/cont

("Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century.

Elsewhere he says that for most of the period in question the temporal resolution was ~300 years)

No one has been able to answer this question because of the inherent fuzziness in the paleo data. Marcott talks about some of the reasons why the data isn't precise enough to draw conclusions on a decadal scale.

You write: "Marcott et al. (2013) indicated that while there were warmer periods in specific regions, the global average temperatures and the rate of current warming are unprecedented".

Nup he says no such thing. See above.

You keep asserting that the current warming is unprecedented but express it as an article of faith since there is no evidence for it.

The problem for the climate community is that their fear-mongering claims keep getting knocked down, meaning they need to find new things to fret about. Previously we needed to keep temperatures below 2C over 1850 temperatures. Then it was changed to 1.5c. There's no science behind that number. Then when it became clear that even at 1.5c above 1850AD, we wouldn't surpass other warm periods, then they started claiming it wasn't the actual temperature but the rate of change that mattered.

The climate community is always happiest when they can make claims that can neither be proven nor disproven. Another example that all the excess heat is being stored in the deep oceans.

But we've gone past the point where the facts or data matter. Governments simply now proclaim that we need to get to net zero and don't bother themselves with showing why that is the case. The media and a goodly portion of the science community go along for the ride, consequences be damned.

More islands are NOT sinking below the waves, but are actually further OUT of the water, despite what lying S.O.Bs have been telling us to get more money given to them by easy-touches like Albanese Australia.

This time, the Maldives have caught out the confidence tricksters and hysterical climate-bleaters.

mhaze,

The "hockey stick" graph by Mann et al. was intended to reconstruct past climate variability over the last millennium using multiple proxy records, such as tree rings, ice cores, and sediment cores. The goal was to provide a long-term context for recent climate changes, not to erase the MWP or the LIA.

It seems your only evidence to suggest otherwise is to dredge up a long-clarified, out-of-context quote: “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. The discussions in the emails were about how to present climate data accurately and ensure that regional phenomena like the MWP were not misrepresented as globally significant in the context of current global warming by addressing known issues with proxy reconstructions.

The discussions among climate scientists were about accurately representing climate data and addressing known issues with proxy reconstructions, not about manipulating data to erase already well-known historical periods. Multiple independent investigations cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing:

UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee Report (2010)
Independent Climate Change Email Review (2010)
US National Science Foundation (2011)
--

What I said regarding Ljungqvist et al. (2010) was indeed true. The study did find that some regional temperatures during the RWP and MWP could have been similar to or higher than modern temperatures, but these were not globally uniform events. The authors noted significant regional variability and acknowledged that the data are too fragmentary to make definitive claims on decadal scales. However, they emphasised that the rapid rate of recent warming is exceptional compared to these past periods.

While the study acknowledged warm periods in the past, it underscored that the current warming trend, particularly in its speed, is unprecedented. This aligns with the broader scientific consensus that recent global warming, driven by human activities, is unique in both its rapid rate and global extent.

(Cont’d)

(Cont’d)

Here are the relevant quotes:

"The results show that the temperatures during the RWP and MWP periods may have been similar to those during the 20th century, but the rapid warming observed in recent decades is exceptional."
"The data indicate that recent warming exceeds the amplitude and rate of the past two millennia, underscoring the impact of anthropogenic factors."
--

You are right about the highest temperatures during, but have missed or misinterpreted the broader context and conclusion of the study, which emphasises the unprecedented nature of recent warming rates. The inability to resolve century-scale changes precisely does not invalidate the study's findings about the exceptional rate of recent warming.

Here are the key points from Marcott et al. (2013)

Current Temperatures:

"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history." (p. 1198)

The Rate of Change:

"Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century." (p. 1199)

"Despite the limitation, the broader context provided by modern high-resolution data indicates that "Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P." (p. 1200)

Unprecedented Rate of Warming:

"Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack." (p. 1200)

The paper emphasises the rapid recent warming compared to the gradual natural variations over the Holocene: "By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario." (p. 1200)

I hope this clarified everything for you.

ttbn,

I will do as you suggest and read Ian Plimer's new book as soon as I get some time. Thanks.

Geology should definitely be included in true climate science, for example subsidence of some islands due to tectonic plate movement.
Higher Water marks at the shoreline is officially seen as sea level rise, when in reality land at the shoreline had sunk down.

Part of one volcanic island was later seen to have riusen back up slightly at one end but not the other end. So it could be a tilted island. More for geologists to find as fact or not.
But fact remains, relevant sea level has not risen accordingly.

It appears nobody on OLO can answer my question.
Or does climate science claim melted polar ice water does not evaporate?
I ask again.

What percentage of melted polar and glacier ice water evaporates into atmosphere and cloud instead of adding to sea level rise?