Republicans need a more precise economic explanation of why the federal minimum wage needs to be endlessly whittled down — if not as far as Republicans want it whittled down. Forget that old Republican bromide: Why not make the minimum wage $100 an hour? – Malthusian theory should be the Republican party-line of the day.
The 1968 federal minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) approached $11 an hour. But in 1968 there were only 200 million Americans to divide the economic pie. Now there are over 300 million Americans. Under classic Malthusian theory 300 million people must now divide the same output that previously supported 200 million.
Under this economic understanding today’s federal minimum wage must be diluted by simple physical limits down to two-thirds of what it was in 1968. Actually, the early 2007 minimum wage had slipped to almost half that. 1968’s $11 an hour minimum wage never needed to be reduced to less than $7.26 an hour. And thanks to the true Malthus standards of the Democratic Party, that is exactly where it stands today.
A skeptic of Democratic Party economic sophistication might point out that Malthus theorized before what became known as the Industrial Revolution – back when land, crops, and farm animals were the basis of all production. The Lord made the earth and he was not making anymore, they used to say back then.
Today, more people are able to make and run more factories – keeping economic output per person exactly the same over the decades – if that were all there were to it.
Actually factories get more efficient over time. I’m not talking about putting out better products with the same effort. Economists don’t (know how to for the most part) keep track of better TVs now than back when I bought my first TV, 50 years ago (no way to put that into numbers). Economists do keep track of how many TVs the same number of persons can produce in the same number of work hours. Overall, workers in 2013 produce something like twice as much per work hour as they did in 1968, 45 years ago.
Every year, efficiency – productivity – goes up a couple of points, on average. For a giant jump; think Henry Ford creating the assembly line for the first time. Usually it’s very gradual improvement. I read in BusinessWeek in 1990 that US firms had invested $1 trillion (in today’s money) in computers by then without any increase in productivity. Only when a new technology matures, and become widespread does productivity leap. Over 50 years, productivity about doubles.
You get different figures – I’m not an economist – but had LBJ’s 1968 minimum wage kept up with productivity gains, today it would be somewhere between $16.50 and $22 an hour.
$15 is about the 45 percentile wage. A $15 an hour minimum wage would shift something like 4% of overall income in the US from the 55% of folks who get 90% to the 45% of folks who get only 10%. I don’t think the 55% are going to tell the 45% to go home from work, we don’t need you to work at Wal-Mart or McDonald’s or anyplace else anymore – close them all down! – because they have to pay a little more (that they should have been paying all along – correction; in pure market terms, that they would have been willing to pay all along – this whole essay is all about “feasibility”).
It would work like this: multiply 70 million workers (half the workforce) X the $8000 year average raise = $560 billion = 3.6% of our $15.8 trillion economy. (To the 45%, add 5% at the minimum wage who would get a double half-raise = 50% of 140 million workforce = 70 million.)
Obama’s $9 an hour minimum wage – into yearly steps yet! – works out like this: $9 an hour is roughly the 20 percentile wage (will add 5% to get 25%). Multiply 37 million workers X and average $1000 a year raise = $37 billion = .0023417 or less than one quarter of one percent shift of overall income from to the 80% to the 20% …
… while productivity – and per capita income – grows an average 2% per year.
A $15 an hour minimum wage would not have been “feasible” in 1956 – when economic output per American was only 40% of what it is today – when (Senate Majority Leader) LBJ’s minimum wage was $8.50 an hour. $100 an hour minimum wage should actually, literally be “feasible” (:”feasible” is the operative word for this whole essay), in something like 100 years – if productivity goes on doubling every 40 or 50 years.
It was “feasible” to raise the federal minimum wage from $8.50 an hour in 1956 to almost $11 an hour in 1968 because overall productivity – not the minimum wage workers’ productivity – grew 25%. Barbers get paid more in France than barbers get paid in Poland because France has a lot more money to pay barbers with.
A $15 an hour federal minimum wage need not be sold on humanitarian – nor least of all welfare – grounds. It can be sold on the simple premise that the free market is ready and willing to bear it – on the simple basis that it is “feasible.”
Just a (very?) crazy idea — as a step to eventually move to single-payer, Medicare for everyone: Medicaid for everyone. Step two: paid for by the federal government only, just like Medicare — eliminating the states.
Then we would have everyone on a central list and only one more step to change over. In the mean time you could keep the plan you have and your doctor if you like them. 🙂
EMichael, why yes, yes the ice cores are the entire story for “Long Term” (TM), high frequency and verifiable proxy temperature records. The video does a great job at comparing the two views. Moreover, it gives an even better view of why wiggle watching, especially of the most recent relatively minor wiggles, tells very little about “Long Term” (TM) climate change.
A couple facts are unargualbe, 1) We have been in and continue to be in an planetary ice age, and 2) The next glaciation is approaching. That’s what the Greenland Dome, Vostok and the several “Long Term” (TM) proxy data tells.
The other thing this video tells us is NOT TRUE is that the temperature change represented in the current ~1.1% of time that we have temperature records is unprecedented or more extreme (two terms often used by alarmists) than the the overall picture since the past glaciation. (The alarmist position)
Greenland covers .42 % of the Earth’s surface. To make up a chart of that tiny piece and then throw it onto a graph with the remaining 99.58% is beyond silly.
Then again, someone as knowledgeable as you present yourself should understand that the temp records from Greenland thousands of years ago only reflect summer temps of a tiny portion of the globe.
“Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the “middle Holocene” or a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present Image courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999. Click here for larger viewing image. day. Terms like the Alti-thermal or Hypsi-thermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the Earth’s orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today’s temperatures. We also now know from both data and “astronomical” (or “Milankovitch”) theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here. ”
But, just keep on with your pseudo-knowledge obatained from pseudo-scientists(Watt, Pielke, et al) and occasionally throw in a total ah like the guy that did the you tube.
Somewhere out there there are people willing to listen to your bs.
Wow, EMichael, what a mish mash of BS. What makes you think snow falls only in the Summer at the Greenland dome as you claim: “…temp records from Greenland thousands of years ago only reflect summer temps.”?
Furthermore, you then cite Kitoh and Murikami 2002, which starts with; “Simulations for the mid-Holocene (6000 years before present: 6 ka) and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM: 21 ka) have been performed by a global ocean-atmosphere coupled general circulation model (GCM).” Simulations from models that are now over a decade old? You take model simulations over actual data?
Finally you copy a non-peer reviewed NOAA article to prove what???? It does say this however: “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today …” and you jump on a seasonal difference as not to impact AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL temp?
I’ll do you one even better. Today’s science takes single point measurements, thermometers, and calculates daily, monthly, and even annual averages for the single point.
I think what you are questioning is whether ice core data can be shown to correlate with temperatures? If they weren’t there would be no paleo climate science, but there is and they do correlate.
To prove your little link was garbage. To prove your thought processes are guided by deceit, like quoting “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today …” but leaving out “but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere”.
To prove what?
To prove that while it is certainly true that “ice core data can be shown to correlate with temperatures” that “actual data” is restricted to a tiny, insignificant part of the globe. And further that actual data reflects mainly summer temperatures as it is assembled from fossils or summer plants.
To prove what?
That for over a decades scientists have know the truth about the temperatures 6 or 7 thousand years ago, but silly people refuse to believe them because it does not fit their ideology.
That there are people that complain about that kind of link after posting a link to youtube which contains known absurdities and was certainly not peer reviewed.
To prove what?
That in a couple of tries in this type discussion you have never provided a single authoritative source for your claims, but just relied on a cut and paste rhetoric you have probably used for years.
EMichael, you have failed to improve your BS level. Why did you ignore this little explanation of mine: “and you jump on a seasonal difference as not to impact AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL temp?” Even the most ignorant know that l global warming is NOT monotonic across the seasons and the entire world. You obviously do not understand the basic concept of global average.
You obviously over weigh the value of multiple locations. Even those do it for a living wishing to make point say then\y can calculate the global average with similar accuracy from a fraction of the 1.00+ weather stations.
What is even funnier, you give credence to recorded temps that represent ~1% of the total Holocene. Worse the high quality and widest coverage records, satellite derived, only represent ~0.3% of the Holocene. All of this while admitting: “ice core data can be shown to correlate with temperatures”“.
That temp to which it correlates is the “Global Average Temperature”, and these nasty ice cores are from several parts of the world.
The truth about the Holocene temps, not just mid-H is that there have been warmer, much warmer periods. Only the ideologically driven would ignore their own reference. ” the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer…” Indeed scientists have know about this period for decades, The even warmer period before the mid-H was called the Holocene climactic optimum. Since you are enamored of multiple measurements over multiple locations, I’ll just include this graphic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png/300px-Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The cut and paste rhetoric is not too scientific, but appears appropriate for your level of knowledge. BTW, I did use
Wow, Oh Wow! Marcott et al 2013! What a scary chart. You really should have read the comments, even at RC. Don’t worry, I’ll provide the entertaining comments by Marcott himself. but first I will show you what this luke warm scientist said about it: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html
“However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC….”
and
“The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013,…”
Since this thread has been about the validity of long term ice core data as representative of global averages, AND THOSE AVERAGES HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, we have a co-author commented:
“”But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth’s global temperature history.”
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F. …”
Let me repeat that: ” the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–…”
That’s the 2nd reference of yours that confirms the long term trend..
But the next
“”But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth’s global temperature history.”
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.”
The key PR issue was not actually properly found in the paper. Indeed in comments from your RC article Marcott moved away from that PR finding:
“In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on Real Climate earlier today, Marcott et al. make this startling admission:
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Got that?
In case you missed it, I repeat:
. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .”
“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
Ever think to read further and see why that is true?
Look, this serves no purpose(like linking a Political Scientist’s thoughts).
You constantly find these silly little sound bytes and make them seem(to you) like they mean something.
They don’t.
Go away and talk with similarly challenged people like yourself.
EMichael, resorting to name calling because you do not understand the fundamental issues, let alone the details. You asked if I knew why his statement was true? Yes, I can quote Marcott’s, Pielke’s and even McIntyre’s reasosg for discounting that SCARY uptick at the end, but I seriously doubt you know2 why it was absurd.
Did you know they did not use actual data for the end points but appended “projected temps” for 2100 from the models. Notwithstanding their disavowal of the last ~150 years o their graph only having a very few actual data points.Too few and the period was too short to matdh their smoothing of earlier data.
Remember starting this tirade of yours by claiming single point data can not be used to represent Global temps????? Guess what Marcott et al did.
“However, the sediment data have poorer time resolution and do not extend right up to the present, because the surface of the sediment is disturbed when the sediment core is taken.”
EMichael, more profanity, but still not able to make a point. Your quote partially explains why most proxies are unusable for recent history, AND EXPLAINS WHY THE END POINT IS NOT STATISTICALLY ROBUST. Marcott explains why its not robust in increasing detail if you read and UNDERSTAND what he is saying.
Remember starting this tirade of yours by claiming single point data can not be used to represent Global temps????? Guess what Marcott et al did, 73 times.
Keep trying. When will you answer the hiatus question?
EMichael you said this eaqrlier: “You constantly find these silly little sound bytes and make them seem(to you) like they mean something.
They don’t.”
Just your latest example? “However, the sediment data have poorer time resolution and do not extend right up to the present, because the surface of the sediment is disturbed when the sediment core is taken.”
You started with arrogant buffoonery and are ending on adolescent profanity. What you call mental masturbation is knowledge. Your ignorance of the basics of the science has shown all you have is ideology, arrogance, and attitude when proven wrong.
Republicans need a more precise economic explanation of why the federal minimum wage needs to be endlessly whittled down — if not as far as Republicans want it whittled down. Forget that old Republican bromide: Why not make the minimum wage $100 an hour? – Malthusian theory should be the Republican party-line of the day.
The 1968 federal minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) approached $11 an hour. But in 1968 there were only 200 million Americans to divide the economic pie. Now there are over 300 million Americans. Under classic Malthusian theory 300 million people must now divide the same output that previously supported 200 million.
Under this economic understanding today’s federal minimum wage must be diluted by simple physical limits down to two-thirds of what it was in 1968. Actually, the early 2007 minimum wage had slipped to almost half that. 1968’s $11 an hour minimum wage never needed to be reduced to less than $7.26 an hour. And thanks to the true Malthus standards of the Democratic Party, that is exactly where it stands today.
A skeptic of Democratic Party economic sophistication might point out that Malthus theorized before what became known as the Industrial Revolution – back when land, crops, and farm animals were the basis of all production. The Lord made the earth and he was not making anymore, they used to say back then.
Today, more people are able to make and run more factories – keeping economic output per person exactly the same over the decades – if that were all there were to it.
Actually factories get more efficient over time. I’m not talking about putting out better products with the same effort. Economists don’t (know how to for the most part) keep track of better TVs now than back when I bought my first TV, 50 years ago (no way to put that into numbers). Economists do keep track of how many TVs the same number of persons can produce in the same number of work hours. Overall, workers in 2013 produce something like twice as much per work hour as they did in 1968, 45 years ago.
Every year, efficiency – productivity – goes up a couple of points, on average. For a giant jump; think Henry Ford creating the assembly line for the first time. Usually it’s very gradual improvement. I read in BusinessWeek in 1990 that US firms had invested $1 trillion (in today’s money) in computers by then without any increase in productivity. Only when a new technology matures, and become widespread does productivity leap. Over 50 years, productivity about doubles.
You get different figures – I’m not an economist – but had LBJ’s 1968 minimum wage kept up with productivity gains, today it would be somewhere between $16.50 and $22 an hour.
$15 is about the 45 percentile wage. A $15 an hour minimum wage would shift something like 4% of overall income in the US from the 55% of folks who get 90% to the 45% of folks who get only 10%. I don’t think the 55% are going to tell the 45% to go home from work, we don’t need you to work at Wal-Mart or McDonald’s or anyplace else anymore – close them all down! – because they have to pay a little more (that they should have been paying all along – correction; in pure market terms, that they would have been willing to pay all along – this whole essay is all about “feasibility”).
It would work like this: multiply 70 million workers (half the workforce) X the $8000 year average raise = $560 billion = 3.6% of our $15.8 trillion economy. (To the 45%, add 5% at the minimum wage who would get a double half-raise = 50% of 140 million workforce = 70 million.)
Obama’s $9 an hour minimum wage – into yearly steps yet! – works out like this: $9 an hour is roughly the 20 percentile wage (will add 5% to get 25%). Multiply 37 million workers X and average $1000 a year raise = $37 billion = .0023417 or less than one quarter of one percent shift of overall income from to the 80% to the 20% …
… while productivity – and per capita income – grows an average 2% per year.
A $15 an hour minimum wage would not have been “feasible” in 1956 – when economic output per American was only 40% of what it is today – when (Senate Majority Leader) LBJ’s minimum wage was $8.50 an hour. $100 an hour minimum wage should actually, literally be “feasible” (:”feasible” is the operative word for this whole essay), in something like 100 years – if productivity goes on doubling every 40 or 50 years.
It was “feasible” to raise the federal minimum wage from $8.50 an hour in 1956 to almost $11 an hour in 1968 because overall productivity – not the minimum wage workers’ productivity – grew 25%. Barbers get paid more in France than barbers get paid in Poland because France has a lot more money to pay barbers with.
A $15 an hour federal minimum wage need not be sold on humanitarian – nor least of all welfare – grounds. It can be sold on the simple premise that the free market is ready and willing to bear it – on the simple basis that it is “feasible.”
This video highlights the difference in thinking between the two AGW camps. Its also funny for one camp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU
Yep, ice cores and Greenland Dome temperatures are the entire story and make entertaining videos for…., for……, for……, nevermind.
geez
Just a (very?) crazy idea — as a step to eventually move to single-payer, Medicare for everyone: Medicaid for everyone. Step two: paid for by the federal government only, just like Medicare — eliminating the states.
Then we would have everyone on a central list and only one more step to change over. In the mean time you could keep the plan you have and your doctor if you like them. 🙂
Just an angle to play with. ???
EMichael, why yes, yes the ice cores are the entire story for “Long Term” (TM), high frequency and verifiable proxy temperature records. The video does a great job at comparing the two views. Moreover, it gives an even better view of why wiggle watching, especially of the most recent relatively minor wiggles, tells very little about “Long Term” (TM) climate change.
A couple facts are unargualbe, 1) We have been in and continue to be in an planetary ice age, and 2) The next glaciation is approaching. That’s what the Greenland Dome, Vostok and the several “Long Term” (TM) proxy data tells.
The other thing this video tells us is NOT TRUE is that the temperature change represented in the current ~1.1% of time that we have temperature records is unprecedented or more extreme (two terms often used by alarmists) than the the overall picture since the past glaciation. (The alarmist position)
BS, Rev.
Greenland covers .42 % of the Earth’s surface. To make up a chart of that tiny piece and then throw it onto a graph with the remaining 99.58% is beyond silly.
Then again, someone as knowledgeable as you present yourself should understand that the temp records from Greenland thousands of years ago only reflect summer temps of a tiny portion of the globe.
Maybe you forgot?
OH, and you should see Kitoh and Murakami, 2002 peer reviewed paper on global temps back then. Then your last paragraph is shown to be absurd.
Or.
“Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the “middle Holocene” or a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present Image courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999. Click here for larger viewing image. day. Terms like the Alti-thermal or Hypsi-thermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.
What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period AND what caused them. It appears clear that changes in the Earth’s orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today’s temperatures. We also now know from both data and “astronomical” (or “Milankovitch”) theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all.
In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here. ”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
But, just keep on with your pseudo-knowledge obatained from pseudo-scientists(Watt, Pielke, et al) and occasionally throw in a total ah like the guy that did the you tube.
Somewhere out there there are people willing to listen to your bs.
Wow, EMichael, what a mish mash of BS. What makes you think snow falls only in the Summer at the Greenland dome as you claim: “…temp records from Greenland thousands of years ago only reflect summer temps.”?
Furthermore, you then cite Kitoh and Murikami 2002, which starts with; “Simulations for the mid-Holocene (6000 years before present: 6 ka) and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM: 21 ka) have been performed by a global ocean-atmosphere coupled general circulation model (GCM).” Simulations from models that are now over a decade old? You take model simulations over actual data?
Finally you copy a non-peer reviewed NOAA article to prove what???? It does say this however: “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today …” and you jump on a seasonal difference as not to impact AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL temp?
I’ll do you one even better. Today’s science takes single point measurements, thermometers, and calculates daily, monthly, and even annual averages for the single point.
I think what you are questioning is whether ice core data can be shown to correlate with temperatures? If they weren’t there would be no paleo climate science, but there is and they do correlate.
I’m still not sure what your point was?
To prove what?
To prove your little link was garbage. To prove your thought processes are guided by deceit, like quoting “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today …” but leaving out “but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere”.
To prove what?
To prove that while it is certainly true that “ice core data can be shown to correlate with temperatures” that “actual data” is restricted to a tiny, insignificant part of the globe. And further that actual data reflects mainly summer temperatures as it is assembled from fossils or summer plants.
To prove what?
That for over a decades scientists have know the truth about the temperatures 6 or 7 thousand years ago, but silly people refuse to believe them because it does not fit their ideology.
To prove what?
That there are people that will complain about the posting of “a non-peer reviewed NOAA article to prove what???? ” that contains a link to around a dozen peer reviewed papers as reasons for its summation? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/references.html#holocene
To prove what?
That there are people that complain about that kind of link after posting a link to youtube which contains known absurdities and was certainly not peer reviewed.
To prove what?
That in a couple of tries in this type discussion you have never provided a single authoritative source for your claims, but just relied on a cut and paste rhetoric you have probably used for years.
And it is beyond boring.
EMichael:
heh, heh; thanks for the smile this morning
Well, at least it did some good, Run.
I know it is worthless in the end, but sometimes these damn flies just bug me to distraction.
EMichael, you have failed to improve your BS level. Why did you ignore this little explanation of mine: “and you jump on a seasonal difference as not to impact AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL temp?” Even the most ignorant know that l global warming is NOT monotonic across the seasons and the entire world. You obviously do not understand the basic concept of global average.
You obviously over weigh the value of multiple locations. Even those do it for a living wishing to make point say then\y can calculate the global average with similar accuracy from a fraction of the 1.00+ weather stations.
What is even funnier, you give credence to recorded temps that represent ~1% of the total Holocene. Worse the high quality and widest coverage records, satellite derived, only represent ~0.3% of the Holocene. All of this while admitting: “ice core data can be shown to correlate with temperatures”“.
That temp to which it correlates is the “Global Average Temperature”, and these nasty ice cores are from several parts of the world.
The truth about the Holocene temps, not just mid-H is that there have been warmer, much warmer periods. Only the ideologically driven would ignore their own reference. ” the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer…” Indeed scientists have know about this period for decades, The even warmer period before the mid-H was called the Holocene climactic optimum. Since you are enamored of multiple measurements over multiple locations, I’ll just include this graphic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png/300px-Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
The cut and paste rhetoric is not too scientific, but appears appropriate for your level of knowledge. BTW, I did use
to continue, I did use an official reference. Several time, remember? It was yours.
I still don’t understand what your point is?
Emichael and Run do either of you know we are in a warming hiatus?
“Man, did you see the size of that gnat?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnat
Back to science.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
http://www.realclimate.org/images//shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png
Wow, Oh Wow! Marcott et al 2013! What a scary chart. You really should have read the comments, even at RC. Don’t worry, I’ll provide the entertaining comments by Marcott himself. but first I will show you what this luke warm scientist said about it: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html
“However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC….”
and
“The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013,…”
Since this thread has been about the validity of long term ice core data as representative of global averages, AND THOSE AVERAGES HAVE BEEN GOING DOWN FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, we have a co-author commented:
“”But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth’s global temperature history.”
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F. …”
Let me repeat that: ” the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–…”
That’s the 2nd reference of yours that confirms the long term trend..
But the next
“”But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth’s global temperature history.”
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.”
The key PR issue was not actually properly found in the paper. Indeed in comments from your RC article Marcott moved away from that PR finding:
“In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on Real Climate earlier today, Marcott et al. make this startling admission:
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Got that?
In case you missed it, I repeat:
. . . the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes . . .”
If you don’t like Pielke Jr’s response go here: http://climateaudit.org/?s=Marcott
McIntyre did a whole series of the errors in Marcott. See what I mean about Wow! How scary????
I repeat. What is your point, and do you understand we are in warming hiatus?
The RSS satellite dataset shows the longest hiatus period, 17.2 Yrs of hiatus. This graph shows the satellite era data coincident with CO2. Take a look: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2014/scale:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/to:2014/offset:-350/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2014/scale:50/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2014/offset:-350/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2014/scale:50/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2014/scale:50/trend
Keep trying, with enough effort you’ll get something correct.
You’re such an ass.
“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
Ever think to read further and see why that is true?
Look, this serves no purpose(like linking a Political Scientist’s thoughts).
You constantly find these silly little sound bytes and make them seem(to you) like they mean something.
They don’t.
Go away and talk with similarly challenged people like yourself.
EMichael, resorting to name calling because you do not understand the fundamental issues, let alone the details. You asked if I knew why his statement was true? Yes, I can quote Marcott’s, Pielke’s and even McIntyre’s reasosg for discounting that SCARY uptick at the end, but I seriously doubt you know2 why it was absurd.
Did you know they did not use actual data for the end points but appended “projected temps” for 2100 from the models. Notwithstanding their disavowal of the last ~150 years o their graph only having a very few actual data points.Too few and the period was too short to matdh their smoothing of earlier data.
Remember starting this tirade of yours by claiming single point data can not be used to represent Global temps????? Guess what Marcott et al did.
Try again.
BS.
“However, the sediment data have poorer time resolution and do not extend right up to the present, because the surface of the sediment is disturbed when the sediment core is taken.”
Don’t waste my time. Just go away.
EMichael, more profanity, but still not able to make a point. Your quote partially explains why most proxies are unusable for recent history, AND EXPLAINS WHY THE END POINT IS NOT STATISTICALLY ROBUST. Marcott explains why its not robust in increasing detail if you read and UNDERSTAND what he is saying.
Remember starting this tirade of yours by claiming single point data can not be used to represent Global temps????? Guess what Marcott et al did, 73 times.
Keep trying. When will you answer the hiatus question?
I am uninterested in dealing with your convoluted rhetoric that creates straw men(or thinks it does) that I should have to knock down.
I somehow do not have the same attraction to mental masturbation you seem to adore.
EMichael you said this eaqrlier: “You constantly find these silly little sound bytes and make them seem(to you) like they mean something.
They don’t.”
Just your latest example? “However, the sediment data have poorer time resolution and do not extend right up to the present, because the surface of the sediment is disturbed when the sediment core is taken.”
You started with arrogant buffoonery and are ending on adolescent profanity. What you call mental masturbation is knowledge. Your ignorance of the basics of the science has shown all you have is ideology, arrogance, and attitude when proven wrong.
Quit making yourself look foolish and just leave.
Makes sense to me to avoid a pedantic ah.