About a month ago I made the assertion that the Earth has been warmer for MOST of the past 10,000 years. This is evident in both Ice cores from the North and South Poles. Its also been shown to be the case in dozens of peer reviewed studies from various locations around the globe. AustinGreen and Tohachitu used the BS Skeptical Science website to bolster a defense that the ice core data is not calibrated to contemporary temperature readings and that the ice core data ended 150 years ago. Skeptical Science made a graph showing that today is warmer than the previous 10,000 years by calibrating the ice core data to modern readings. They needed to add 3.5C degrees to their graph to make today warmer. Today that Bull S graph is deleted. Apparently even they cant stomach the extent of their lies. BTW Ausingreen and Tohochitu the past 10,000 years were warmer than today. You no longer have liars to quote.
These drawings of folks ice skating on the Thames are clearly revisionist history! The Frost Fairs: the frozen River Thames in London | History and traditions of England Your best bet is time traveling climatologists planted the pictures.
Thats the page ,but Im referring to the graph which you deleted . A red line where you added 3.5 degrees to the ice core data to show that today is warmer than the past 10,000 years. If that graph was true,why bother deleting it? You added 3.5 degrees to the Ice core data . Care to explain? You added a fictitious Hockey Stick onto the ice core data.
tochatihu, you quoted this website to support your opinion. But you cant acknowledge they have taken down the graph you quoted?
It is not unlikely that I would have mentioned SkS, although going directly to the literature (or science news' websites) is more my style. I did search PriusChat though, and found this post of mine: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why | Page 2 | PriusChat from 16 December 2009. Is that the one you mean Mojo? I am guessing not, so your help is again needed. Still it seems quite a high bar to hold me responsible for things posted on SkS, or anywhere, really. I would not dream of holding Mojo responsible for WUWT. Now that Mr. Nuccitelli is here, we may hear more from the direct source. For all readers, as always I'd be much happier if you looked at the literature and data yourselves, in forming your understanding of these issues. I still think that ice-core guys should collect fresh snow from their ice-core sites for a year. Then put it all together, melt it and measure the (paleo T proxy) isotopes. Compare that to the results in the core. AFAICT they don't do that, though it makes sense to me. Maybe our new member Nuccitelli could speak to that?
Not an expert on ice cores, I hunted up a review paper http://www.clim-past.net/6/115/2010/cp-6-115-2010.pdf Which discusses several factors that influence isotopic ratios in high-latitude cores, paleo temperature among them. I get the general impression that they are best on the glacial/interglacial time scales. A scale where few other proxies exist. On hundreds to thousands year scales, they are not ideal (because of those other factors) but fortunately there we have tree rings and speleothems and other tools. But I do not get the impression that the only information recorded in ice-core 18O isotopes over the shorter times is global temperature. Have a look and decide for yourselves. Also you might enjoy this 4000-year reconstruction from Greenland http://www.syntrillium.net/sigasaswelt/ressource/pdf/2011GL049444.pdf and in the bottom panel of Figure 1 you can see that there were many times when that site was warmer than at present. My 'library card' does not allow me to access this: Paleoclimates: what do we learn from deep ice cores? Jean Jouzel, Valérie Masson-Delmotte Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change Volume 1, Issue 5, pages 654–669, September/October 2010 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.72 But if you pop over and read the abstract you will see why I have requested a copy from the authors. So can you. I think that even we 'laymen' should be able to generally understand the strengths and weakness of this area of research. If not, the authors aren't doing their jobs! Then we can decide if Don Easterbrook (for example) is an honest broker or maybe trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Decide for yourself and eliminate the middleman! By which I mean there would be less need to go to SkS or WUWT or all the rest.
Within a typically short (but not record breaking) time, Valérie Masson-Delmotte sent me the review mentioned above. I imagine these scientists sitting by their computers in pyjamas, hoping that someone will ask... But let us set that aside. Anyone who wants to read the review, let me know (unless you want to disturb Valérie yourselves). Then you will be in a good position to judge what we can learn from 'the cores'. I shall only offer a little teaser: The ice corers want longer cores to look further into the Earth's climate history/variation. This thousands-of-year stuff is not the great strength of ice cores and paleo isotope proxies. For that, we have trees and other things mentioned above. If Easterbrook's pulling wool over your eyes gets to feel a bit itchy, just push it off. He won't mind. He seeks a less thoughtful audience than the Prius nerds assembled here (U NO U R). And once again, I thank Mojo for urging me to explore the literature beyond my usual playground. You make me better.
I might have used the website to show a graph from a paper, but I certainly was not using that website as any authority on its own. It is a blog like your WUWT. It can point you to research, but mostly is got a point of view. Since I have been called out, can you at least show me what I said that was offensive? The ice core data goes back many thousands of years, and it takes awhile for ice to build up. We do have instrument records to look at in the period between the cores and present day. Any of the peer reviewed work will do this. Perhaps you were looking at core data that started 150 years ago. I'm sure the post will show us what we are looking at. Different spots on the planet warm at different rates, and I am quite skeptical of getting an accurate picture of global temperatures from 10,000 years ago. Many do try to do this though, I am no expert. I may have given you reconstructions from one of the experts. We do get good local temperatures from ice cores, but the further back we go, the more years that are averaged. I find the banter on this forum a little off putting. People would rather read some blog that says some political things than look at the research. Temperature models from 10,000 years ago are not my field of expertise. I have not read any peer reviewed papers that have said that most of the last 10,000 years were warmer globally. I have seen greenland core reconstructions that have had higher temperatures. Perhaps that is what is confusing you.
If the world does not end in the next 24 hrs per Mayan-calendar misinterpretations, I will start another discussion here about relationships between air T and CO2 on the century scale. My ideas are much simpler than the IPCC, but heck, just give them a look and decide for yourselves. I will always express my own uncertainty as I know it. Maybe you can do better. For the moment I am hunkering down, just in case Nibiru shows up from out of nowhere
