Evidently, there's some mass climate change denial movement going on at UC Berkely.
This doesn't fly either.
Two groups species inhabit the same ecological niche in the same geography.
Given three conditions, light, temperature, water nutrients, they only really differ in preference for temperature.
If the nutrients were so abundant, the species more suited for the temperature would simply outcompete the one that wasn't as suited for the same conditions. You would not see both e at the same time.
You are attempting to assert the process of natural selection, that works everywhere else in the world, doesn't work in this one place.
Since this underlying assumption required for your statement "it was warmer in 750 BCE" than it was today is provably false, then we can discard your assertion.
If on the other hand, the polar species had not ed at the same time, you would have a point. As it is, I have a hard time accepting the implication you are making, i.e. natural selection works everywhere else but here.
Sorry.
Evidently, there's some mass climate change denial movement going on at UC Berkely.
How specifically did this study address C13?
Tell me exactly how they got it wrong, and assume I am scientifically literate enough to understand it.
Please be as specific as possible, and reference the study you are attempting to debunk, and why its methodology regarding this isotope is flawed.
There is no doubt that the variability of the sun's activity is influencing climate. The Maunder minimum in the Little Ice Age is a good
example. They do say exactly that the advection of warm Atlantic Water, driven to the Fram Strait by the thermohaline circulation but also by winds, was weaker during the LIA.
Again, you fail to address a key item in my hypothesis. You ignore it and attack other items.
How much time did the 1/2 cm slice of the core sample represent again?
Remind me... I forget how much time to tell you it was.
One of the things they did was measure Mg/CA concentrations.
Can you please explain to me why this is relevant to foraminifers? You seem to have claimed to read a lot of these studies, so perhaps you can explain how your arguments fit into the biology of these creatures. Be specific.
Darrin, do you have data showing the northern hemisphere snow depth/cover is above average? I've looked but I can't seem to find any and I used to have a page with running data but I can't find it any longer.
They used standard methods. they stated the method, which uses a single sigma statistical process.
I'm not saying they got it wrong, but was pointing out a flaw in the standard process that can influence matters. I'm far less concerned about the accuracy of the 13C testing than the changing O18 levels in the water, and biological process, because of variable melting of glacier ice than cannot be quantified. The glacier ice could have released huge volumes of differencing concentrations.
Can you agree it is possible that at both the beginning and end of a core slice, there could be a small range of isotopic levels, but in the middle... The target time... there could be numbers with a large enough delta that they were cast out? A single sigma process is good for some things. But if you really want the true average indication of a large sample slice, you want to use 3 sigma, and exclude less than 1% of your samples as outliers. Not 1/3rd or more with the single sigma process.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-11-2011 at 01:37 PM.
I find it best to pick apart your arguments one point at a time as clearly and completely as possible. I will get to the rest of it in due time.
LOL...
You only try to pick apart the lesser ones. Not the ones with real substance.
Guess you are incapable of that.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-11-2011 at 01:53 PM.
"try" Funny word.
Do you still stand by your assertion that, "if there were so many nutrients in the water, the temperature wouldn't matter"?
Wow. Just saw that Darrin and wild cobra were defending fox news in a previous thread and now they're denying climate change. Go figure.
Check out the first and second posts in this thread.
I need to update those summaries, and am about to add a few things for WC over the weekend.
What you glossed over in your rush to pick apart a study you haven't read, is that single e, while having a larger concentration of critters per cm3 than the rest of the data, had proportions of critters similar to the rest of the data set. It is the proportions that are the important thing from the study.
That is the key point *you* have failed to address.
Care to try and find that e here?
Actually, I fully accept that climate change has been occuring for 4½ billion years.
They didn't really say within the study how much time the 1/2 cm slice was that I could find.
Tell me, what do you think it was?
"northern hemisphere"??
You do know that there are areas in the Northern Hemisphere outside of North America, right?
That makes it a *little* difficult to use the graph to support your assertion regarding snowfall on the North American continent, don't you think?
1) "they used standard methods" isn't very specific. This strongly suggests to me that you either don't know what "standard" methods are, or how they were used in the study,How specifically did this study address C13?
2) You didn't really reference the study methodology and where you think they got it wrong, other than to talk generally about a "single sigma process", yet still couldn't reference where specifically they used the "single sigma process". This further suggests to me you didn't really read the thing.
Ever hear the expression "give someone enough rope to hang themselves"?
3) They never measured 13C or 18O. They did however use 14C (radiocarbon dating) to estimate the age of various 5mm calibrating layers. If you had bothered to fully read the methodology you would know that.
Given your statements concerning how concerned you were about the study's "accuracy of the 13C testing" over "the changing O18 levels" I can only conclude that the only thing you know about this study are what the news article said, and what wikipedia said, aside from your one debunked attempt at finding flaw with your hugemongous screencaps of their given graphs.
As for:
The entire premise of this statement is that they were using the mentioned isotopes to measure counts of critters per cm3. They weren't, so I would have to disagree with the statement.Can you agree it is possible that at both the beginning and end of a core slice, there could be a small range of isotopic levels, but in the middle... The target time... there could be numbers with a large enough delta that they were cast out?
Attempting to pick apart theories you don't understand, reports you haven't read, and completely dismissing entire bodies of work in a field, biology, that you are not really qualified in, are all pretty much hallmarks of the pseudoscientist.
Sorry, I give these biologists a much greater chance of being right about this, than your critiques having any validity.
Just in case you try to weasel out of this, you are much clearer "this study is invalid because of its measurement of 13C and 18O" here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1064
Here is the methodology of the study:
Supporting Online Material for Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water
The entire main point you are attempting to make goes down the tubes, because it is based on a provably, factually incorrect assertion.
Manny asked for it -- I supplied.
That makes it a *little* difficult to use the graph to support your assertion regarding snowfall on the North American continent, don't you think?
Especially when I made no such assertion.
As I said before:
That certainly seems to suggest recently consistant warming trends in water entering the arctic.
or, in the words of the study Wild Cobra didn't read, because he just *knows* its wrong
Lastly, FWIW:In sediments from before ~1900 CE, 10 to 40% of all planktic foraminifers belong to subpolar species. In contrast, the youngest sediments reflecting the past ~100 years show a steep increase in subpolar foraminifer fluxes and an unprecedented inversion of the subpolar/polar species ratio, reaching 66% subpolar specimens in the surface sample (Fig. 3B).
I remember reading somewhere the authors are getting ready to publish another paper on the finding concerning light oxygen isotopes in H2O from glacier melt.
It would seem they are quite cognizant of the effects of glacial mel er on ocean floor sediments in the area. Also by the by, the study's main author, you know the one with the PhD, has, according to what I could find spent his entire 25 year career studying artic marine sediments. I would imagine he is BY FAR more familiar with what affects them than WC, who is asking me to take his word over those of the authors of the study because "they didn't consider all the factors".
Also regarding the method of chemical analysis they did actually use:
The Mg/Ca measurements which give paleotemperatures (Fig. 3D), used a method fairly independent of the amount of Mg or Ca available in the ocean water.
When the planktic foraminifers make their s s they incorporate more Mg with higher temperatures. This happens for thermodynamic reasons because at higher temperatures Mg ions fit better in the crystal lattice of calcium carbonate than at lower temperatures. This is simple crystal physics and independent of additional Mg or Ca from any source.
That is one of the little biological tidbits that I would guess the authors are aware, but Wild Cobra is not, despite his knowledge of chemistry.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-11-2011 at 04:11 PM.
Fair enough, I missed where Manny asked that. My apologies about the misunderstanding.
Darrin provided the appropriate dataset. It definitely shows that snow cover in recent years has been higher than usual in Janruary but I really would prefer more of a yearly picture and one for the entire cryosphere. With the artctic being mainly ocean, the loss of sea ice is a big deal as opposed to snow cover.
If climate change is producing a scenario where the NAO block happens and causes colder winters over the land area but warmer air over the arctic (hence record low sea ice coverage in the middle of winter as we're having) then that could explain a raised snow cover extent while also producing lower cryosphere totals in general.
Also, 3 years is an extremely short term event and we'd need to see a trend over a longer period of time before drawing too many conclusions but I do think RGs assertion that this was to be expected misses the mark. Its neither expected nor not expected as of yet but in the long run you should not expect winters to somehow maintain an all around colder appearance if you are adding more energy to the system and I have always maintained no one should be using short term variability as a way to prove either side of the debate because it does not do that for anyone. Short term variability is just that: Short term.
Using stupid phrases out of context IE "the science is settled" is one of Darrin's hallmarks, however. There are plenty of uncertainties (not the least of which are future effects on the planet and what it all means in the long run) in climate science and thats pretty much the bottom line.
Also Darrin, look at your link:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover...s.php?ui_set=1
What does it show for overall yearly data? Is it negative or positive? What are the months outside of the winter like?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
