StudentOfClimatology

Bingo, and both of these are true. Ice cores are the very foundation of paleoclimate research today, so I'm surprised so many people don't understand how to interpret them. If anything, they're hemispheric SST proxies.

Did you intentionally take that sentence out of context? Sorry to be rude, but this has to be the 5th time I've gone over this. My specialized area of study is paleoclimate..this is 1st grade stuff. That sentence is referring to dating of the estimated temperature..*when* the snow fell, not *where* the snow fell. The temperature of condensation determines the initial O^16/O^18 ratio as the precipitation process is just getting underway..the required temperature to keep O^2^18 bonded and bouyant during the evaporation process does not occur above 50-60N.

I'm sick of rehashing preschool science to you. Arguing that the O^18/^16 ratios are regionally representative is analogous to arguing that CO^2 is not well mixed, or that the dust concentration in the ice pack is regional. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/icecore_review.pdf http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/ice_core_proxy_records.html

They're not regional..the temperatures required to vaporize bonds w/ O^18 and maintain buoyancy (at the aforementioned ratio) are far above those found above 60N for most of the year. Nothing is regionally represented within the ice core data, whether it be dust concentration, or isotope formation/separation.

I agree that the paper is fatally flawed, but too many people misunderstand what ice core proxies are actually measuring. The isotope ratios used to reconstruct temperature are governed by processes over the tropical, subtropical, and extratropical oceans, not over the Arctic. The heavier O^3 isotopes are mostly rained out by 50-60N, in fact. The isotope ratios within ice cores are, for all intents and purposes, hemispheric SST proxies. The Arctic cores depict SSTs over the Northern Hemisphere, while the Antarctic cores depict SSTs over the Southern Hemisphere.

It doesn't matter what journal the paper was published in. All that matters is the content of the paper itself. Anyway, I decided to purchase the paper and read it last night. There is a major flaw in the paper in my opinion, which is that the authors fail to tune for known/observed radiative forcings when assigning attribution to the 20th century warming. Their conclusion basically states that because the observed warming is within the natural standard deviation(s) of the Holocene, the observed 20th century warming is largely natural. In my opinion, this error undermines the entirety of the paper. That said, their ice core analysis was good, as was their high resolution Holocene reconstruction (matches up well with GISP, GISP2, and GRIP).

This place has become almost unreadable lately.

No one takes you seriously because you're constantly inventing stuff and trying to pass it off as fact thereafter. It's irritating to read, honestly. I'm happy to have a reasonable, science-based conversation with you, but you'll need to stop playing dress-up before I do so.

You're *literally* describing yourself to a tee here. Couldn't have scripted this one any better.

When the PDO goes negative in a few years, will you never post here again?

TGW is trying to help you understand this..he doesn't agree with you regarding the PDO/ENSO because he actually knows what he's talking about. Both ENSO and the PDO are detrended and the former is technically based on SST contrast, not temperatures. Even if we warm 100 degrees, it'll have no effect on these phenomenon. Get that into your head, please.

Are you this stupid? The PDO & ENSO are both based on SST contrast(s), not temperatures. If the oceans warmed 100 degrees everywhere, that wouldn't change the frequency of La Niñas or negative PDOs.

No, it's actually normal for the 20C isotherm to reach 300-400m under an antecedent El Niño thermocline. Literally everything you post here is pure horses**t.

So the Earth is rotating faster now? Why would the coriolis force strengthen? Plus, if more warm water is being transported northward, then more cold water must also be transported south..conservation of mass. This would represent a stronger AMOC, too. I'm done responding to this crap.

That makes no sense. If the northern Gulf Stream is gaining latitude as you say, it can't be weaker..where's it getting the energy to penetrate further NE over the NATL? Why do you make stuff up like this?

If the Gulf Stream has moved north, that'd indicate a strengthening of the AMOC, not a weakening. Do some research before posting next time.

You're the one making stuff up, not me.

http://www.atmos.umd.edu

I agree with you here. It's generally viewed that the 8200kyr event marked the coldest excursion within the Holocene, followed by the LIA and the DACP.

It's definitely seemed that way recently, I admit. I'll try to tone it down. I'm just a bit frustrated because we had this exact debate ~ 6 months ago and I thought it had run its course. Denying that the HCO was the warmest period since the Eemian maximum is almost like denying AGW.

You'd honestly be laughed at by anyone with education in paleoclimate if you pulled crap in an academic setting. I mean, you were treating just aggregated proxy data as if it were analogous to yearly changes in the instrumental data..talk about hall-of-fame caliber nonsense. Also, I added a *~* symbol before the number 80. I don't know what the exact number is but the point stands..the vast majority of work in the database suggests the HCO was significantly warmer than present, including Marcott et al 2013, as a matter of fact.

You're full of it. I linked you to 28 peer reviewed studies, all in unanimous agreement regarding the magnitude of the HCO relative to today's climate. I'm only aware of four studies in existence that argue otherwise. If you don't want to read them, that's your choice. But I'm not going to do your research for you. Ice core proxies are not regional, they're hemispheric. The O^16/O^18 isotope ratios are determined primarily by temperatures at 300-1000mb over the sea surface between 10N/S and 60N/S latitude bands, where the heavier isotopes are circulated and subsequently rained out at higher latitudes due to the decease in macroscale buoyancy. The ratio between the variously isotopes is then calculated. http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/ice_core_proxy_records.html Once again, you are not accounting for the resolution change between the paleoclimate reconstruction and the observational data. If you want to determine the HCO/modern day differential with any certainty, you need to tune the observational data to the proxy resolution, or statistically account for the smoothing process in the proxy data itself. Do you understand why this is? Marcott explains this in the FAQ of the paper. If you'd actually have read it, you wouldn't be posting this nonsense..

Yeah, I'd actually just clicked on the cc-forum when you posted.

No such ranting exists. I'm just tired of rehashing what is largely settled science.

Here, I'll do your research for you. Gosh. Tell me which papers you "can't find", and I'll link them for you. Call it a personal favor. First, I'll quote Marcott et al directly, because you obviously did not read the paper. Even though their proxies are aggregated on a 200-300yr resolution and do not show the variability that most reconstructions present, they state: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/comment-page-1 Again, this is basically settled science.