• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,561
Reaction score
28,932
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research's Scientific Data, "Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach." The findings show that the millennial-scale global cooling began approximately 6,500 years ago when the long-term average global temperature topped out at around 0.7°C warmer than the mid-19th century. Since then, accelerating greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to global average temperatures that are now surpassing 1°C above the mid-19th century.
Click to expand...

c5417d9441b31d2c76788a39a969de52.jpg



Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling: Comprehensive compilation of pre-historic temperature records shows that global warming is reaching levels not seen for at least 6,000 years -- ScienceDaily


Yet another confirmation of the hockey stick.
 
Threegoofs said:
Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling



c5417d9441b31d2c76788a39a969de52.jpg



Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling: Comprehensive compilation of pre-historic temperature records shows that global warming is reaching levels not seen for at least 6,000 years -- ScienceDaily


Yet another confirmation of the hockey stick.
Click to expand...

Laughable. Includes strip barks to get a hockey stick, despite PNAS recommendation against their use.

[FONT=&quot]". . . This study, based on a major new compilation of previously published paleoclimate data, combined with new statistical analyses, . . . "[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Laughable. Includes strip barks to get a hockey stick, despite PNAS recommendation against their use.

[FONT=&quot]". . . This study, based on a major new compilation of previously published paleoclimate data, combined with new statistical analyses, . . . "[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Another major paleoclimate paper published by the top journal in science is dismissed by JH because of something he read 15 years ago on a denier blog.

[emoji849]
 
Jack Hays said:
Laughable. Includes strip barks to get a hockey stick, despite PNAS recommendation against their use.

[FONT="]". . . This study, based on a major new compilation of previously published paleoclimate data, combined with new statistical analyses, . . . "[/FONT][/COLOR][/I][/QUOTE]

Ummm, you mean recommendations by [I]National Research Council[/I], not PNAS, right? [National Research Council. Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Academies Press, 2007.]

But in the paper Threegoofs cites they use a large number of OTHER proxies (see Table 1 in the actual reference [URL="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?output=instlink&q=info:3WEO1VQ107kJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,38&scillfp=3989186754008282509&oi=lle"]HERE[/URL])

Archive Type Proxy Type
marine sediment alkenone
marine sediment δ18O
marine sediment Mg/Ca
multiple archives TEX86
marine sediment foraminifera
marine sediment dinocyst
multiple archives diatom
marine sediment radiolaria
multiple archives pollen
multiple archives GDGTa
multiple archives stable isotopes
lake sediment variousb
lake sediment chironomid
glacier ice variousc
midden macrofossils
wood tree ring width


So if you don't like the tree ring data, how do you deal with the 15 OTHER proxies?
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Another major paleoclimate paper published by the top journal in science is dismissed by JH because of something he read 15 years ago on a denier blog.
Click to expand...

Better: he dismisses it because ONE PROXY out of 16 proxies used might have used data that was not preferred.
 
istodolez said:
Better: he dismisses it because ONE PROXY out of 16 proxies used might have used data that was not preferred.
Click to expand...

Chances are, they didn’t use strip bark dating anyway, since that tends to be the recent part of the Bristlecone Pine that overlaps with the observed temperature record. They probably used whole bark for dating which is considered reliable and accurate.

Jack literally has no idea what he’s talking about and only is capable of cutting and pasting denier blogs.
 
Threegoofs said:
Another major paleoclimate paper published by the top journal in science is dismissed by JH because of something he read 15 years ago on a denier blog.

[emoji849]
Click to expand...

Actually, it's something I read in a PNAS report.
 
istodolez said:
Ummm, you mean recommendations by National Research Council, not PNAS, right? [National Research Council. Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Academies Press, 2007.]

But in the paper Threegoofs cites they use a large number of OTHER proxies (see Table 1 in the actual reference HERE)

Archive Type Proxy Type
marine sediment alkenone
marine sediment δ18O
marine sediment Mg/Ca
multiple archives TEX86
marine sediment foraminifera
marine sediment dinocyst
multiple archives diatom
marine sediment radiolaria
multiple archives pollen
multiple archives GDGTa
multiple archives stable isotopes
lake sediment variousb
lake sediment chironomid
glacier ice variousc
midden macrofossils
wood tree ring width


So if you don't like the tree ring data, how do you deal with the 15 OTHER proxies?
Click to expand...

istodolez said:
Better: he dismisses it because ONE PROXY out of 16 proxies used might have used data that was not preferred.
Click to expand...

Only the strip barks produce a hockey stick.
 
Threegoofs said:
Chances are, they didn’t use strip bark dating anyway, since that tends to be the recent part of the Bristlecone Pine that overlaps with the observed temperature record. They probably used whole bark for dating which is considered reliable and accurate.

Jack literally has no idea what he’s talking about and only is capable of cutting and pasting denier blogs.
Click to expand...

There's no hockey stick without the strip barks.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's no hockey stick without the strip barks.
Click to expand...

To save myself the headache, would you care to support this contention? Because I've seen plenty of hockeystick graphs that use non-tree proxies: borehole, speleothem, glacier, etc. etc.
 
istodolez said:
To save myself the headache, would you care to support this contention? Because I've seen plenty of hockeystick graphs that use non-tree proxies: borehole, speleothem, glacier, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

[h=3]PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies[/h]
The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions). In today’s post, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:

  • even though PAGES (2013) was held out as the product of superb quality control, more than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) were rejected in 2017, replaced by an almost exactly equal number of tree ring series, the majority of which date back to the early 1990s and which would have been available not just to PAGES (2013), but Mann et al 2008 and even Mann et al 1998;
  • the one constant in these large networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. All 20(!) stripbark chronologies isolated by Mann’s CENSORED directory re-appear not only in Mann et al (2008), but in PAGES (2013). In effect, the paleoclimate community, in apparent solidarity with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel recommendation to “avoid” stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), despite ferocious data mining, just as in Mann et al 1998, there is no Hockey Stick shape without the series in Mann’s CENSORED directory.
PAGES2K references: PAGES (2013) 2013 article and PAGES (2017) url; (Supplementary Information). . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Laughable. Includes strip barks to get a hockey stick, despite PNAS recommendation against their use.

[FONT="]". . . This study, based on a major new compilation of previously published paleoclimate data, combined with new statistical analyses, . . . "[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Ya, it is VERY laughable. As I recall the NAS expressly warned against the use of strip bark samples after the farce provided by mann...and they keep on using them because...well, there is no one to stop a cult from being a cult...
 
maxparrish said:
Ya, it is VERY laughable. As I recall the NAS expressly warned against the use of strip bark samples after the farce provided by mann...and they keep on using them because...well, there is no one to stop a cult from being a cult...
Click to expand...

What is stripbark?

Can you tell us?
 
Threegoofs said:
Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling



c5417d9441b31d2c76788a39a969de52.jpg



Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling: Comprehensive compilation of pre-historic temperature records shows that global warming is reaching levels not seen for at least 6,000 years -- ScienceDaily


Yet another confirmation of the hockey stick.
Click to expand...

You do realize that 6000 ears is a blink of an eye in earths history. Where I live right now there was a 1 to 2 mile thick ice sheet the size of a continent just 2500 years ago. It is all gone. Must have been those camp fires of my stone age ancestors.
 
Threegoofs said:
Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling



c5417d9441b31d2c76788a39a969de52.jpg



Major new paleoclimatology study shows global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling: Comprehensive compilation of pre-historic temperature records shows that global warming is reaching levels not seen for at least 6,000 years -- ScienceDaily


Yet another confirmation of the hockey stick.
Click to expand...

What caused that massive warming from 12,000 to 10,000 on your graph? Cave men?
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies[/h]
The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions). In today’s post, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:

  • even though PAGES (2013) was held out as the product of superb quality control, more than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) were rejected in 2017, replaced by an almost exactly equal number of tree ring series, the majority of which date back to the early 1990s and which would have been available not just to PAGES (2013), but Mann et al 2008 and even Mann et al 1998;
  • the one constant in these large networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. All 20(!) stripbark chronologies isolated by Mann’s CENSORED directory re-appear not only in Mann et al (2008), but in PAGES (2013). In effect, the paleoclimate community, in apparent solidarity with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel recommendation to “avoid” stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), despite ferocious data mining, just as in Mann et al 1998, there is no Hockey Stick shape without the series in Mann’s CENSORED directory.
PAGES2K references: PAGES (2013) 2013 article and PAGES (2017) url; (Supplementary Information). . . .
Click to expand...

Ahhh, McIntyre. One of the guys who had his behind handed to him when it became apparent that he and McKitrick didn't know how to do proper principal component analysis when critiquing the hockeystick.

Excellent.
 
Threegoofs said:
What is stripbark?

Can you tell us?
Click to expand...

Can I tell you? So you don't know? In old age bristlecone pines can assume a strip-bark form, a band of trunk that remains alive and continues to grow after the rest of the tree stem has died - referring to samples of bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California.

And the NAS has recommended against their use, as a result of the mann-mcIntyre hocky-strip controversy.

If that data is still in use, it makes this "new study" junk science.
 
istodolez said:
Ahhh, McIntyre. One of the guys who had his behind handed to him when it became apparent that he and McKitrick didn't know how to do proper principal component analysis when critiquing the hockeystick.

Excellent.
Click to expand...

Other than being 100 percent wrong...good point.
 
maxparrish said:
Can I tell you? So you don't know? In old age bristlecone pines can assume a strip-bark form, a band of trunk that remains alive and continues to grow after the rest of the tree stem has died - referring to samples of bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California.

And the NAS has recommended against their use, as a result of the mann-mcIntyre hocky-strip controversy.

If that data is still in use, it makes this "new study" junk science.
Click to expand...

So...is that data used here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom