Eat that GW believers!

[TallDave]

Before Mann did his research MWP was thought to be global but was found to be local.

"Research" is probably not the right word. And even Mann now accepts a global MWP, even with his bogus flipping over of a dataset so that cooling became warming.

[bcglorf]

I don't understand how Mann's temperature reconstructions have managed to survive as long as they have. It is blatantly clear that the primary 'finding' of his reconstructions, the hockey stick shape, are entirely an artifact of the analysis he is performing, and is NOT a part of the data itself.

Yes, lots of people say that, and the AGW crowd dismisses it as ignorant babble by the scientifically illiterate. Here are two key images from one of his latest defenses of his 'hockey stick' articles.

Here is the raw proxy data used for his reconstructions. Notice anything unprecedented in the datasets starting at 1900? Me neither.


And here we have the temperature reconstruction based on the proxy data. Notice that the steep scary red line is NOT from the proxy data but is the instrumental record.


If anyone can explain to me how Mann's work is supposed to somehow demonstrate unprecedented warming starting at 1900 I'd love to hear it. From were I stand the case is based ENTIRELY on faith in the algorithms he uses to create a spike in data that previously had none.

[seedload]

Before Mann did his research MWP was thought to be global but was found to be local.

"Research" is probably not the right word. And even Mann now accepts a global MWP, even with his bogus flipping over of a dataset so that cooling became warming.

Actually, Mann claims a regional MWP in that paper, not global. But the rest of your sentiments are well taken.

[TallDave]

Before Mann did his research MWP was thought to be global but was found to be local.

"Research" is probably not the right word. And even Mann now accepts a global MWP, even with his bogus flipping over of a dataset so that cooling became warming.

Actually, Mann claims a regional MWP in that paper, not global. But the rest of your sentiments are well taken.

No, his last paper acknowledges a global MWP (cooler than now, with local cooling, but still globally warmer than later centuries).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/m ... rm-period/

“However, these terms can be misleading,” said Mann. “Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”

I should emphasize again he is still inverting the Tiljander series, so his caveats are probably wrong.

[Luzr]

"Research" is probably not the right word. And even Mann now accepts a global MWP, even with his bogus flipping over of a dataset so that cooling became warming.

Actually, Mann claims a regional MWP in that paper, not global. But the rest of your sentiments are well taken.

No, his last paper acknowledges a global MWP (cooler than now, but still a global warming trend).

I guess he will get there. Just give him more time. 10 more years perhaps?

[seedload]

For those worried about Greenland melting I present Central Greenland Temperatures from the GISP2 ice core. Enjoy your journey backwards in time.



regards

[bcglorf]

For those worried about Greenland melting I present Central Greenland Temperatures from the GISP2 ice core. Enjoy your journey backwards in time.

regards

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. You have to remember to interpret data like the Greenland Ice cores correctly. Anything showing that 1900 is cooler than the past is a localized phenomena and anything showing it is warmer is global. Correctly telling if data reflects a local or global effect is important to passing peer review in some journals.

[Luzr]

For those worried about Greenland melting I present Central Greenland Temperatures from the GISP2 ice core. Enjoy your journey backwards in time.

regards

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. You have to remember to interpret data like the Greenland Ice cores correctly. Anything showing that 1900 is cooler than the past is a localized phenomena and anything showing it is warmer is global. Correctly telling if data reflects a local or global effect is important to passing peer review in some journals.

That is fair enough, but seedload specifically addressed "Greenland melting" (local phenomena).

Looks like Greenland was quite melted in the past....

BTW, I might be wrong, but are not Briffa's Yamal series quite local too?

[bcglorf]

For those worried about Greenland melting I present Central Greenland Temperatures from the GISP2 ice core. Enjoy your journey backwards in time.

regards

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. You have to remember to interpret data like the Greenland Ice cores correctly. Anything showing that 1900 is cooler than the past is a localized phenomena and anything showing it is warmer is global. Correctly telling if data reflects a local or global effect is important to passing peer review in some journals.

That is fair enough, but seedload specifically addressed "Greenland melting" (local phenomena).

Looks like Greenland was quite melted in the past....

BTW, I might be wrong, but are not Briffa's Yamal series quite local too?

I also meant to have massive sarcasm tags around my post. Pretty well every proxy data set is localized to some extent or another. I was just sarcastically pointing out that very often how 'localized' a dataset is considered to be is tied to how closely the dataset fits the current reconstructions.

[flying_eagle]

Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seems like there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf

[TallDave]

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Heh.

Anything showing that 1900 is cooler than the past is a localized phenomena and anything showing it is warmer is global

Or it may be upside down. Fortunately, there are algore-ithms which can tell us when to flip data over so it meets peer review standards.

[seedload]

Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seemslike there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf

I tend to not be a fan of the solar forcing arguments either. So, I guess you have to assume at least a third side. Then again, I don't think that anyone has claimed skeptical concensis.

Here are some snippets from a prior post.

While I agree with your being skeptical about the coming climate catastrophe, I also notice that you tend to highlight EVERY skeptical bit of 'evidence' as meaningful. It is a trait I also sometimes share, but I am really trying to fight it. I think it is disingenuous to not use a critical eye to look at skeptical evidence while at the same time being hyper-critical of all AGW supporting science...

On the topic of your praising all speculation without critical thought (my opinion), I also think that you may have come to some conclusions about solar contributions to recent warming that are (again my opinion) misplaced...

That said, I do think there are some interesting things to discover yet about the solar irradiance. Milankovitch cycles seem to have a large influence (majorly amplified by CO2 by AGW supporters arguments), but TSI changes from sun spots don't seem to have any perceptible effect anymore, despite earlier AGW supporter claims that it was almost completely responsible for the early 20th century warming. The confusion about solar influence seems to cut both ways.

regards

[MSimon]

I find it interesting that you are criticising the chronological precision of our CO2 meassurements in the past, while at the same time insisting that we can be certain beyond a shaddow of a doubt from ice core data that the CO2 lags the temperature by 200 years over records that stretch back hundreds of thousands of years.

Changes are more reliably detected than actual levels.

[bcglorf]

Regarding the gloating over climate gate, seems like there are errors on both sides of this argument folks:
Solar magnetic activity (sun spots) and cosmic rays.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... ut2004.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu ... t2003a.pdf

I never realized there were only two sides. The main argument of skeptics amounts very generally to saying that there is currently a lot of uncertainty regarding catastrophic AGW as pitched by Gore and company. Even the 'unprecedented' warming as proposed by Mann and Jones is on extremly shaky ground, as I referenced above.

To me the important political question is can we afford to wait for more and better data. I can't see anything in the science that doesn't lead to an overwhelming yes as the answer.

[TallDave]

I tend to not be a fan of the solar forcing arguments either.

Ditto.

To me the important political question is can we afford to wait for more and better data. I can't see anything in the science that doesn't lead to an overwhelming yes as the answer.

Well said.