Jump to content

StudentOfClimatology

Members
  • Posts

    4,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StudentOfClimatology

  1. Well, at least now I know you're pretty stupid. Not only is every paper fully documented and reachable via Google Scholar (do I really have to demonstrate this?), but you misinterpreted the conclusions of the Marcott et al 2013 study that you linked. Marcott et al 2013 agrees with the scientific consensus, which is that the HCO was clearly warmer than today, globally. I'm sick of having to rehash the basics of paleoclimatology here. This research is easy to do. Use your brain.
  2. I thought you were referring to the quote about the Pliocene. Regarding the Holocene climate optimum, your study is in the scientific minority, sorry. I just linked about 30 papers, including the beloved Marcott et al 2013, highlighting the consensus that current temperatures have not exceeded those observed during the Holocene climate optimum. The majority of the evidence points in this direction. This is basically settled science, at this point. If I'd argued that we were currently warmer than the HCO in any academic thesis or presentation, I'd flunk unless I were to provide original research of my own. That's seriously way "out there".
  3. This is the mistake you guys are making..PhillipS did not correctly interpret Marcott's smoothing algorithm. Read Marcott's FAQ if you're having trouble interpreting it statistically. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/comment-page-1 Statement by Marcott et al: Anyone arguing that today's temperatures are warmer than those observed during the Holocene climate optimum would be laughed at in any academic setting. I can link more recent papers, but they basically reiterate what the former were saying, as this is basically settled science.
  4. You sure don't understand context. Instrumental data is usually tuned to the proxy resolution used in the study. The best early/mid proxy resolutions are on the order of 50-200 years. Most of the early/mid Holocene work was done from the 1970s to the 1990s. I can link more recent papers if you'd like, but they'll reiterate the same thing.
  5. http://www.pages-igbp.org/calendar/127-pages/904-holocene-climate-change
  6. Did you even read my post? That's exactly what I said.
  7. If you had read Marcott et al 2013, you'd know that he himself notes that we have not yet reached peak interglacial warmth. That RealClimate.com graph is misleading for obvious reasons. But sure, I'll link you your studies.
  8. I agree on an (eventual) stabilization, but I think it'll occur much later. Eventually, Antarctica will begin to warm as AGW overwhelms the stratospheric processes that are currently keeping that domain relatively cold. There's also evidence for rapid changes to the Hadley Cells in the paleoclimate data, in response to various stimuli that include some of the forementioned processes. That alone could have enormous consequences in the future, if it occurs again.
  9. Yep, and that's the risk we face going forward. We can handle a gradual AGW, but if the system decides to go into one of its feedback loops (as it often does, geologically speaking), then we have a problem.
  10. I could link 50 studies that reach a vastly different conclusion regarding the Holocene climate optimum and subsequent millennial variability. Is that what you want?
  11. You're way out of the mainstream with this one, but it's not my job to govern your opinions. Good luck with your research.
  12. We can agree that Rayleigh Scattering causes it to appear blue in the presence of solar radiation.
  13. Please stop inventing crap like this. It's honestly annoying. No one is downplaying the 20th century warming..we know how much the planet has warmed since 1850..about 0.85C, +/- 0.2C. It was a very rapid warming, largely an anthropogenic signal. But it's nowhere near the levels seen during the Holocene climate optimum (yet).
  14. This is wrong. Three of the last five interglacials peaked at or above 1.5 degrees centigrade warmer than post-modern era. This is undisputed in the literature. The Holocene optimum wasn't quite as warm, but still peaked early in both the borehole data and the ice core data, well above current/post-modern era temperatures.
  15. Pliocene? Again, this is why a formal education would suit you well. Technically, the mid/late Pliocene was a glacial era. The majority of the proxy data is fairly clear regarding the Holocene climate optimum. Paleoclimate is my area of study.
  16. Yes, we'll eventually surpass the Holocene climate optimum. We'll need to warm at least 1 - 1.5 degrees centigrade, though.
  17. That's bullcrap. Try telling any paleoclimatologist that we're warmer now than we were during the Holocene optimum..you'll get all sorts of funny looks.
  18. That Marcott et al study depicting Holocene climate variability is at odds with ~80% of the peer reviewed literature in the paleoclimate arena. The consensus is the globe was at least 1 degree centigrade warmer during the Holocene climate optimum than it is now. The best global climate proxies are in fact the isotope ratios found in ice cores. Not only are they preserved better via the lack of biological decay, but they represent a process that takes place from the equator to the pole itself.
  19. Let me guess, would this be the data derived from the ISCCP? Remember, the error potential on that dataset is very large..a full 1.5 standard deviations per each side of the trend-line. Using it to determine trend(s) in cloud cover alone, not to mention cloud cover by altitude, isn't smart or scientifically sound. This is far from certain. There is conflicting data amongst the four primary sonde reanalyses and many satellite suites as well. What makes you think H^2O feedback is a linear process? The forecasted increases that matter all occur above 700mb, and there are a slew of factors that can alter mid/upper tropospheric H^2O content, including long term changes to the Brewer-Dobson circulation, aerosol production, solar forcing on O^3 photodissociation, etc. The very satellite networks/sounding units that you personally employ to measure global lower tropospheric temperatures also measure SSTs. This data is fed into both NCDC and HADCRUT4. Why don't you trust those datasets? GISS is the only surface dataset that employs ERSST3 as its primary source for ocean skin temperatures. This detracts from GISS's value, especially along land/sea boundaries and at the poles.
  20. Are his posts really worth responding to? The various CFS reanalyses weren't designed to observe global temperature, but are there mostly as a result of the methods employed to improve initialization schemes. No one should be using it for measure climate change.
  21. Not surprised In all seriousness, it would probably help you. Treat yourself with dignity and respect. Give it a try before jumping to conclusions like that. You might think that now, but you lack the perspective that only a legitimate education can give you. It shows, at times, too.
  22. Not a certain type of person..a certain type of education. There are many potential deviations and moving parts within the realm of atmospheric science. The fundamentals are still the same, though.
  23. There is no "climate science" degree..the atmospheric science degree is full spectrum. Additional degrees in physics and/or mathematics are helpful.
  24. Looks like your sarcasm detector is broken. Skier was agreeing with me. Blizzard1024 was using the highly-uncertain ISCCP dataset to argue for a net-negative low-cloud feedback to CO2 forcing, which is both risky and in contradiction to the vast majority of literature on the matter. I'm tired of babysitting you, dude. Learn to comprehend what you read instead of letting your imagination take over.
  25. You've got me confused with someone else, regarding the geographical boundaries of the Mid-Atlantic. I remember that exchange and I had nothing to do with it. I actually like you, personally, based on what I've read from you. I just think you'd make a better politician than a scientist, considering most of what you say is hogwash.
×
×
  • Create New...