fayfreethinkers.com

A two-in-one strawman! First: Climate catastrophe skeptics don't claim that urban heat island effects cause global warming; they claim that temperature readings from these areas are inaccurate, which climate alarmists freely admit. "NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such signal by normalizing urban station data to the surrounding rural stations." Skeptics think that these fudge factors are inaccurate and/or contrived.

The second strawman: Skeptics concerned with human-caused climate change are more concerned with agricultural land use and deforesting than urban land use. The article makes it sound like the skeptics are only talking about urban land use. E.g. "This is a real favorite of the die hards."

Hogeye wrote:A two-in-one strawman!

DAR
You should read more carefully. I said: " If this is a variation of the "heat Island effect"...." intending it as a question, i.e. "is this (land use) a variation of heat Island effect?"

First: Climate catastrophe skeptics don't claim that urban heat island effects cause global warming;

DAR
Good, that was my (intended) question.

Skeptics think that these fudge factors are inaccurate and/or contrived.

DAR
I am not interested in what skeptics think, but rather what they can show.

The article makes it sound like the skeptics are only talking about urban land use.

DAR
That article is specifically in response to claims about urban land use, hence my starting my comment off with the word "if."

E.g. "This is a real favorite of the die hards."

DAR
Yes I don't take too serious the comments by the fellow who puts that site tegether, he is a non-expert and exaggerates and uses loaded politically charge language at least as often as you do. But his links are very useful, reputable and nicely organized by category. It would be useful for you to consider the responses and links he has for each of the skeptic arguments you come across before you invest too much belief in them.

D.
------------------------
Science has given us...
Well, let's see. The way we're practicing it has given us the Hubble Space Telescope, Mars landers, Jupiter probes, geostationary satellite telephone and television transmission, atomic power, hydroelectric power, Global positioning devices, MOSFET
transistors, jet aircraft, synthetic fibers, synthetic drugs, automobiles,
gasoline, radio and television, CD's and computers, surgery, internal
medicine, cures for several cancers, the banishment of
death-dealing and crippling childhood diseases, various vaccines,
archeological digs, historical accuracy, paleontology, palynology, biological systematics, genetic engineering, meteorology, isotopic climatology, etc., etc., etc.

What has religion and Bible given us? Morals? Nope, the ancient
Greeks were moralists. So were Confucious and Buddha and Ghandi and Mani and Zoroaster.

Civilization? Nope. That preexisted the Bible and developed in most of the world without it.
A cure for a single disease? Nope, not one.
A single extra year of life expectancy? Nope, not one.
Wars? Many.
Intolerance? Much.
Torture, in the name of? Lots.

--Pedric

Hogeye> Skeptics think that these fudge factors are inaccurate and/or contrived.

DAR> I am not interested in what skeptics think, but rather what they can show.

The burden of proof is on the alarmists, to explain why they use compromised data and to justify their fudges. Why not throw out data from urbanized weather stations? (A: Because they don't get alarmist results when they do.) Why not use only solid data like ice bores? (Ice bore data contradicts their global warming catastrophe theory, and supports the existence of the MWP and LIA.)

DAR> I am not interested in what skeptics think, but rather what they can show.

The burden of proof is on the alarmists,...

DAR
I don't agree with your insult or accept your assumption that "they" (collectively the established scientific position on this) are "alarmists."

alarmist n.
A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

to explain why they use compromised data and to justify their fudges.

DAR
Write this up in a paper. Make a strong case for your positions. I think you'll win if you are right. Eventually.

(Ice bore data contradicts their global warming catastrophe theory, and supports the existence of the MWP and LIA.)

DAR
I've sent you the debunk of this many times but you've given no sign of reading it. Consider what NOAA, certainly a reputable source (I think your fellow used them) has at their site on this:

"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."

***
The "Medieval Warm Period"
Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries

Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age."

In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.



There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. For example, Mann et al. (1999) generated a 1,000 year Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction (shown above) using data from multiple ice cores and tree ring records. This reconstruction suggests that the 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000 (shown in yellow). (For complete scientific reference of this study, please click here. Link to Mann 1999 FTP Data.)

In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. To learn more about the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (For complete review reference click here.)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... ieval.html
***

There is a new interesting article about artwork and the anecdotal method of confirming your MWP and LIA, here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=269

"As anecdotal evidence of past climate change goes, some of the most pleasant to contemplate involve paintings of supposedly typical events that involve the weather. Given the flourishing of secular themes in European art from the Renaissance on, most of this art comes from the 16th to 19th centuries. As readers here will know, this coincides (in the public mind at least) with the so-called 'Little Ice Age' and somewhat inevitably this canon of work has been combed over with a fine tooth comb for evidence of particularly cold conditions."

The reader comments are the bottom are always interesting too.

D.
---------------------
"The term "Hockey Stick" was coined by the former head of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern common to numerous proxy and model-based estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. This pattern includes a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth (Figure 1). Numerous myths regarding the "hockey stick" can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites and other non-scientific venues."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

DAR
The last sentence refers to your type of sources unfortunately....

Hogeye> Ice bore data contradicts their global warming catastrophe theory, and supports the existence of the MWP and LIA.

DAR> I've sent you the debunk of this many times but you've given no sign of reading it.

I've already both read and refuted that. See the twelve studies cited in The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science proving the global nature of the MWP. Note that all your cited sources rely on the weak, disputed Mann study which uses the garbage tree-ring data and the statistically dubious patching of proxy data.

Here's the IPCCs 1990 graph, based on ice bores:


From Keigwin et. al.


There are many similar results from all over the world.

On a related note: Darrel, you and I (and most web pages concerned with global warming) take the position that the alarmist Mann "hockey-stick" theory and the Medieval Warm Period conflict. Surprisingly to me, Dr. Roger Koeppe (UofA) claimed that these are not mutually exclusive; he seemed to think that most scientists believe in both the MWP and catastrophic global warming. Darrel, since you are the consensus expert, I was wondering if you've seen any data on consensus wrt the MWP. Is Roger correct that most scientists still accept the theory that the MWP was global?

Don't get me wrong, as Dr. Koeppe is not only a great guy but also really knows his stuff, but his stuff is really biochemistry (and biophysics). I don't mean to belittle his statements on global warming (especially as he may do extensive reading or somesuch on the topic), but I think Dr. Koeppe is the guy to go to when you want to learn something about membrane proteins, not so much global warming.

DAR> I've sent you the debunk of this many times but you've given no sign of reading it.

HOGEYE
I've already both read and refuted that. See the twelve studies cited in The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science proving the global nature of the MWP.

DAR
I am not at all impressed with that article for the many reasons stated several times earlier in this thread. It is all amateur swipes at the Mann hockeystick, just as my quote refers to, and dealt with in some of the very first information I sent you on this perhaps a year ago (and again repeatedly above). I am not the least interested in any of this anti-hockeystick pap since, as I shared with you at least a year ago now, if you discard the Mann version of the hockeystick, you get the same answer from other well established methods described in peer reviewed literature that runs DEEP and WIDE. Mann completely neuters this attack, a favorite of internet peanut gallery types that love to pass them around, with this article:

What If … the “Hockey Stick” Were Wrong?

Read that and then read this, follow the links, and for the love of everything precious and holy, stop gnawing at the hockeystick. It's just a distraction and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker:

Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

Note that all your cited sources rely on the weak, disputed Mann study which uses the garbage tree-ring data and the statistically dubious patching of proxy data.

DAR
This answer confirms my first comment above: "I've sent you the debunk of this many times but you've given no sign of reading it."

That you would even say "all your cited sources rely on the weak, disputed Mann study..." shows you aren't reading what I post or you aren't understanding it. Good heavens.

Mann's study (which according to the NOAA site also uses ice cores) has been confirmed independently of any tree-ring data whatsoever. As I referenced above, on March 6:

***
the IPCC based its conclusion of human influence on climate on:

A longer and more closely scrutinised observational record
New model estimates of internal variability
New estimates of responses to natural forcing
Improved representation of anthropogenic forcing
Sensitivity to estimates of climate change signals
Qualitative consistencies between observed and modelled climate changes
A wider range of detection techniques

...and all of this lead them to write: The increase in the number of studies, the breadth of techniques, increased rigour in the assessment of the role of anthropogenic forcing in climate, the robustness of results to the assumptions made using those techniques, and consistency of results lead to increased confidence in these results.
***

Here's the IPCCs 1990 graph, based on ice bores:

DAR
That's nice. That's 16+ years old (probably based upon work that is more than 20 years old actually), an eternity in this rapidly changing field and I have no idea if that graph is still considered accurate. It looks rather crude.

As one climatoligist put it:

"there is far too much pressure for rapid and new results for us to maintain full "audit trails" and answer an unlimited number of questions from any troublemaker with too much time on their hands. By the time 5 years have passed, our work is either irrelevant and forgotten, or else superceded, either because it really was wrong, or because someone else improved on it.”

LINK

That would be a good article for you to read BTW. It gives a good overview of the Mann v. M&M battles.

The latest IPCC statement had about 200 graphs. Some of them are graphs showing estimates from different lines of evidence. I have no way of knowing if your guy is cherry picking. What I do know is he is (was) a true believer who plays the standard "beat on the Mann hockey-stick" game, and an amateur with no specialised training and not taken seriously by the people who live and breathe this stuff. So I am not going to comment on his material anymore. I think it's junk. It looks like junk. If it's not, find someone with some expertise who will support it.

Darrel, you and I (and most web pages concerned with global warming) take the position that the alarmist Mann...

DAR
The only sites I know of that would refer to Mann as an alarmist, are quack sites I am not interested in.

(the position that the) "hockey-stick" theory and the Medieval Warm Period conflict.

DAR
When you read the links I have provided to you above, for the umpteenth time, you will have your answer, several times over.

Surprisingly to me, Dr. Roger Koeppe (UofA) claimed that these are not mutually exclusive; he seemed to think that most scientists believe in both the MWP and catastrophic global warming.

DAR
Sure. Again from above:

"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence."

The error bars are all over the place. And no one knows when, with a high degree of certainty, this MWP started or stopped or how far reaching it was. So his statement is normal in that everyone agrees there was some warming to the "MWP."

Darrel, since you are the consensus expert, I was wondering if you've seen any data on consensus wrt the MWP.

DAR
I'll just quote what I have referenced above in the very post you are responding to:

***
In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. To learn more about the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz. (For complete review reference click here.)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa ... ieval.html
***

The other links above also cover this. And consider this:

***
Weren’t temperatures warmer than today during the “Medieval Warm Period"?

This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations in past centuries. At hemispheric or global scales, surface temperatures are believed to have followed the "Hockey Stick" pattern, characterized by a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth. The late 20th century warmth, at hemispheric or global scales, appears, from a number of recent peer-reviewed studies, to exceed the peak warmth of the "Medieval Warm Period". Claims that global average temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions , fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.
***

Make sure and read this AT THE SITE so you can follow the references.

Is Roger correct that most scientists still accept the theory that the MWP was global?

DAR
I don't think so.

D.
------------------------



.
.
.

The first article you cite, Darrel - the one called What If … the 'Hockey Stick' Were Wrong? - clearly shows that Mann's hockey stick model is wrong. It shows that later studies (even Mann's later studies) recognize that a global Medieval Warm Period occurred. Thank you.

That article goes on to make some erroneous claims, claims based on using the "instrumental record" of weather improperly as a proxy for climate, and on the calibration of the instrumental record with the climate proxy data. In short, the author (Stephan with no last name?) takes the red line on the following graph seriously, as if it were a part of the ice bores/ sea-level / sediment / coral climate proxy models. No the red part is not a part of these models - it was grafted on. I guess Mike didn't understand the difference between climate and weather, that the climate proxies are basically some kind of amalgamation of past 50 to hundreds of years of weather.



Note that all but the 1999 Mann line show a clear MWP, even Mann's later studies. He appartently changed his mind about his earlier claim that the MWP was not global. Darrel, we apparently agree that Mann's hockey stick model has been refuted. We (you, me, Mann, other researchers) "get the same answer" on this.

(Note that I don't simply slough off Stephan unknown simply because he has no known credentials. I'm not into scientism - blind faith in experts only. Instead I took Stephan's claims seriously, and showed how his comments are belied by his own data.)

On the the question of whether the late 20th century is as hot or hotter than the MWP peak. The answer is that claim is almost certainly wrong, as shown by the following:

Figure 3. Geographical distribution of local answers to the following question: Is there an objectively discernible climatic anomaly within the 20th century that may validly be considered the most extreme (the warmest, if such information is available) period in the record? ‘Yes’ is indicated by red filled-squares, ‘No’ is indicated by green filled-circles or unfilled boxes and ‘Yes? or No?’ (undecided) is shown with blue filled-triangles or unfilled boxes. An answer of ‘Yes*’ is indicated by yellow filled-diamonds or unfilled boxes to mark an early to middle 20th century warming rather than the post-1970s warming.
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal by Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso and David R. Legates, April 11, 2003

Darrel, you seem not to like the term "global warming alarmist" for those who believe that global warming is an imminent catastrophe about which something must be done right away. I don't know what else to call these guys. "Chicken Littles" comes to mind, and "apocolypse abusers" seems apt. But those are too connotative. Note that both alarmists and skeptics agree that there has been some warming in the 20th century. The skeptics tend to think that it is getting warmer mainly due to coming out of the Little Ice Age, while the alarmists believe its due mainly to man-made greenhouse gasses. Can you think of a better term than "global warming alarmists" for the latter? Maybe "global warming anomolists"?

One significant piece of evidence that we have not discussed yet is the study showing that greenhouse gasses are the result, not the cause, of global warming.

Here are some quotes from the video Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change:

Tim Patterson, Carleton University
"In our research we were showing the excellent correllation between regular fluctuation in the brightness of the sun and earthly temperatures. Hundreds of other studies have shown similar trends."

Dr. Jan Viser, Univ. of Ottawa "CO2 shows no correllation with earth temperature." (in past half billion years)

"There is no meaningful correlation between carbon dioxide levels and earth's temperature. In fact, when CO2 levels were over 10 times higher than they are today, about 450 million years ago, our planet was in the depth of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."


Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Univ. of Ottawa "The temperature record increases first, the CO2 record lags the temperature record by up to 800 years. In other words, the CO2 is acting as a result of temperature rise, and not a cause."

Hogeye wrote:The first article you cite, Darrel - the one called What If … the 'Hockey Stick' Were Wrong? - clearly shows that Mann's hockey stick model is wrong.

DAR
Oh really. Where, specifically, does it do that?

It shows that later studies (even Mann's later studies) recognize that a global Medieval Warm Period occurred.


DAR
Oh really. Where, specifically, does it do that?

Thank you.

DAR
Save the gloating until after you have backed up your claims. I have some experience with your reading comprehension skills!

That article goes on to make some erroneous claims, claims based on using the "instrumental record" of weather improperly as a proxy for climate, and on the calibration of the instrumental record with the climate proxy data.

DAR
Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about and I am quite sure you don't either. Why don't you post your criticisms at the bottom of the article in question and if one of the dozen plus experts on that site feel your comments have merit, they will respond, or more likely, refer you to where your objections have already been responded to.

In short, the author (Stephan with no last name?) takes the red line on the following graph seriously, as if it were a part of the ice bores/ sea-level / sediment / coral climate proxy models.

DAR
His name is Stefan Rahmstorf and his name appears to the right on every single one of the hundreds of pages on this website. You can read his credentials HERE

Here is a paste:

"A physicist and oceanographer by training, Stefan Rahmstorf has moved from early work in general relativity theory to working on climate issues.

He has done research at the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel and since 1996 at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany (in Potsdam near Berlin).

His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change, past and present.

In 1999 Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation.

Since 2000 he teaches physics of the oceans as a professor at Potsdam University.

Rahmstorf is a member of the Panel on Abrupt Climate Change and of the Advisory Council on Global Change of the German government.

More information about his research and publication record can be found here.

If he or someone else takes the time to respond to your claims, do pass them along.

Darrel, we apparently agree that Mann's hockey stick model has been refuted.

DAR
No, we do not agree on this.

We (you, me, Mann, other researchers) "get the same answer" on this.

DAR
No, I don't think we do.

(Note that I don't simply slough off Stephan unknown simply because he has no known credentials.

DAR
No, it is you who has no credentials. See Professor Stefan Rahmstorf's credentials given above.

I'm not into scientism - blind faith in experts only.

DAR
No you seem to have a distain for people with credentials. Perhaps this is an out growth of your anarchist beliefs. I also suspect part of your inability to accept where the science obviously leads on this issue is due to it being a nightmare for your anarchy beliefs. Humans, globally, actually having to come together in an organized systematic beauracratic way to solve a problem of their making? Dear God! What could be more anathema to an anarcho-capitolist? And it would certainly a wet-dream for the statist UN types. I'm just interested in believing in what is true on this position. I am impressed with the arguments of the mainstream scientists, I find the claim that they are lying or distorting the science to gain grant money entirely implausible, and I find the rebuttals to the mainstream position rife with amateurism, incompetence and crackpotism. I do intend to getting around to watching those videos from that Canadian site.

Instead I took Stephan's claims seriously, and showed how his comments are belied by his own data.)

DAR
Do let me know if he responds.

Darrel, you seem not to like the term "global warming alarmist" for those who believe that global warming is an imminent catastrophe about which something must be done right away.

DAR
First off, you are mostly swinging at straw here. The people I quote and refer to do not speak like this. They do not claim such certainty, while you, and the people you refer to, often do, saying there is nothing to worry, it's a joke, we'll all be laughing in ten years etc. That's one more reason to be suspect of your sources. Anyone who speaks of certainty about the future is suspect and anyone who dismisses the concerns about global warming as joke, is probably a dogmatist of some sort.

I don't know what else to call these guys.

DAR
Leading scientists, highly qualified experts would be appropriate. At least the people I reference at for example the www.realclimate.org site are, and they don't speak in alarmist terms. No one knows what the future holds but they point to a high level of certainty that global warming is a serious problem that should be dealt with and has the potential to have grave consequences for the planet. Do note that the trend has been against you as the science piles in. More and more the deniers are falling away and admitting they have been wrong.

"Chicken Littles" comes to mind, and "apocolypse abusers" seems apt.

DAR
Not at all. You are just abusing all, and I mean all, of the reputable climatologists. Again, the definition of "alarmist":

alarmist n.
A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

So with a wave of your hand you toss away the near unanimous concensus among climatoligists that the earth is warming, rapidly, and due to human influence.

I gave you lots of links to digest in the previous post. There are places to post your critiques and get a response from someone qualified to unpack your novice responses. If that material doesn't get through your dogmatism that all of the experts are wrong, and you and a handful dubious skeptics are right, then there is nothing I can provide to help you.

There really is something to getting to the point of being an expert in a certain field. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to experience this. For me it just happened over time, and this is with regard to pianos (I am a piano technician). After twenty years now it is really interesting to just know things about pianos that I didn't know 10 or 15 years ago. I expect this feeling to increase as the decades pass. I can often diagnoss problems over the phone. I often fix problems before the customer points them out to me. I am on an internet list with hundreds of piano technicians from all over the world so I am constantly learning knew things from them. Many of these posts would be completely unintelligable to you. The other day a fellow who had been studying at a piano college for three years in Britain posted a question. It would seem a reasonable question to a novice, and it would take a little time to unpack the false assumptions built into his question, but in the end, it was just a question that someone would ask who has a basic, but flawed, understanding of what is going on. And this fellow has been studying the field three years, and this is just piano tuning, not something as complex as climatology!

I have seen similarly situations with Doug and philosophy. One of the fellows he debated (Sean "Baldy") knew just enough about Kant to make it look like he knew what he was talking about. Not being a professional philosopher he was making novice mistakes and Doug was able to set him straight and point out how he was making errors about Kant that had been resolved decades ago. This fellows understanding was very limited but he could talk a good game and a novice such as myself might think he actually knew what he was talking about. And it may very well be that this fellow knew more about Kant than you do about interpreting climatology charts.

So I really do think that your objections, and perhaps some of my responses, are so much pissing in the wind among sub-novices. I do know you know far less about climatology than this three year piano college student knows about pianos, and I do know his comment was ridiculous. But I only know that because I really do have a bit of expertise with regard to pianos and piano tuning. Not so climatology.

D.
-------------------------
Since 1751 roughly 290 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The 2002 global, fossil-fuel CO2 emission estimate, 6975 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 2% increase from 2001.
.
.

.
.

Hogeye> The first article you cite, Darrel - the one called What If … the 'Hockey Stick' Were Wrong? - clearly shows that Mann's hockey stick model is wrong.

DAR> Oh really. Where, specifically, does it do that?

As you know, the hocky-stick theory says that temperatures were basically flat during the last millenium, until they shot up in the latter part of the 20th century. But the article admits:

Independent groups, with different analysis methods, have arrived at similar results for the last millennium. ... all published reconstructions share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century.

Thus, these independent groups have refuted the hockey-stick theory. Even Mann's own later studies disprove it. (See the graph above.)

Hogeye> That article goes on to make some erroneous claims, claims based on using the "instrumental record" of weather improperly as a proxy for climate, and on the calibration of the instrumental record with the climate proxy data.

DAR> Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about...

I'm pointing out that it is illegitimate to tack on a weather record (instrumental temperature) to a climate record (such as ice bores.) The weather record measures short-term fluctuations, while the climate records measure long-term "weighted averages."

Darrel, I don't know what your graph showing cumulative emissions of CO2 is supposed to show. No one doubts that humans produce CO2. The essential question is the relationship of CO2 and temperature. Let's look at both:

junkscience.com [i]All the junk that's fit to debunk.[/i] wrote:Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to a toasted planet.

Hogeye wrote:

Hogeye> The first article you cite, Darrel - the one called What If … the 'Hockey Stick' Were Wrong? - clearly shows that Mann's hockey stick model is wrong.

DAR> Oh really. Where, specifically, does it do that?

HOGEYE
As you know, the hocky-stick theory says that temperatures were basically flat during the last millenium,...

DAR
Perhaps you have a different idea of flat:

...until they shot up in the latter part of the 20th century.

DAR
The major concern is the speed and reason it has shot up in the latter part of the 20th century. Mankind. This is uncontroversial except to a small noisy, and shrinking, fringe group.

The hockey sticks I have seen, with error bars included (stop ignoring them), show temps not all that different from a millennia ago (but our knowledge of the the temps back then is much more limited and potentially erroneous). But again, the concern is the speed and reason for change, not the raw numbers.

HOGEYE
But the article admits:

"Independent groups, with different analysis methods, have arrived at similar results for the last millennium. ... all published reconstructions share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century."

Thus, these independent groups have refuted the hockey-stick theory.

DAR
Okay, I am about done. Remember my comment about your reading comprehension? You have such dogmatic goggles that you read everything through that you can't read the most basic things straight. I don't say that lightly or to pile on abuse. But these errors are quite unbelievable and make communication tedious and difficult. Remember, I have shared this one article with you perhaps half a dozen times during the last year so there is no reason for such a rudimentary mistake.

Here is the actual quote minus what you have chopped out. Emphasis mine:

"So let’s assume for argument’s sake that Mann, Bradley and Hughes made some terrible mistake in their statistical analysis, so we need to discard their results altogether. This wouldn’t change our picture of the last millennium (or anything else) very much: independent groups, with different analysis methods, have arrived at similar results for the last millennium. The details differ (mostly within the uncertainty bounds given by Mann et al, so the difference is not significant), but all published reconstructions share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century. Even without Mann et al, we’d still be stuck with a “hockey stick” type of curve – quite boring.

Now here is your interpretation of this:

"Thus, these independent groups have refuted the hockey-stick theory."

But this fellow is in fact saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just attributed to him, in the most plain and simple english.

Long day (seven service calls) limited time today, later dude.

D.
----------------------
"Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate change. The famous conclusion of the IPCC, “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”, does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium. It depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data. In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the “hockey stick”."
--What If … the 'Hockey Stick' Were Wrong? etc.

I guess I need to define the "hockey stick theory" so we're on the same page. The hockey stick theory is the theory that, in the last millenium, temperatures were relatively stable (actually a very slight decrease) until the 20th century, when temperatures shot upward. Here is the graphic:

According to the hockey stick theory, there was no global Medieval Warm Period. Darrel, you yourself have quoted Mann on this point to me.

Now lets look at some of the other studies from your multiple study graph.

Jones et. al. - only goes back 120 years, so is irrelevant.

Crowley and Lowerly - that's the yellow line, which clearly shows both an MWP and a LIA, contradicting the hockey stick theory.

Esper et al.:

"What has caused a stir is that this [Esper] study contradicts similar findings by Mann et al. (the infamous `Hockey Stick') which claimed that climate was stable and benign for 900 years - until the 20th century warming."ref1

Similarly, for Biffra, Crowley EBM, Bauer, and both Gerber studies, we get evidence of the MWP rather than the flat hockey stick. Moral: You should believe your eyes and your brain rather than take the word of a supposed authority. Be a freethinker, dude! Use your own eyes; look at the graph and note that the Mann99 hockey stick does not show the MWP but the other models do.


Now, note how Stefan lies through his teeth when he writes, "all published reconstructions share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century. Even without Mann et al, we’d still be stuck with a 'hockey stick' type of curve – quite boring."

Mann's hocky stick does not show an MWP, and Mann himself claimed (at least back then) that the MWP doesn't exist (except as a "regional" phenomena.) So lie #1 is the claim that Mann99 does support the MWP like the other models. The truth, as anyone can see by the graph, is that the other models, contrary to Mann99, show a clear MWP. Lie #2 is the second sentence - claim that the other models show the same hocky stick. The other models clearly show a MWP, therefore by definition contradict the hockey stick theory.

What's amazing to me is that people can look at the graph and not see immediately that Stefan is misrepresenting the data. I guess RealClimate.org, being a Mann fan site, counts on unthinking faith of apocolypse abuser readers. I dunno. Scientism at its worst.

Darrel wrote:But this fellow is in fact saying THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just attributed to him, in the most plain and simple english.

When Stefan says, "all published reconstructions [except Mann99] share the same basic features: they show relatively warm medieval times, a cooling by a few tenths of a degree Celsius after that, and a rapid warming since the 19th Century," he agrees with me. When he says, "Even without Mann et al, we’d still be stuck with a 'hockey stick' type of curve," he's just plain wrong as we've seen. Perhaps his main error/rhetorical trick is not defining the hockey stick theory before he makes his erroneous claim about what supports that theory.

DAR
So first you say: Stephan's article "clearly shows that Mann's hockey stick model is wrong" and then when I quote him saying the exact opposite of that (thus correcting your hacked up quote) you change your tune to:

"note how Stefan lies through his teeth..."

No, it is you who is being dishonest here. And I have zero time for that.

Have a nice day Hogeye, I have a lot of things to do.

In fact, right now we are working on bringing in a specialist to speak on this topic. This fellow:

***
> Bill Chameides
> Chief Scientist, New York Office
> Programs: Climate and Air
> Topics: Global Warming

After 30 years in academia, most recently as the Georgia Institute of Technology's regents professor and Smithgall chair, Bill Chameides joined Environmental Defense as chief scientist in 2005.

> Chameides is an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on global biogeochemical cycles, global change, and urban and regional-scale air pollution. Through the development and application of numerical algorithms and models (as well as the design and implementation of multidisciplinary research programs and field studies), he has endeavored to elucidate the coupled chemical, physical and biological processes that shape our environment. His work in this area has helped identify pathways toward a sustainable future.

> Chameides has served as editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and chief scientist for the Southern Oxidants Study, a research program focused on understanding the causes and remedies for ground-level ozone pollution in the southern United States. He was also study director of CHINA-MAP, an international research program looking at the effects of environmental change on agriculture in China. As chair of the National Research Council's Committee of Air Quality Management in the United States, he led a team of experts tasked by Congress to scientifically and technicallly evaluate the effectiveness of the Clean Air Act's major air quality provisions and their implementation by federal, state and local government agencies, and to develop recommendations for strengthening the nation's air quality management system.

> Member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; named a National Associate of the National Academies; Fellow, American Geophysical Union. He received the American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Award. Author or co-author of more than 120 scientific publications and five books. Ph.D., Yale University.
***

Perhaps you can try floating some of your assertions with him.

D.

Since Stefan admits that the models show a clear MWP, he is admitting that the hockey stick model is wrong. That is exactly what I claimed. If Stefan is inconsistent in his article by later lying about two things (the other models support Mann99, and "without Mann we'd still be stuck with a hockey stick"), that is not my problem.