The CO2 forcing is not in question in any meaningful way. What needs to be parametrized better is feedbacks, in particular the water feedback of which we can only say in any confidence that it is positive. By what amount is somewhat unclear, these days. Our models tend to underestimate warming...
They can very well read graphs. How else would they know how to cherry pick a strong El Nino outlier as arbitrary baseline for their statistically and scientifically irrelevant talking points? That does not come from incompetence. It is deliberate.
The mechanism underlying the current spike is not in doubt. You can twist the paper as long as you want, it contains no evidence, not even speculation, that the current estimates of CO2 forcing are wrong.
You made the move to pure concern trolling now. I pick the majority of datasets, which according to Mann, do not change significantly if you exclude the tree ring proxies. So, this is a refinement of the tree ring method, which, to the best current knowledge, has no significant overall impact on reconstruction. That is not cherry picking, that is science.
That's why you mostly select trees that grow under boundary conditions where temperature becomes the limiting factor for growth - i.e. you go to the climatic boundaries of viability for the trees. That's why most tree ring proxies are derived from trees growing at high latitutes - Siberia, Scandinavia, Pacific Northwest.
Hockey sticks show up in the majority of proxies. Be it tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, the actual instrumental record, coral reefs - if you want to challenge that, you gotta bring up a comparably broad dataset.
Oh look, a nice little strawman. Who in particular, believes climate models like fundamentalists believe in the bible? We agree with them because they provide the best fit for available data. The "skeptics" cried for the "suppressed" data for years (although most of it was available online and the rest was closed due to restricted distribution rights for which the model builders where not responsible) - and what did they do with it? Jack shit. Nada. Zilch. Show me a skeptic that can provide an improved alternate model and we talk.
Since the CO2 content of the atmosphere has measurably increased from 280 to 400 ppm within the last 150 years, it is pretty clear that the "easier plant growth" does in fact not neutralize much? most? all? of the CO2. So, your "fact" is clearly in contradiction to observed reality. Start at the point and think...
You are aware that the original hockeystick has been shown again and again in different, completely independent proxies? I guess you are, but you choose to ignore it. It is not about todays temperatures being unprecedented - that they are clearly not. But then again, you know that this is a strawman. It is the current increase of greenhouse gas forcing that is unprecedented. If you would actually read the paper in question, you'd realize that they at no point question this forcing. Denialist cherrypicking again.
The "skeptics", who are not the slightest bit skeptical, but rather politically motivated liars driven by a couple of think tanks, raise the hypothesis that the current best explanation of climate dynamics is false. However, they do not and have never presented any alternate model, not to speak of any alternate data that could, for a real skeptic, serve to disprove the current scientific understanding. That is not skepticism, that is sheer crackpot tactics.
The paper cited is in no way denialist and only a part of the normal scientific process regarding climate science that has been going on for decades. No well researched article has been shut out. The change from Global Warming to Climate Change was driven by a conservative denialist US thinktank. The facts are not changing. They only get refined. As it is happening with evolution science. Both denialist camps use the same rhetoric, though. One has to wonder why....
Well, then look at the poster below me, how kindly provided a tagged list of denialist crap from El Rag... As usual, you provide nothing to the discussion but trolling. You really wonder why I flame you?
The current hockeysticks, which completely validate the original Mann paper, are based on multiproxy reconstructions that range from polar ice cores to tropical lake sediments to coral reef proxies etc. etc. But yes, as you said, if the orbital forcing is indeed as strong as they speculate from one highly regional source, the hockey stick gets perhaps a bit tilted. It's fundamental message stays the same, though.
The authors are not set out to "prove" global warming, because there is not much left to prove. They acknowledge the consensus amount of CO2 forcing in the paper. All they do is recalibrate other parameters that frankly change nothing substantial. In particular not, as this paper only deals with one proxy data set among many and gives highly localized data for northern Scandinavia.
It shows that humanity thrived in a world that was about as warm as now. A world which had no additional greenhouse gas forcing like the one added by the industrial age. That's the data presented. The rest is made up conjecture by you.
It's fun how the denialsphere suddenly loves tree rings, because they finally found a tree ring proxy they could cherry pick for their agenda, isn't it? After all the crap they spewed trying to undermine the Yamal tree ring proxy...
I don't have evidence at hand, but purely anecdotally, every climate related article I have seen on ElReg was solidly rooted in the denialsphere. Their journalistic reputation stems from good tech reporting - when they stray out of their competence, they clearly show a lot of bias.
I'm sure you can offer consultations in that matter. After all you throw out hundreds of other proxies, ignore the actual gist of the paper and are known to outright lie out of your shill's arse when it comes to this topic. Feeling particularly hypocritical even for your levels today?
Grats, slashdot for the misleading title. It is not like it was unknown that there has been a cooling trend on a 1000-year timescale. It may have been stronger than previously thought. This paper estimates it at -0.32 K/ka - Mann 2008 had it at -2.something K/ka. It was to be expected that the denialist would latch onto some cherry picked sentences - business as usual.
All the article says is that forcings related to orbital mechanics may have been larger on a millenium time scale than estimated before. Even that is speculation - the core of the paper is presenting a improved method for evaluating tree ring proxies. The paper, however, does not call into doubt that the industrial age has added a significant greenhouse gas forcing, which gets bigger as we continue to add CO2 and methane.
Slashdot Mirror
The CO2 forcing is not in question in any meaningful way. What needs to be parametrized better is feedbacks, in particular the water feedback of which we can only say in any confidence that it is positive. By what amount is somewhat unclear, these days. Our models tend to underestimate warming...
They can very well read graphs. How else would they know how to cherry pick a strong El Nino outlier as arbitrary baseline for their statistically and scientifically irrelevant talking points? That does not come from incompetence. It is deliberate.
The mechanism underlying the current spike is not in doubt. You can twist the paper as long as you want, it contains no evidence, not even speculation, that the current estimates of CO2 forcing are wrong.
You made the move to pure concern trolling now. I pick the majority of datasets, which according to Mann, do not change significantly if you exclude the tree ring proxies. So, this is a refinement of the tree ring method, which, to the best current knowledge, has no significant overall impact on reconstruction. That is not cherry picking, that is science.
That's why you mostly select trees that grow under boundary conditions where temperature becomes the limiting factor for growth - i.e. you go to the climatic boundaries of viability for the trees. That's why most tree ring proxies are derived from trees growing at high latitutes - Siberia, Scandinavia, Pacific Northwest.
Hockey sticks show up in the majority of proxies. Be it tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, the actual instrumental record, coral reefs - if you want to challenge that, you gotta bring up a comparably broad dataset.
Oh look, a nice little strawman. Who in particular, believes climate models like fundamentalists believe in the bible? We agree with them because they provide the best fit for available data. The "skeptics" cried for the "suppressed" data for years (although most of it was available online and the rest was closed due to restricted distribution rights for which the model builders where not responsible) - and what did they do with it? Jack shit. Nada. Zilch. Show me a skeptic that can provide an improved alternate model and we talk.
Since the CO2 content of the atmosphere has measurably increased from 280 to 400 ppm within the last 150 years, it is pretty clear that the "easier plant growth" does in fact not neutralize much? most? all? of the CO2. So, your "fact" is clearly in contradiction to observed reality. Start at the point and think...
So you admit to cherry pick one dataset and ignore the context in which it was derived, so you can abuse it to further your agenda?
You are aware that the original hockeystick has been shown again and again in different, completely independent proxies? I guess you are, but you choose to ignore it. It is not about todays temperatures being unprecedented - that they are clearly not. But then again, you know that this is a strawman. It is the current increase of greenhouse gas forcing that is unprecedented. If you would actually read the paper in question, you'd realize that they at no point question this forcing. Denialist cherrypicking again.
The "skeptics", who are not the slightest bit skeptical, but rather politically motivated liars driven by a couple of think tanks, raise the hypothesis that the current best explanation of climate dynamics is false. However, they do not and have never presented any alternate model, not to speak of any alternate data that could, for a real skeptic, serve to disprove the current scientific understanding. That is not skepticism, that is sheer crackpot tactics.
The paper cited is in no way denialist and only a part of the normal scientific process regarding climate science that has been going on for decades. No well researched article has been shut out. The change from Global Warming to Climate Change was driven by a conservative denialist US thinktank. The facts are not changing. They only get refined. As it is happening with evolution science. Both denialist camps use the same rhetoric, though. One has to wonder why....
Well, then look at the poster below me, how kindly provided a tagged list of denialist crap from El Rag... As usual, you provide nothing to the discussion but trolling. You really wonder why I flame you?
This is one in hundred proxies - and this study does not even aim to undermine anything, just to recalibrate some parameters.
The current hockeysticks, which completely validate the original Mann paper, are based on multiproxy reconstructions that range from polar ice cores to tropical lake sediments to coral reef proxies etc. etc. But yes, as you said, if the orbital forcing is indeed as strong as they speculate from one highly regional source, the hockey stick gets perhaps a bit tilted. It's fundamental message stays the same, though.
The authors are not set out to "prove" global warming, because there is not much left to prove. They acknowledge the consensus amount of CO2 forcing in the paper. All they do is recalibrate other parameters that frankly change nothing substantial. In particular not, as this paper only deals with one proxy data set among many and gives highly localized data for northern Scandinavia.
It shows that humanity thrived in a world that was about as warm as now. A world which had no additional greenhouse gas forcing like the one added by the industrial age. That's the data presented. The rest is made up conjecture by you.
It's fun how the denialsphere suddenly loves tree rings, because they finally found a tree ring proxy they could cherry pick for their agenda, isn't it? After all the crap they spewed trying to undermine the Yamal tree ring proxy...
You are getting more subtle. Argument from incredulity coupled with a bit of concern trolling...
I'm just flaming you - you let yourself string along well. I'll be ready for a honest debate when you discover the meaning of honesty.
I don't have evidence at hand, but purely anecdotally, every climate related article I have seen on ElReg was solidly rooted in the denialsphere. Their journalistic reputation stems from good tech reporting - when they stray out of their competence, they clearly show a lot of bias.
I'm sure you can offer consultations in that matter. After all you throw out hundreds of other proxies, ignore the actual gist of the paper and are known to outright lie out of your shill's arse when it comes to this topic. Feeling particularly hypocritical even for your levels today?
Erratum: Mann 2008 had it at -0.2-something K/ka, of course.
Grats, slashdot for the misleading title. It is not like it was unknown that there has been a cooling trend on a 1000-year timescale. It may have been stronger than previously thought. This paper estimates it at -0.32 K/ka - Mann 2008 had it at -2.something K/ka. It was to be expected that the denialist would latch onto some cherry picked sentences - business as usual.
All the article says is that forcings related to orbital mechanics may have been larger on a millenium time scale than estimated before. Even that is speculation - the core of the paper is presenting a improved method for evaluating tree ring proxies. The paper, however, does not call into doubt that the industrial age has added a significant greenhouse gas forcing, which gets bigger as we continue to add CO2 and methane.