I don't say anything about them other than they went out and collected a bunch of data. Why they did it, I don't care nor is it relevant.
All I am pointing out is that their data shows we are not undergoing some unprecedented increase in temperatures. That it is has happened several times in the past and to a much greater extent (looking at the graph anyway). If CO2 levels were not as high back then as they were now, then you have to face the fact that the past warming was not driven by CO2.
If you can't explain what caused the past warmings, then you can't rule out that same cause (whatever it is) for the current.
You can speculate all you want about CO2 but it doesn't change the apparent fact, shown by this reconstruction, that there has been similar phenomenons in the past and it did not benefit from high levels of CO2.
Your explanation is akin to someone observing the tide coming in and thinking that they caused it because they just took a piss in the ocean.
You have a problem. These guys did what folks have been taunting skeptics to do for decades...collect their own data and they aren't even skeptics.
They did it. They collected a shit ton of it. They put it through peer review and published it.
Anyone with an ounce of integrity would look at their results and at the very least say something to the affect of "Maybe we need to take a second look at all of this".
Instead what we get (at least from Slashdot) is the equivalent of "lalala I can't hear you".
Sorry if their data doesn't fall into the Mann preconceptions but people have to admit that we don't know shit about Climate and that there is far more data to collect and far more thinking that needs to be done.
"The Science is Settled" is what bullshitters use to shut down discussion and further investigations. Good thing these guys didn't think the science is settled because they found some interesting stuff.
If I walk out the door of my house, I might be hit by a truck.
Ringing your hands about what MIGHT be possible is not the way to conduct public policy.
But then, I'm all for nuclear energy. Go for that and all this bullshit arguing goes away. We get better security, far less pollution and much more energy at a cheaper cost. But let me guess...you oppose nuclear energy.
Data that was generated much in the same manner as that which supports the hockey stick shows that what we are going through is nothing unique.
Now, you have two choices, dismiss the data, which means you dismiss the that data that supports the hockey stick too, or accept the data, which means you got some splain'n to do.
You claim this spike is man made. What caused the others? Until you can answer that and show that this one is also not caused by the same thing(s) as the others, you are just pissing in the wind.
So it's possible that the spikes in the past were natural and this spike is man-made.
"Possible"?
Multiple spikes in the past, but this one just happens to be made made?
It's possible that little green men are lighting their farts and increasing the temperatures.Therefore we should spend s hit ton of money to find and kill them. You don't make public policy on speculation.
While I am skeptical that tree rings can provide a accuracy of temp measurements the 10th of a degree, at the very least this proxy is the most extensive and contains the most data.
Referencing it is simply putting the discussion on the same frame of reference.
Current AGW proclamations rely heavily on the paleoclimate records to show that the current trend is "unprecedented". This study undermines that assertion using the same data the AGW crowd uses to support it.
There are several nice big spikes. There are several instances of sustained temps that exceed the trend. If you want to assert that the current spike is unique and that we are causing it, you need to explain what cased the previous ones and why the current one is not driven by the same forces.
Looking at the graph you can see at least 6 instances of abrupt temperature increases that are identical to the last one and at least 5 times temps exceeded the trend.
In that context, our recent increases are not unique. If you want to pin the recent increases on Man and CO2, then you need to explain how the past increases came to be and why the current increases are not driven by the same forces.
Looking at the graph you can see at least 6 instances of abrupt temperature increases and at least 5 times temps exceeded the trend.
In that context, our recent increases are not unique. If you want to pin the recent increases on Man, then you need to explain how the past increases came to be and why the current increases are not driven by the same forces.
I don't know which graph you are looking at, but the one in TFA shows several instances of abrupt rises in temps, or, hockey sticks if you want...at least six.
Given that this is by far the most extensive and highest resolution proxy yet developed, the entire Climate community should take pause, especially since other proxy reconstructions have legitimate issues with data selection.
Overall, the amount of data we have is ridiculously small given the significance of the statements they make based on those data.
A far as current rate of rise, while I admit a graph on a web page is a poor indicator, I see many instances of temperature increases (between the Migration Period and the Medieval Warming) that are same or nearly the same as the increase illustrated at the end of the graph.
Be that as is may, as usual, this will not be resolved on Slashdot. But it's new data and I look forward to it being evaluated by the Climate community at large.
One of the many controversies in the AGW discussion is the context of current warming.
This reconstructions shows a Roman Warming period and Medieval warming in which, "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods."
In other words, it's been hotter and claims about the current environment have to be reconciled with the past.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't say anything about them other than they went out and collected a bunch of data. Why they did it, I don't care nor is it relevant.
All I am pointing out is that their data shows we are not undergoing some unprecedented increase in temperatures. That it is has happened several times in the past and to a much greater extent (looking at the graph anyway). If CO2 levels were not as high back then as they were now, then you have to face the fact that the past warming was not driven by CO2.
If you can't explain what caused the past warmings, then you can't rule out that same cause (whatever it is) for the current.
You can speculate all you want about CO2 but it doesn't change the apparent fact, shown by this reconstruction, that there has been similar phenomenons in the past and it did not benefit from high levels of CO2.
Your explanation is akin to someone observing the tide coming in and thinking that they caused it because they just took a piss in the ocean.
So...we had a spike with low CO2 and with high CO2.
Logic would dictate that CO2 is not a factor since the phenomenon happened regardless of the CO2 level.
I believed you switched to trolling at 3:43.
You have a problem. These guys did what folks have been taunting skeptics to do for decades...collect their own data and they aren't even skeptics.
They did it. They collected a shit ton of it. They put it through peer review and published it.
Anyone with an ounce of integrity would look at their results and at the very least say something to the affect of "Maybe we need to take a second look at all of this".
Instead what we get (at least from Slashdot) is the equivalent of "lalala I can't hear you".
Sorry if their data doesn't fall into the Mann preconceptions but people have to admit that we don't know shit about Climate and that there is far more data to collect and far more thinking that needs to be done.
"The Science is Settled" is what bullshitters use to shut down discussion and further investigations. Good thing these guys didn't think the science is settled because they found some interesting stuff.
You cannot prove the current spike is the result of your mechanism since the spike has apparently occurred several times in the past.
Explain what caused those and why the same mechanism is not causing this one, then we'll talk.
If I walk out the door of my house, I might be hit by a truck.
Ringing your hands about what MIGHT be possible is not the way to conduct public policy.
But then, I'm all for nuclear energy. Go for that and all this bullshit arguing goes away. We get better security, far less pollution and much more energy at a cheaper cost. But let me guess...you oppose nuclear energy.
Data that was generated much in the same manner as that which supports the hockey stick shows that what we are going through is nothing unique.
Now, you have two choices, dismiss the data, which means you dismiss the that data that supports the hockey stick too, or accept the data, which means you got some splain'n to do.
Everyone is cherry picking. I pick the largest and highest resolution dataset. Which do you pick?
Oh, so you are officially disputing the results of their reconstruction? I thought only deniers disputed peer reviewed literature.
I had one of those Mayan era Hummers. Fucker weighed a ton because it was made of rock. Got at least 3 MPG though!
So you just blow by the point with nary a word.
You claim this spike is man made. What caused the others? Until you can answer that and show that this one is also not caused by the same thing(s) as the others, you are just pissing in the wind.
Ahh but it is the largest and highest resolution.
And their aim is not especially relevant to my point, is it?
So it's possible that the spikes in the past were natural and this spike is man-made.
"Possible"?
Multiple spikes in the past, but this one just happens to be made made?
It's possible that little green men are lighting their farts and increasing the temperatures.Therefore we should spend s hit ton of money to find and kill them. You don't make public policy on speculation.
Was not the Hockey Stick data mostly taken from a relatively small sample of rings from a small geographic region?
While I am skeptical that tree rings can provide a accuracy of temp measurements the 10th of a degree, at the very least this proxy is the most extensive and contains the most data.
Referencing it is simply putting the discussion on the same frame of reference.
Current AGW proclamations rely heavily on the paleoclimate records to show that the current trend is "unprecedented". This study undermines that assertion using the same data the AGW crowd uses to support it.
There are several nice big spikes. There are several instances of sustained temps that exceed the trend. If you want to assert that the current spike is unique and that we are causing it, you need to explain what cased the previous ones and why the current one is not driven by the same forces.
Looking at the graph you can see at least 6 instances of abrupt temperature increases that are identical to the last one and at least 5 times temps exceeded the trend.
In that context, our recent increases are not unique. If you want to pin the recent increases on Man and CO2, then you need to explain how the past increases came to be and why the current increases are not driven by the same forces.
Looking at the graph you can see at least 6 instances of abrupt temperature increases and at least 5 times temps exceeded the trend.
In that context, our recent increases are not unique. If you want to pin the recent increases on Man, then you need to explain how the past increases came to be and why the current increases are not driven by the same forces.
I don't know which graph you are looking at, but the one in TFA shows several instances of abrupt rises in temps, or, hockey sticks if you want...at least six.
There are several instances where the kick up sharply throughout the last 2000 years.
Given that this is by far the most extensive and highest resolution proxy yet developed, the entire Climate community should take pause, especially since other proxy reconstructions have legitimate issues with data selection.
Overall, the amount of data we have is ridiculously small given the significance of the statements they make based on those data.
A far as current rate of rise, while I admit a graph on a web page is a poor indicator, I see many instances of temperature increases (between the Migration Period and the Medieval Warming) that are same or nearly the same as the increase illustrated at the end of the graph.
Be that as is may, as usual, this will not be resolved on Slashdot. But it's new data and I look forward to it being evaluated by the Climate community at large.
One of the many controversies in the AGW discussion is the context of current warming.
This reconstructions shows a Roman Warming period and Medieval warming in which, "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods."
In other words, it's been hotter and claims about the current environment have to be reconciled with the past.
You mean this trend?
Yeah...for the cost of my Shelby, I could buy a rear view mirror for a "real performance car".
But I can still go almost as fast and look twice as cool. Well, as long as they don't actually see me.
Uh Oh...must be one of those Camaro owners - Eternally jealous. :-)
Well, with the rear seat delete option, I can only take one. But I have room for groceries!
And..Silent? FTS!
I paid extra for the better sounding exhaust.