Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

kerplunk said:

Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24

how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree.

Indeed - ice cores are a regional sea temperature proxy and there's anti-phasing with Antarctic ice cores for some of the ups and downs suggesting a hemispherical see-sawing, so shouldn't be taken as global temps.

As the temperature peaks tend to correspond to already noted warmer times (they even have names - MWP etc) it could also be quite reasonable to use this ice core record as a global temperature indicator.

[Gadgetmac]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

kerplunk said:

Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24

how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree.

Indeed - ice cores are a regional sea temperature proxy and there's anti-phasing with Antarctic ice cores for some of the ups and downs suggesting a hemispherical see-sawing, so shouldn't be taken as global temps.

As the temperature peaks tend to correspond to already noted warmer times (they even have names - MWP etc) it could also be quite reasonable to use this ice core record as a global temperature indicator.

So why don’t they?

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

kerplunk said:

Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24

how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree.

Indeed - ice cores are a regional sea temperature proxy and there's anti-phasing with Antarctic ice cores for some of the ups and downs suggesting a hemispherical see-sawing, so shouldn't be taken as global temps.

As the temperature peaks tend to correspond to already noted warmer times (they even have names - MWP etc) it could also be quite reasonable to use this ice core record as a global temperature indicator.

I wouldn't say it's UNusable but 'reasonable' would depend on what claims you make based on it. Does a greenland proxy alone prove MWP was global? No - more data required.

[kerplunk]

Halb said:

kerplunk said:

Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24

So where would it be on the chart if it went up to today?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

kerplunk said:

Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24

how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree.

Indeed - ice cores are a regional sea temperature proxy and there's anti-phasing with Antarctic ice cores for some of the ups and downs suggesting a hemispherical see-sawing, so shouldn't be taken as global temps.

Some of the swings are in phase though, and in the same direction.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Thesprucegoose said:

kerplunk said:

Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24

how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree.

Indeed - ice cores are a regional sea temperature proxy and there's anti-phasing with Antarctic ice cores for some of the ups and downs suggesting a hemispherical see-sawing, so shouldn't be taken as global temps.

Some of the swings are in phase though, and in the same direction.

Yes that kind of follows from what I said doesn't it. The reason to be wary is of course Greenland's regional climate is very much affected by changes in the atlantic conveyor. When it slows down the north atlantic gets cold and the south atlantic gets warm.

[kerplunk]

So anyway, in terms of the greenland's present regional climate in the context of the holocene we have Terminater's misleadingly labelled graph and this from carbon brief:



Conclusion

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.

Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions cease in the near future, warming will continue and, by the middle of the 21st century, Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago.

References

---

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

You wave away any risk from climate change so for you the answers are easy.

Because with cheap reliable energy there is no threat from the effects of climate change - even the beyond unlikely RCP 8.4

[Halb]

kerplunk said:

So anyway, in terms of the greenland's present regional climate in the context of the holocene we have Terminater's misleadingly labelled graph and this from carbon brief:



Conclusion

Greenland ice cores provide a high-quality high-resolution estimate of past changes in temperatures, allowing more precise comparisons with observed temperature records than most other climate proxies. While current temperatures are likely still below the highs in the early Holocene around 7,000 years ago, they are clearly higher than any temperatures experienced in Greenland over the past 2,000 years.

Greenland is just one location and temperature variations seen in ice core records may not be characteristic of global temperatures. However, global proxy reconstructions have tended to show similar patterns, with current temperatures lower than the early Holocene maximum.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions cease in the near future, warming will continue and, by the middle of the 21st century, Greenland – and the world as a whole – will likely experience temperatures that are unprecedented at least since the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago.

References

---

how is it misleading?

[kerplunk]

Halb said:

how is it misleading?

as above - graph has 'modern warm period' label but data curve only goes to mid-19th century so modern warm period mostly absent..

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 24th June 23:56

[Halb]

kerplunk said:

as above - graph has 'modern warm period' label but data curve only goes to mid-19th century so modern warm period mostly absent..

Right. If the current one was shown, whereabouts would be be in relation to the others?

[kerplunk]

Halb said:

kerplunk said:

as above - graph has 'modern warm period' label but data curve only goes to mid-19th century so modern warm period mostly absent..

Right. If the current one was shown, whereabouts would be be in relation to the others?

?

You asked upthread and I posted a link already.

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

Halb said:

kerplunk said:

as above - graph has 'modern warm period' label but data curve only goes to mid-19th century so modern warm period mostly absent..

Right. If the current one was shown, whereabouts would be be in relation to the others?

?

You asked upthread and I posted a link already.

Warning Will Robinson, warning
Splicing of instrumental & proxy records.
(unless you know different)

[mko9]

Yes, what do the various proxy data show for the 1970s up to today? Might shed some light on whether or not they really are a good proxy, or just the only data we have.

[Halb]

kerplunk said:

?

You asked upthread and I posted a link already.

I missed it. Thanks

[jshell]

So, science!

There's a GSM coming, likely this year. There are varying views from: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-article... to https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zhark... and of course, www.Notatallskepticalscience.com leads the charge from the 'nothing to see here', angle.

What do we think here?
- We're gonna freeze in our beds?
- We're gonna cook in our own juices?
- We'll cool and then cook to death when the mitigating effects of the GSM subside and the nasty, life supporting carbons come to get us?

Buggered if I know!!

[kerplunk]

jshell said:

So, science!

There's a GSM coming, likely this year. There are varying views from: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-article... to https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zhark... and of course, www.Notatallskepticalscience.com leads the charge from the 'nothing to see here', angle.

What do we think here?
- We're gonna freeze in our beds?
- We're gonna cook in our own juices?
- We'll cool and then cook to death when the mitigating effects of the GSM subside and the nasty, life supporting carbons come to get us?

Buggered if I know!!

How is it 'likely'?

The nasa link does not discuss an imminent grand solar minimum, your third link doesn't work, so that just leaves one scientist (zharkova) predicting a GSM and other renowned solar scientists (eg Leif Svalgaard) do not concur with Zharkova.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

How is it 'likely'?

The nasa link does not discuss an imminent grand solar minimum, your third link doesn't work, so that just leaves one scientist (zharkova) predicting a GSM and other renowned solar scientists (eg Leif Svalgaard) do not concur with Zharkova.

Didn't James Hansen predict a down turn in temperatures in the next few years - I'll see if I can find the article.

[SwipeRight]

I've just seen this on the BBC Science page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-490...

Here's the actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2....


"This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions."

The three papers have been published in the journals Nature (1) and Nature Geoscience (2), (3).

[Jinx]

SwipeRight said:

I've just seen this on the BBC Science page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-490...

Here's the actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2....


"This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions."

The three papers have been published in the journals Nature (1) and Nature Geoscience (2), (3).

Hmm concentrations of high "anomolies" in modern era merely a resolution issue again? Are there any links to the actual data? And we have had record lows in the current era which the images do not show?

Oh and the BBC piece has a classic spliced temperature measurements record graph FFS. If you use a similar resolution as the lowest resolution in the proxies you have used for the rest of the graph (as is standard practice if you want an honest graph) then the temperature measurment records are not so scary......

Edited by Jinx on Thursday 25th July 10:10