com/28miyoo.jpg
Really !? What are you doing here ? I’m sure you can do better. Try some peer reviewed science instead maybe next time.
IF frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their arses when they hop.
The data for this graphic was taken from this peer reviewed journal study: http://t.co/zguUkD3jUX
This is the same study that was cited in this article above. It shows a location temperature of -27.5C and a value higher than any temperature record in the GISP2 history. Please also note that 2012 was even warmer than 2010.
jai mitchell says:
Please also note that 2012 was even warmer than 2010.
Earth to jai: So What? A warmer world is clearly better than a colder world. And why did you delete 2011? Only in the deluded minds of the climate alarmist lemmings is a warmer world bad. The planet has been up to 12ºC warmer in the past, with no ill effects. And you’re worrying about a few hundreths of a degree fluctuation??
Next, the link you posted says that Greenland’s temperature has a “high variability”. That means natural variability, since it goes back many centuries. Jai, why don’t you do what you said you were going to do:
That is ALL that I have to say about that.
Take your own advice. Less of your wild-eyed alarmist propaganda would be a good thing.
There are current and future consequences of global climate change and I’ll mention a few whose increased frequency will have a severe economic impact: wildfires (like in CA), drought, and severe tropical storms that will increase in number, duration and intensity.
You may use the destruction inflicted by Katrina and Sandy as a guide. And that’s just the indirect effects of GHG emissions. The direct effects include reducing the alkality of oceans impacting the food chain, etc.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Jai,
I said “Try some peer reviewed science maybe NEXT TIME.”
I am DONE with you on this thread, you are just making a fool of yourself now. You sound much like a child trying over and over and over and over and over and over again to convince mommy you deserve a candy bar. I’m almost embarrassed and sorry for you, almost.
Your faithful defense of a dying religion must be painful for you, I get that, but please go mourn amongst your fellow true believers. The rest of humanity is tired of you and your ilk and frankly a little pissed at your nonsense.
Please show some integrity and self control and stand by your own words, Jai Mitchell september 18, 3:48 pm : “That is ALL that I have to say about that.”
The problem with ad hominem statements and speculation of motives is that they don’t add any value. It’s irrelevant to any scientific evaluation.
If Jai’s post were erroneous or if there existed an alternative explanation or interpretation of data, then a concise rebuttal addressing his specific points would be appropriate. This approach would save time & space and afford credibility to the conversation. In my opinion Jai’s posts are interesting, thoughtful and consistent with peer reviewed credible sources. If you had an alternative view, it would be an interesting discussion and we might all learn something. Attacking people with words is a waste of your time.
hanzo says:
There are current and future consequences of global climate change…
Right there you have stated more misinformation.
First, “future consequences” presumes that you know the future, and that you can predict it. But since neither you nor any other alarmist has ever made any valid predictions, I think we can dispense with that particular nonsense. If you could predict the future, you would be heavily into the stock market, making good use of your amazing prescience.
Next, please state who, exactly — and by name — disputes that the climate changes. Here, I’ll give you an example: Michael Mann claimed that the climate never changed before the Industrial Revolution [the long, flat handle of his hockey stick chart, which deceptively erased the MWP and the LIA]. Post the names of skeptics who you believe also claim that climate change does not happen. I’ll wait. But if you can’t, as usual you lose the argument.
Next, against all empirical evidence you claim that extreme weather events “will increase in number, duration and intensity.”
I have posted numerous charts showing conclusively that extreme weather events have diminished in number, duration and intensity over the past several decades. Those are verifiable, empirical observations, which I will be happy to re-post. Just ask.
So that particular claim is falsified. Next, you baselessly assert:
You may use the destruction inflicted by Katrina and Sandy as a guide. And that’s just the indirect effects of GHG emissions.
I challenge you to post testable measurements proving that human emissions are the cause of any hurricanes. As I stated, I can post direct empirical evidence proving that hurricanes have diminished in both duration and intensity. Therefore, that particular claim is also falsified.
Finally, you assert:
The direct effects include reducing the alkality of oceans impacting the food chain, etc.
More BS and nonsense. Ocean pH has remained constant, as I have shown many times. Just ask, and I will re-post charts showing that there has been no long term change in ocean pH.
Next, despite your nonsensical claim, the “food chain” is greatly benefitting from the rise in CO2, which has been measurably GREENING the planet. Agriculture production is up substantially as a direct consequence of the added CO2. There is more food available now. The only ‘impact’ on the food chain has been positive.
I am saddened that you are resorting to easily debunked falshoods in your lame attempt to prop up the carbon scare. If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you would know that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. The global warming scare is complete nonsense, and I am embarassed for you because you seem to believe in it despite zero empirical evidence.
From now on please just stick to facts, and dispense with your predictions of the future, and your attempts to put skeptics into an invented box of your choosing. The basic fact is that global warming stopped many years ago, but you refuse to accept reality. You are certainly no scientist. Being a religious convert fully explains your beliefs.
hanzo says:
There are current and future consequences of global climate change
Dbstealey says “First, “future consequences” presumes that you know the future, and that you can predict it.”
Using physics and other derived scientific disciplines, I could make a prediction that the structural integrity of a heating pressure cooker will fail at some point. This prediction would have uncertainties since there are, in principle, multiple failure points.
The same physics that predicts the behavior of heat seeking missiles and that of IR thermometers measuring heat remotely, also governs systems involving gases, liquids and solids constrained by gravitation that have periodic behavior (planets & atmosphere). The behavior of any complex system has uncertainty, but not all fundamental behaviors are random. And when diverse disciplines generate diverse yet coherent lines of evidence, the uncertainty diminishes.
“But since neither you nor anyother alarmist has ever made any valid predictions”
Well, all the consequences expected from global heat content rise have happened:
>Surface temp trend will be positive and actual magnitude will be within calculated uncertainty
>Northern Hemispheric ice mass trend will diminish at accelerated pace.
>Sea Level will rise due to thermal expansion and land ice melt.
>Ph trend is negative
The longer term climate model simulations (1951-2012) agrees well with the observed trend, including the so-called hiatus in surface temps.
Source: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Section D.1
“The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}”
Risbey et al showed that the short-term model runs of the last 15 years that accidentally reflected actual ENSOs weather patterns also agree with the observed temps. This clearly demonstrates the influence of weather in short-term trends.
Source: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Dbstealey asks: “Next, please state who, exactly — and by name — disputes that the climate changes.”
I enjoy our interactions Sir, but that is a red herring. I don’t characterize our differences in opinion based on whether the climate is changing per se, but whether the climate is changing anomalous quickly due to global warming caused predominately by a GHG forcing whose magnitude exceeds that from known natural sources. This usually becomes a semantic trap when rates and time frames are left undefined.
Db says “Next, against all empirical evidence you claim that extreme weather events “will increase in number, duration and intensity.”
This is a reasonable prediction made by NASA as climate change accelerates and is a question under current study by the research community. To the extent that sea level rise is due to land ice melt and thermal expansion, the extra area impacted during storm surges is tied to sea level.
Db says “I have posted numerous charts showing conclusively that extreme weather events have diminished in number, duration and intensity over the past several decades. Those are verifiable, empirical observations, which I will be happy to re-post. Just ask.”
What you said is inconsistent with some studies:
http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Global-Warming/HurricanesandGlobalWarming.pdf
“I challenge you to post testable measurements proving that human emissions are the cause of any hurricanes. As I stated, I can post direct empirical evidence proving that hurricanes have diminished in both duration and energy.”
Growing evidence: http://www.skepticalscience.com/grinsted-hurricane-stronger.html
I refer specifically to impact of storm surges linked to sea level rise; but go ahead and show me your peer-reviewed evidence.
Dbstealy said: Ocean pH has remained constant, as I have shown many times.
What you said is inconsistent with the references herein:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Go ahead and repost your evidence.
Dbstealy said” The only ‘impact’ on the food chain has been positive.”
Maine Lobsters are starting to be impacted:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/09/20/maine-climate-change-taking-toll/P41vVDd9v3knTUeDH2U6SP/story.html
Observation: State biologists last year reported that the number of lobsters with the mottled, lesioned shells caught in Maine increased fivefold from 2010 to 2012.
Reason: Warmer waters promote the bacteria that cause the disease. Moreover, the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is absorbed by the warming ocean has produced more carbonic acid, making it harder for lobsters to build their shells and increasing their vulnerability to the bacteria.
Hanzo says : “Attacking people with words is a waste of your time.”
===================================================
Congratulations on your first factually provable statement of the thread.
Proven by the data (seen throughout this thread) that you will not CEASE your diatribal NONSENSE !
The “…concise rebuttal[s] addressing his specific points…” you demand have been provided to you over and over again by me and others here and you simply refuse to even acknowledge their existence. Instead you provide us with a live visual aid of a caricature of the scare mongering propaganda being fought against here.
In fact, you DEMAND that people attack you with words by the careless use of your own. You will feel better having to been MADE to feel bad by your bullies and tomorrow you will wake up with a new sense of resolve in your quest to be acknowledged.
PLEASE. Knock it off. Take the weekend off… enjoy your family, Gaia, whatever you’re into. r e l a x , refresh, smoke a blunt, get laid… do something ELSE.
That’s what I’m gonna do.
Bye Now.
Happy Constitution Day Americans !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (a little late 🙂
hanzo:
So, you claim to be able to divine the future, eh? Wake me when you make your big score in the stock market.
The fact is that you can predict exactly nothing accurately when it comes to this subject. If you believe otherwise, here’s your chance to prove it: predict for us when global warming will resume. That should be easy-peasy for someone as smart as you.
All of you comments preceded by [“>”] are merely baseless assertions. Therefore, they need not be discussed. Why discuss your idle speculation, especially when most of it is wrong [eg: pH predictions].
You still Believe nonsesnse such as every odd event that happens must be due to global warming, which in turn must be due to rising CO2, which in turn must be due to human emissions, etc., etc. Do you not understand how ridiculous your arguments are?
I post real world, empirical evidence, while you post papers, and vague predicitons that never come true, and in general, you post your religious catechism. This subject is a no-brainer, if you confine your comments to reality. I have asked you to restrict your arguments to verifiable facts and evidence. But you never do. Why not? Because if you did, the argument would be over.
There is NO scientific evidence showing the quantity of global warming due specifically to human CO2 emissions. No such measurements exist. Therefore, your entire argument consists of “what if” speculation. That isn’t even science. That is cherry-picked belief, supported by your confirmation bias: you BELIEVE, and that is sufficient — for you.
But for scientific skeptics, belief is not nearly enough. You need to provide convincing scientific evidence showing that human activity is the cause of climate change. But you have not even begun to do that.
Measurements, hanzo. We need testable measurements! But so far, all you ever post is your belief.
Zeke says:
But the conflict between Kuhn and Karl Popper is instructive for us today in the way that science is carried out, and by whom. Popper showed plainly that agreement by experts on a paradigm was not necessary for scientific discovery, and more often would hinder and destroy scientific advancement. He was right, and we could not ask for a more perfect illustration than Climate Science. Popper should be recognized for having seen this coming, and for his refutation of Kuhn.
Thank you for that, and apologies for hanzo sidetracking your comment, and for my responding to him.
Popper was on to something which Kuhn then screwed up. Dr. I. Langmuir showed in his “pathological science” lectures that Belief is a major problem in science.
That problem crops up constantly among the alarmist crowd. They will take a minor fact and turn it into a major argument, completely unaware that it is not relevant.
If the alarmist cult could overcome their tendency to believe whatever supports their confirmation bias, they would see that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening to the ‘climate’. But then they would have to step outside of their comfort zone. Very few of them are willing to do that.
The contemporary mean global surface temperature rise is faster than any natural global increase of temperature in the last 800,000 years at least. Even the PETM extinction event, characterized by GHG emissions and abrupt temp rise was slower.
Hanzo,
What does that have to do with Popper and Kuhn??
It’s past your bedtime. Put the bottle away and get some sleep.
The hollowscene is certainly BS, but the misanthroposcene would just be piling it higher and deeper. Wake me when these dinglenuts get some clue that it is just another interglacial.
Why debate the 17+ years of temperature stasis, when we can just fraud our way into omitting past temperature optimums, and thereby prove that the current climate is out of hand? This is not science. When we have solid data, there is no need for manipulation and dogma-based censorship.