rogman wrote:Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:Bubba wrote:
So, to answer the question I started with "Do you ever question the data or simply accept it?", I guess the answer is that you accept it.
Yeah again . Home Run. Rogman comes off as sincere (which I believe), bright (which I believe) and as an...
IMPARTIAL arbiter of climate data...
which he is definitely not.
His contention that he has diligently searched through the available climate data and has impartially come to the only sensible conclusion, which is... "the consensus is right!!"
By which he means:
combustion of hydrocarbon fuels has elevated atmospheric CO2 which has retained outgoing energy and the earth will warm dangerously as a consequence
...or...
simply...
"whatever you read at Skeptical Science is true!" (the fingerprints in his text are obvious)
While you have retained a "scientific " attitude. You want to be convinced by reference to data and argument that a claim is reasonable (perhaps especially if the societal consequences of accepting a claim are so onerous)
The problems with comparing proxy data with modern direct measurement are many as you have noted. Especially problematic is the issue of temporal resolution. At best some proxies give suggested values for averaged annual temperatures.
Here are some of the best ice core data which show obvious dramatic temperature changes at least as rapid as any suggested in modern data sets.
vostock2.png
Antarctic ice
gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg
Greenland Ice
Rogman's representation that these high quality proxy data sets show "modern warming is unprecedented" is obviously absurd.
You make up something I didn't say and actually attribute it to me. You even slap quotes around it. WTF is wrong with you? Check your meds.
Ps. Seldom look at Skeptical Science; I outlined my problems with it a few thousand pages back.
I think that anyone who has read even a fraction of your posts will recognize that my characterizations are (at least substantially) quite accurate.
Yes my " quotes" were not actual quotes of your exact wording... I'm confident that anyone not classified as a moron would recognize my quote marks were to paraphrase your positions in response to Bubba's very sane observations.
But I would love to quote your post explicitly to ppoint out your flawed arguments:
Bubba wrote:
"Question: How does the rate of change in global temperature now compare to the rate of change 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, or immediately following the middle of the last ice age (at which time the earth can be assumed to have begun warming)? Are we warming faster or slower than previous 100 - 150 year time periods? If so, by how much?
Were there any other similar periods over those millennia during which the temperature also rose at this rate?"
To which you responded:
"That's a hard question to answer definitively.
Certainly volcanic eruptions could have caused rapid short term temperature changes. Obviously, that asteroid 65 million years ago certainly caused a huge climate disruption. However, if you mean by more "natural" causes, probably not. Still, there exist natural feed back mechanisms, for example when we start coming out of an ice age, the warming ocean releases some C02 from the oceans, adding to the warming. Other effects, such as Milankovitch cycles occur over many thousands of years."
To which Bubba responded:
"And, of course, this is the most important question but the hardest to answer."
Bubba asked, essentially, if the current temperature rise was unprecedented in the proxy record.
Your response, was to say that there might have been an exceptional event such as the asteroid that wiped out half the creatures on earth but....
"if you mean by more "natural" causes, probably not."
Any sane human can look at the ice core records (both northern ice and southern ice), and recognize that
virtually the entire range of those records are CAUSED BY NATURAL CAUSES. Virtually the whole damn graph.
And does the ending segment, the ONLY part that COULD be due to human influence, look special and dramatic???
If it does look more dramatic to you than any other segment of that graph (all those other changes due to NATURAL CAUSES) then you are truly delusional and should seek professional help.