Is global warming even real?

No. They should be stamped out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I ain't seen one that clearly shows the holocene thermal maximum, various more recent warm and cold periods.

Do you have good proof of that?
From what I've read, it seems that temperature rise during the early holocene was much more rapid than that of the last century.
But-----------do not neglect that insolation was just about at it's max during the early holocene.

there are roughly 2747 quintillion pounds of water in the oceans
to heat that 1 degree f would take 2747 quintillion btu's
so
to get the above quoted 2 degrees c rise, we'd need @9889 quintillion btu
wow(that's a lot of heat)
certainly more slower than the atmosphere.
consider ohc as a trailing indicator

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They're visible, they just don't show - globally - what you have been trying to extrapolate from your various links.

Do share. Nothing like that is visible - globally - in what you've linked.

Something one might expect to have (pending research) a different pattern of heating than the current greenhouse is having - greater relative warming of low latitude midlevel ocean water, for example, compared with high latitude low level air temperatures, than a greenhouse warming would be expected to show.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An update of the congressional views on GW. The second picture allows for streaming the clip.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/20/1308306/-Jon-Stewart-on-Senate-GOP-s-continued-denial-of-global-warming?detail=emailclassic

 

The only way you can get the temperature records of the last 500 to 2000 years to NOT look like a hockey stick is to adulterate the data.

Does the shape of the temperature profile over those time periods "shock" you? If so - so be it. You are responsible for your own emotional reactions to things.

You might also be "shocked" to learn that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, that too much UV exposure can cause skin cancer, or that eating a lot of fats and sugars can lead to heart disease, or that drinking to excess can cause liver disease. Those facts might have "great shock value." You might think of them as "great hyperbole." They are also good science.

Those facts are, of course, denied by people who want to drink a lot, eat a lot of fat, lie in the sun and smoke. (And denied even more strongly by the people who make cigarettes and Twinkies.) The fact that they prefer not to believe the science so they can feel better about themselves - and justify their own actions to themselves - does not change the validity of the science.

Science. Which is why I value Mann's work far more than I value Soon's or Seitz's.

 

If thinking that the hockey stick is good science gives you some comfort, then please do so.

 

Please stop being so trite and asinine. Multiple members respond to your juvenile posts with well considered, factually supported observations and you belch out this nonsense. Well, if you are going to continually play the emotional card because you have no substance to your arguments others can too. Did you fall on your head when you were a child?

 

I have repeatedly stated my distaste for hyperbole in the sciences. It belongs only in political science, rhetoric, and comedy.

I have posted several studies indicating that the climate was previously warmer(and colder) from europe to asia to antarctica to south america to .......etc... which is not evident in your cherished hockey stick.

Do you think that all of the quoted scientists are liars, or deluded, completely bonkers insane, fond of "just making it up a they go along their tenure tracked paths"?
Perhaps they all sold out to monied interests?

That being said:
wow
just go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
OR:
EVEN BETTER---post actual science derived from field work--that moderates or nullifies the above quoted studies.
...........................
There may be something more evil than politicized science drifting into the quagmire of hyperbole.................
hmmmmmm
I can't imagine what that could be..............
working on it-...................
Nah, nothing.
Your thoughts?
........................
How about actually discussing the specifics of the science.
Is that even possible?

How about a discussion of Alley's work on greenland?
(caveat----as mentioned in a previous thread readings from greenland during the last glacial period should be moderated due to smoother readings from the waters off iceland, and antarctica)------------Does that correction follow into the inter-glacial (holocene)?
How about discussing the work of Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley & Delia W. Oppo
How about discussing the work of Zunli Lu, et.al.
How about discussing the work of Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al.
How about discussing the work of Zhang De'er
How about discussing the work of Arseneault, D. and Payette
How about discussing the work of K. Gajewski
.................
all mentioned and/or quoted and linked to above
.................................................
If science is a game of cards, then field work is trump(no relation to the candidate)
Balls in your court babe:..............................................................................................
(caveat------there are NO simple answers)

 

HUH WUT?
John Galt/ Ophiolite:
Don't forget dadio: I've been reading you on 2 science forums for several years now.
AND you have the temerity to call someone else trite?!?
jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz dad
(is this a pot and kettle thing?)

 

Hyperbole like:

Yes, that sort of hyperbole makes people look like partisan political hacks, rather than anyone with something to say about the science.

 

You either trust the work and conclusions of the mentioned scientists or you don't.
If you don't, do you have a reason for your distrust?

as stated:
How about actually discussing the specifics of the science.

How about a discussion of Alley's work on greenland?
(caveat----as mentioned in a previous thread, readings from greenland during the last glacial period should be moderated due to smoother readings from the waters off iceland, and antarctica)------------Does that correction follow into the inter-glacial (holocene)?
How about discussing the work of Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley & Delia W. Oppo
How about discussing the work of Zunli Lu, et.al.
How about discussing the work of Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al.
How about discussing the work of Zhang De'er
How about discussing the work of Arseneault, D. and Payette
How about discussing the work of K. Gajewski

Pick one?
If you want to pick one of their works apart(for valid scientific or logical reasons), please do so.

 

I'm looking forward to all the new coastal city sports:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't want to pick them apart, just put them in global context. I'll pick this one: " - the work of Neukom, R., Luterbacher, et.al."

Here's the list of authors for the third linked hockey stick I posted above, with dozens of names edited out to meet the posting limits, but two key names left visible:

The hockey sticks are of course summary, graphs of compiled and discussed data from the researchers named as authors. So that will do, yes?

 

as/re mbh98/99
as/re:
R. Neukom • J. Luterbacher

Just a name?
Nothing about the work?
Rather a tad shallow.

What they wrote"
"Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field
reconstructions for southern South America covering
the past centuries
R. Neukom • J. Luterbacher • R. Villalba • M. Ku¨ ttel • D. Frank • P. D. Jones • M. Grosjean •
H. Wanner • J.-C. Aravena • D. E. Black • D. A. Christie • R. D’Arrigo • A. Lara •
M. Morales • C. Soliz-Gamboa • A. Srur • R. Urrutia • L. von Gunten
Received: 12 November 2009 / Accepted: 8 March 2010
The
reconstructed SSA mean summer temperatures between
900 and 1350 are mostly above the 1901–1995 climatology.
After 1350, we reconstruct a sharp transition to colder
conditions, which last until approximately 1700."

 

Here are the graphs from their paper:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So what? Just mentioning that temps in South America were mostly about 1901-1995 means little to me. Did they mention what might have caused the increase in temp?

 

The word they wrote was "above" not "about"

see chart/graphs

................
Simple question:

Do their findings support mbh98/99?

 

Sorry for the typo.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I haven't been following closely enough to say whether or not this single study supports anything. What I would like to know is, why did the temps spike during that time period? And does that relate at all to what's happening now?

 

Why?
Indeed
The authors didn't go into the "Why".
Perhaps, it had to do with the solar maximum between the ort and wolf minima?
We just had a rare grand solar maximum during the last 1/2 of the last century.
Coincidence or causality?

 

From wiki:

"The idea of a Modern Maximum has now been thrown into question with the release of a paper at the International Astronomical Union General Assembly in August 2015"

Don't have time to look into it any further right now. If anyone finds the paper please post.