Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

What would happen to a shameless denier aka dirtie without the incorrect whatsup blogs??

Kaput.

Don J. Easterbrook: Did Shakun et al. really prove that CO2 preceded late glacial warming?[Part 1]
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/10/don-j-easte...

More fatal flaws in the Shakun et al. Nature paper claiming that CO2 preceded late glacial warming [Part 2]
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/18/don-easterb...

Nature – more consensus than credibility
-
2012 – ahead of the IPCC’s AR5 – Shakun et al which again has been shown to ‘hide the decline’.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/04...

The Dinosaur Media Prematurely Bury Climate Warming Skeptics -- Again
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/d...
-
Vahrenholt & Lüning On Shakun:“Desperate Attempt To Salvage Beloved CO2-Catastrophe Model”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/14/vahrenholt...

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history?– A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper

Especially in the context of recent discussion of the Shakun et al. paper, a look at other sources for temperature history versus CO2 can be helpful, examining timescales ranging from the past century to the past 11000 years and even the past 500 million years.

Recent discussion of the Shakun et al.(Nature 2012) paper has illuminated issues in its presentation of the history of CO2 versus temperature (commentaries here, here, here, and here).

In addition to those investigations, another helpful approach may be to take a step back and cross-check with other sources. In general, does CO2 correlate with temperature in climate history?

The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate.
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/11/michael-pac...

Dirtie the scienceless is refuting the premier science journal in the world aka Nature by posting denier blog material.

LOL.

Earthling-1 wrote:

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history?– A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper
Especially in the context of recent discussion of the Shakun et al. paper, a look at other sources for temperature history versus CO2 can be helpful, examining timescales ranging from the past century to the past 11000 years and even the past 500 million years.
Recent discussion of the Shakun et al.(Nature 2012) paper has illuminated issues in its presentation of the history of CO2 versus temperature (commentaries here, here, here, and here).
In addition to those investigations, another helpful approach may be to take a step back and cross-check with other sources. In general, does CO2 correlate with temperature in climate history?
The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate.
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/11/michael-pac...

And of course WUWT and junkscience trumps peer reviewed scientific papers. If that is all you can find, you are pretty ineffective.

Instead of simply dismissing sceptical scientists out of hand, why not rebut the "fatal flaws" that are claimed to have been found in the work of Shakun et al?

SpamBotty wrote:

Dirtie the scienceless is refuting the premier science journal in the world aka Nature by posting denier blog material.
LOL.

Please list your scientific degrees and qualifications, I'm sure thy'll make for interesting reading.

they'll

Nir Shaviv: evidence shaky for CO2 as the cause of deglaciation
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/29/nir-shaviv-...
-
David Whitehouse: Ice And Fire In Climate Science

A wise tutor once told me that if something is written down in a scientific textbook it is probably true, but if it is published in a journal then put it on probation.

It was good advice, especially when it comes to climate science. Many is the time that a particular paper, or indeed a suite of them from the same stable, is latched onto by one side or another as proving a point or winning an argument, sometimes paraded in the media as such, for subsequent papers published perhaps sometime later, to show that the original findings were not that clear cut. Science has run its self-correcting course though often advocates don’t keep up and remain quoting the original paper as though it was gospel. The moral is that, especially in climate science, look hard enough at almost any research paper and you will raise more questions than answers. It’s inevitable.

It’s with this attitude that I approach a recent paper in Nature by Shakun et al.
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/11/david-white...

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Not quite. 8000 years ago we reached the thermal max of the holocene. However temps have not steadily decreased since. They have gone up and down with the overall trend being down.
There has be catastrophic cooling in the last 8000 years a few times with the LIA being the most recent. There has also been periods of warming, with the MWP being the most recent to our current warming period.
Both the greenland and antarctic ice core data show various times of warming and cooling.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
The overall trend is down because of orbital dynamics.

Right on all counts. And I didn't mean to suggest that the past 8,000 years' "steady" downward trend in temps was an absolutely straight line; there have been slight rises and falls, although nothing like the sharp rise of the past century and the century ahead.

Nature Editor's summary

Carbon dioxide is a force behind deglaciation

It is known from Antarctic ice-core records that there is a relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature during the Pleistocene ice ages. But the phasing between the two has been unclear, leading to controversy about whether greenhouse gases were primary drivers of the ice ages, a feedback from warming or even a consequence rather than a cause of past climate change. Shakun et al. have assembled a global 'stack' of proxy temperature records for the most recent deglaciation, and find that during this period, global warming was preceded by CO2 increases. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, suggest that CO2 was a primary driver of global warming during the most recent deglaciation.

Predictable Denial Reactions
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-te...

Not surprisingly, since the 'CO2 lags temperature' myth is a climate denialist favorite (coming in at #12 on the most-used climate myths list), the reaction has predictably been one of, well, denial. WattsUpWithThat in particular has devoted several posts denying the results in the Shakun et al. paper. One such post quoting Don Easterbrook (of failed global cooling prediction fame) began with the following objection:

"1. They assume that CO2 is capable of causing climate changes..."

Need we continue? We could devote an entire post to the glaring errors from Easterbrook in this WUWT post, but let's not.

In the same post, Willis Eschenbach criticized the paper saying "My rule of thumb about these kinds of things is, no error bars … no science." However, Shakun et al. were quite explicit about the associated uncertainties throughout the paper (for example, see the uncertainty ranges depicted in Figures 1 and 4 above). Upon actually reading the paper, Eschenbach's criticism rings quite hollow.

Speaking of apparently not reading the paper before attacking it, a second WUWT post on Shakun et al.(also from Eschenbach) argued that their results are not valid because the glacial-interglacial warming occurred at different times in the different temperature proxies. But that is of course the point - the Southern Hemisphere warmed before the CO2 increase, while the Northern Hemisphere warmed after (as Figures 3 and 4 show). In looking for an excuse to reject this research, the denialists manage to miss the entire point of the paper.

In yet a third post, this one by Watts himself, Watts objects that Shakun et al. refuse to call orbital cycles the warming "trigger." This is a little bit silly, since the authors titled an entire section of their paper The trigger for deglacial warming, discussing that the first warming (of the Arctic 19,000 years ago) was indeed triggered by orbital cycles.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-te...

An Intriguing Result
The knee-jerk denial rejections of the Shakun et al. results reflect the inconvenience of their results for the climate "skeptics." The authors summarize their intriguing results, which expand upon our understanding of glacial-interglacial transitions.

"Lag correlations from 20–10 kyr ago suggest that the modelled global temperature lags CO2 concentration by 120 yr, which is within the uncertainty range of the proxy-based lag."

{...}

"Our global temperature stack and transient modelling point to CO2 as a key mechanism of global warming during the last deglaciation. Furthermore, our results support an interhemispheric seesawing of heat related to AMOC variability and suggest that these internal heat redistributions explain the lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 while global temperature was in phase with or slightly lagged CO2."

Also see good coverage of this study by Climate Crocks, The Washington Post, and BBC.

CO2 'drove end to last ice age'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

"It looks as though whatever kicked off this whole sequence of events to get out of the ice age was something really, in global terms, rather minor and regional, and yet it led to a sequence of events that led to a complete change in the way the surface of the Earth looked, with ice sheets disappearing.

"So, that just reminds us that although climate might seem quite steady to us because it's been relatively steady for the last few thousand years, it is actually capable of undergoing big changes. And as one famous palaeoclimatologist put it:'we poke it at our peril'."

Earthling-1 wrote:

Instead of simply dismissing sceptical scientists out of hand, why not rebut the "fatal flaws" that are claimed to have been found in the work of Shakun et al?

Why bother? You need to show us the peer reviewed papers that prove that Shakun is wrong. WUWT, Heartland, etc don't count.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why bother? You need to show us the peer reviewed papers that prove that Shakun is wrong. WUWT, Heartland, etc don't count.

Exactly, but about the bother.

It hurts the brain to read a twisted logic with sprinkle of wrongly-used technical terms.

Nauseous wrote:

nothing like the sharp rise of the past century

And:

Nauseous wrote:

and the century ahead.

Do you realise what those words signify?
You're saying that "a sharp ries" in the century ahead has already happened, or is mapped out.
I hope you don't wonder why I call you Nauseous.

Colonization of space is the only answer.