"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.."
So his study didn't address the question of the rate of change yet in the Atlantic article one can certainly infer that he is stating that it did. Isn't that what articles are about, what the study concluded?
**************************
There's more that he said (I added in the fruit):
"Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction (APPLES) with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record (ORANGES)."
In the ORANGES, we have instrumental data in the past 100-150 that are yearly, monthly and even daily. This is known as temporal (time resolution). For the APPLES portion, I'll let Marcott explain:
"... 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."
So the conclusion that he says he didn't make in his study but does make in the article is an APPLES to ORANGES comparison in which the APPLES part have too low a resolution to examine variations. Are you still following the pea?
I expect this whole mess to be cleaned up somehow in the most face saving manner. That's one thing they are good at.
If I am understanding the quotes correctly, and if they are not substantially taken out of context, they mean something like this:
the first one: "The methods we used to figure out older temperatures don't work well on short time scales, so they aren't very accurate for the relatively short-term warming during the past century"
the second one: "The rise in average temperature in the past ~100 years (which we can actually, directly measure) appears to be as large as the *fall* in temperature over the previous 6000+ years. As far as we can tell, we haven't seen any change in multidecadal average temperature that was that fast over the previous 11,500 years.
It's a matter of... using the right tool for the job. The tools used to figure out the approximate climate over the past ~11,500 years aren't good at "seeing" a climate change less than 100 years in the making.
Now, it's *possible* that there were similar temperature spikes in the past, but unless temperatures both rose rapidly *and* fell equally rapidly (or the reverse, for temperature dips) they would show up in the temperature record as changes happening faster than expected. Even with ~120-year resolution, we'd see a temperature change that appeared to be happening in a couple of centuries rather than a couple thousand years.
Of course, there's absolutely nothing saying that there weren't *little* spikes that were this fast--temperature increases or dips that happened at the same speed, but only lasted a decade or 2.
And I tend to use "denialist" rather than "denier" just so that people like you can't falsely accuse me of calling you something that I have no intention of calling you. People in denial about AGW are more like creationists than they are like holocaust deniers, it's more a matter of misunderstanding and fear than virulent hatred.
It's a good thing we have measurements of temperature for the 20th century then isn't it? Of course this has been mentioned before to you. But you continue to ignore it. Denial? Definite. Does the word 'denial' refer specifically to the holocaust? No. You're funny. The reasoning for the 'not statistically robust' has been given to you as well in one of your MANY other questions regarding this.
Edit: Perhaps you should go back and reread the plethora of other questions on the same topic. As stated, he can compare it to actual measurements from various sources during the last century.
Given what you say about yourself, what language would you like it interpreted into?
Also, given your self-description, why should we assume that your statements/questions written in english convey whatever the @#$%^&?!! you're thinking?
I would interpret it as saying, <<
Note: wrong chem flunky, people like you are more like creationists hence the use of blind faith.
I'm having trouble because I'm an anti science holocaust denier who doesn't understand English.
‘Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the twentieth 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 twentieth-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.’
Can you also let me know how this fits in to what he said here...
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/
'"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.'
The two seem to be contradictory but like I've said, I'm an anti science holocaust denier and I have a hard time reading English.
Thank you for your help :-)
