Global Warming

[pjclarke]

Wierd, coulda sworn there was a post here a moment ago saying something about the ice age start date, been Googling? ....

The bore hole/ice core data reconstructs the data to 1995 to be exact. The fact that they have analysed temps from the ice, using Oxygen isotopes up until the present time makes a complete mockery of the assertions on Skeptical Science that it isn't possible, i.e. the data only goes up until 1855. It quite obviously doesn't.

Just wrong. Borehole proxies work by actually measuring the current temperature at various depths and adjusting for upward heat flux (read the paper!), nothing to do with isotopes. Ice cores work by analysing the composition of ice bubbles trapped at various depths. The borehole data goes up to present day, albeit with decadal resolution, the ice cores, well just one more thing that Easterbrook gets wrong:

Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.

Here's another Easterbrook special



You'll notice that

- He has 10K years ago warmer than today, as opposed to -2C in the borehole data,

- He has no idea when the MWP was, and

- His 'present day' temps are just nuts.

Apart from that, a perfectly informative graph.

Sure you want to champion this guy?

[DiscoStu]

Honestly, I just don't care

[pjclarke]

Nor me. Did I mention I pay just £10/year road tax?

[shaunbhoy]

Nor me. Did I mention I pay just £10/year road tax?

That the going rate for a Sinclair C5, with front spoiler and optional lentil-dispenser then?

[pjclarke]

[EternalOptimist]

well, a little self deprecation is good. maybe there's hope for you yet

[d000hg]

Se levels are actually currently dropping:

You clearly win because your graph has several pretty colours.

MSL is presumably Mean Sea Level... seems rather odd to post a graph with a clear trend line which opposes your own argument and then focus on a local minima, as if it means's something... but if I read it right it shows the current local history is again rising. It's late and I'm tired... should I be looking at the graph upside down?

[EternalOptimist]

There's another point here doogie. According to the dogma, that graph should have been accelerating away towards the ceiling.

It's the fact that it isnt thats interesting.

If you make a bold prediction and it doesnt come to pass, you have two choices, pull your neck in and see where you screwed up
or say you were right all along and make excuses

That bloke in the states who predicted the end of the world last summer was a classic example of cagw thinking. Prediction demonstrably proven to be tosh, move the goalposts and pretend it never happened.

[pjclarke]

Over the short term, the ENSO gives us the 'wiggles ...'

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content...ate-enso-index

seems rather odd to post a graph with a clear trend line which opposes your own argument and then focus on a local minima, as if it means's something

Yeah, you see that a lot. For example since 2007 the arctic sea ice is 'recovering' ...



Who knew? Here are some more pretty colours



Wierd. Looks like the sea level is actually tracking the upper bound of the IPCC projections.

Source: Fig 1 from this paper updated with recent data.

[EternalOptimist]

Over the short term, the ENSO gives us the 'wiggles ...'

2011_rel2: GMSL and Multivariate ENSO Index | CU Sea Level Research Group


Yeah, you see a lot of that. Here's some more pretty colours



Yep, the sea level is actually tracking the upper bound of the IPCC projections.

Source: Fig 1 from this paper updated with recent data.

nice, but I think Blaster, I, and the rest of the planet were talking about recent measurements, not those from a few years earlier.

The current measurements do NOT match the predictions in any way. face it