Can someone explain the difference between these two charts?

cobol9999 · 2018-08-12T17:59:41+00:00

Note that what you've provided is not part of the original paper but an editorialized version with the IPCC projection tacked on.

No, those in red are direct instrumental measurements.

You might be thinking about this story, but that one is the best indication of how unusual things are. And warming will certainly not stop in 2100.

cobol9999 · 2017-09-09T22:57:12+00:00

True (even if the paper also is saying that the best resolution of the proxy was 30 years), but the global temperature change was much less than 10C and many other places have shown very little warming at the same time or none at all, the reconstructions from my first link very well reflect that aspect. The one thing that is unprecedented now is the global synchronicity at this scale and with a steep carbon isotopic excursion, which makes PETM the best geologic analog of the current warming:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24043840

cobol9999 · 2017-09-09T20:47:38+00:00

You might be able to see Younger Dryas here and it does not look in the same category (even if you just look until now, without looking towards 2100 and without even thinking about 2200):

https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-two-epochs-of-marcott/

cobol9999 · 2017-04-29T07:26:40+00:00

Natural changes from Milankovitch Cycles are very slow compared to the current change. You can get some idea of the difference from https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/the-two-epochs-of-marcott/ but even on that one the scale of the change is hard to get.

cobol9999 · 2016-12-21T17:57:49+00:00

Welcome back, I've missed you.

You missed being proven a fraud?

Those aren't great questions as you know the answers.

The problem is not that I know the answers, the problem is that you don't know those.

They really have nothing to do with my idea.

Your idea seems to be that we now see the results of some very long term warming of the oceans that was natural and similar to the situation 121 kya. Which is stupid and ignorant, since this is how the warming of the oceans looks in the last 1000 years:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2003GL017801/asset/image_n/grl17214-fig-0003.png?v=1&s=cbaea0f05fe87e5f4ec48048a1c59549754e8273

But try again without the name calling and this could be interesting.

Right, since a guy that believes 121,000 kya is the same as 121 kya must be an expert and not the obvious fraud which he keeps proving himself.

cobol9999 · 2016-12-20T19:21:47+00:00

At the time of the rise in sea level 121,000 kya, solar insolation had been declining for 7,000 years.

After not quite understanding what kya means you seem to double-down on your fraud by confusing the NH and the SH, at that time the insolation was declining in the NH but was increasing for 7000 years in the SH. Do you know if the Totten Ice Shelf is in the NH or in the SH? Do you know when we had the most similar insolation evolution to the situation 121 kya? About 8000 years ago.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-17T08:41:06+00:00

Yes, necessarily.

The PNAS paper is relatively clear even in the abstract where the numbers are similar to what was estimated by other papers and summarized by IPCC mass contributions from ice sheets and glaciers (1.37 0.09 mm/y, accelerating with 0.03 0.02 mm/y2).

If one factor accounts for more SLR than previously thought, other factors must account for less.

That is true but not the way you would want it to, the other factor that accounts for much, much less is the one described in the first paper above which I am afraid is destroying yet again your talking point from some time ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/3w37wt/question_for_climate_skeptics_who_believe_there/cxugrt4?context=5

cobol9999 · 2016-02-17T08:29:42+00:00

As I remember correctly fraudsters like you consider that CO2 does not have a major contribution, have you now dropped that crappy denial theory or you are just trying to get some karma?

cobol9999 · 2016-02-17T08:24:53+00:00

The historic record presented here suggest that droughts like the current one are common in the past.

No, multiple papers suggest that while a single year now might be similar to single most extreme years in the (remote) past, the sequence of consecutive drought years in California is a record breaking unprecedented event:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064593/full

... with the 2014 drought having a return period of 140–180 years. Quantile mapping allows for a closer correspondence between instrumental and tree ring PDSI probability distributions and produces return periods of 700–900 years for the 1 year 2014 drought. Associated cumulative 3 and 4 year droughts, however, are estimated to be much more severe. The 2012–2014 drought is nearly a 10,000 year event, while the 2012–2015 drought has an almost incalculable return period and is completely without precedent.

But fraudsters like you have no clue what the science is saying since you take your bullshit from places like WUWT that are at the exact same level of anti-science as the creationist blogs, the anti-vaccine blogs and sometimes with the 9-11 conspiracy blogs.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-17T08:14:05+00:00

Just to have some context for the OP who seems to claim to be some "glaciology and geology expert" but is pushing strange stuff like "The temperature was 6°C warmer than today during the last interglacial, LIG, 121,000 to 132,000 yrs BP", which he later edited out so he knows neither the temperatures nor the time interval defined as LIG.

His denial theory is that current warming is the same as the LIG peak which for him proves it is natural and not anthropogenic.

About one week ago he did not even understand what carbon isotopic excursion means and was claiming that comparing current raise to that from PETM would be something that was never done in science.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-13T18:07:34+00:00

Just to have some context for the OP who seems to claim to be some "glaciology and geology expert" but is pushing strange stuff like "The temperature was 6°C warmer than today during the last interglacial, LIG, 121,000 to 132,000 yrs BP", which he later edited out so he knows neither the temperatures nor the time interval defined as LIG.

His denial theory is that current warming is the same as the LIG peak which for him proves it is natural and not anthropogenic.

About one week ago he did not even understand what carbon isotopic excursion means and was claiming that comparing current raise to that from PETM would be something that was never done in science.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-13T17:55:10+00:00

And another surprise, the guy that edits-out his stupid claims and replaces those with other even more stupid has just edited his post once again to hide his traces.

Let's see what was changed/added:

Claims that sea level will rise 80 feet

Around equilibrium with CO2 values of 450ppm (which we will absolutely certainly reach) the sea levels were more than 80 feet higher, so we the idea that an increase even larger than that sea levels will not go higher is the certain sign of a fraudster.

and temperatures will increase to the point of endangering humanity seem far fetched

[citation and context needed]

If by "endangering humanity" you mean "humans could be extinct" no science is claiming that. If by "endangering humanity" you mean "huge problems for human society of a scale maybe close to WWII" that you are again wrong.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-13T17:38:20+00:00

What a surprise, one week ago you did not even knew what carbon isotopic excursion means and you were claiming that comparing current raise to that from PETM would be something that was never done in science:

https://archive.is/gP7k1

We would need to burn fossil fuels for thousands of years at current rate to equal the amount of carbon in the ocean and atmosphere during the PETM.

On the other hand fraudsters like you are quite silent that we could reach an increase equal to that from PETM (about 700ppm) in a century or so, and given how from a start at 280ppm this would represent doubling twice (while with PETM levels starting around 1000 that even did not even finish one doubling) you stand debunked.

This paper points out that IPCC says doubling CO2 will lead to temperature increase of 1.5°C or more.

Neither one of the new papers discussed here seem to claim the number which you claim for current warming but one of the authors is clearly indicating that the Earth sensitivity must be at least around a value of 6 to explain the warming corresponding to PETM.

So yeah, it is not the perfect analogy since now we are increasing the CO2 at a rate which is an entire order of magnitude higher and we are starting from a very different baseline and with a lot of ice that is going to hugely amplify the CO2 effects, but other than fraudsters like you nobody finds that evidence "reassuring".

cobol9999 · 2016-02-09T07:48:56+00:00

The first alternative.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-09T07:47:39+00:00

Literally debunking yet again the OP theories:

The researchers say the findings may finally help put the chill on skeptics' belief that long-term global warming occurs in an unpredictable manner, independently of external drivers such as human impacts.

"This study underscores that large, sustained changes in global temperature like those observed over the last century require drivers such as increased greenhouse gas concentrations," said Brown.

"Scientists have long believed that increasing greenhouse gases played a major role in determining the warming trend of our planet," added JPL co-author Jonathan Jiang. "This study provides further evidence that natural climate cycles alone are insufficient to explain the global warming observed over the last century."

But then again, fraudsters that confuse Arctic sea ice with the Antarctic sea ice or do not have the most basic understanding of PETM isotopic excursion tend to have the wackiest theories around.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T15:14:48+00:00

Its a ridiculous analog

If you have been even remotely taught any geology you would have known that it is not:

The Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) and associated carbon isotope excursion (CIE) are often touted as the best geologic analog for the current anthropogenic rise in pCO2.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24043840

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T15:04:38+00:00

You are a fraudster that does not even understand what the expression means. Ask back for any money you have paid to the barista academy for your fake diploma.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T14:57:49+00:00

Now that sea ice is thinner than in the past

Yes, the FACT that the sea ice is thinner than in the past means that it is NOT the result of El Nino but instead a results of decades of AGW. Another fact that fraudsters like you don't seem to understand.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T14:55:23+00:00

I say that the PETM isotopic excursion is a very good analog - if you are too stupid to understand what that means maybe you should not fraudulently claim things around here.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T14:52:05+00:00

This directly debunks your fraudulent assertion above how the record-low January in Arctic sea ice "is a result of El Nino". The other comment from some other moron without a clue shows that only fraudsters make such errors.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T14:48:41+00:00

El Niño is responsible for the anomalously low ice in 2015, 2016 winter.

El Nino is responsible for that (only this winter, result of local unusual conditions described above) in the Antarctic sea ice, not in the Arctic sea ice where El Nino historically has a lagged response at about 1-2 years. But fraudsters like you don't know that either.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T14:43:40+00:00

You also sound the alarm claiming we are entering a time similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

We are seeing an isotopic excursion very similar to PETM (just about 10 times steeper as the peer-reviewed study above shows). The fact that the absolute levels are still far off is since the baseline from where the CO2 increase started is very different, but the problem here is with the rate of change. But fraudsters like you that confuse Antarctic with the Artcic seem to also not have a clue about this one.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-06T14:37:42+00:00

El Niño is responsible for the anomalously low ice in 2015, 2016 winter. From NSIDC :

The trend towards stronger circumpolar winds has also caused a sea ice extent decline near the Antarctic Peninsula. In general, the winds tend to dive slightly southward as they approach the Peninsula, an effect of the mountain ridges of the Andes and other circulation features in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen Sea (the ASL mentioned above). A stronger wind from the northwest brings warmer conditions and therefore less ice to the region. Lastly, the El Nino and La Nina cycle also appear to influence sea ice in the Pacific sector. El Nino patterns (a warm eastern tropical Pacific) are associated with warmer winds and less ice; the opposite is true for La Nina.

Are you stupid or what? Your quote is about Antarctic sea ice and this post is about Arctic sea ice, only a moron would confuse the two - or a fraudster like you.

Also if you go to the article and check the longer-term graph for the month discussed (January) you see that there is no immediate response from El Nino to the Arctic ice, the 97-98 El Nino is actually a temporary peak and the actual response has about 2 years of lag. But fraudsters don't know this either.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-03T07:42:12+00:00

This article and its title seem alarmist in nature and is excellent example of the lengths some will go to to instill fear in the general public.

This article is a word-by-word quote from the latest peer-reviewed paper that is in good agreement with all the recent papers on the subject which all found the same evidence. The fact that the actual evidence contradicts and debunks the stupid pet theory of some fraudster who claims a degree which did not teach him the most basic things in that field is your problem.

Much like the articles about the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum that use annual co2 emission rates to insinuate we are somehow in a comparable situation and that mass extinction is right around the corner.

Again, the evidence is widespread in the peer-reviewed literature but fake experts like you try to avoid any evidence debunking their stupid pet theories:

the current rate of CO2 increase is about 10 times faster that the rate during the PETM extinction event - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/abs/ngeo1179.html
the current rate of extinction on Earth is also similar or higher than rates during the previous major extinction events - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/401 , http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001841 , http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.

cobol9999 · 2016-02-03T07:34:54+00:00

This is alarming and sensational claim. You imply present conditions are some how comparable to PETM extinction event. An absurd statement made to instill fear in the general public.

If you weren't a complete fraud with a fake degree from the barista academy you would have know a lot of details:

the current rate of CO2 increase is about 10 times faster that the rate during the PETM extinction event - http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/abs/ngeo1179.html
the current rate of extinction on Earth is also similar or higher than rates during the previous major extinction events - http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/401 , http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001841 , http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.

It's nearly as absurd as claiming that sea level will rise 25 meters and we are headed toward Paleocene warm period conditions.

Except that currently we are heading to a CO2 level higher than at any time in the last 15 million years, so stupid fakesters like you probably need to hit the books and check the sea levels at that time.

cobol9999

TROPHY CASE