Global warming

[mhaze]

More Hockey Stick. And More! And More!

More hockey stick.

1. Hundreds of studies show the Medieval Warming Period, which is NOT on the Hockey Stick. Without the MWP, the AGW theory loses all circumstantial evidence (AGW becomes GW, not man made) as cited in #2.

2. Gore uses the Hockey stick for evangelizing the Hellfire of Warming and the Damnation of CO2 producers.

"The north polar ice cap is melting, the fires are burning, the sea level is rising, living species are going extinct. These and many other manifestations, including half the U.S. being in drought last year, are visible to the naked eye. We have got to recognize that even though it's never happened before, it is happening right now."
​

3. Specifically, Gore uses the Mann hockey stick (although he says it's Thompsons, he seems to just be a bit confused on that.)



4. Mann recently had a graduate student, Abadneh, who updated one of the key tree core series in the hockey stick to the present day. This series of pine trees was the heaviest weighted in Mann's MBH98 PC1, something like 390 times weighted than the least weighted series. Also, it was the most heavily weighted in MBH99 PC1 and in the Mann and Jones 2003 PC1.

The Ababneh Thesis shows no hockey stick. This graph is from the discussion at climateaudit, here.



Black is Ababneh.

5. The Wegman commission studied the work of Mann and produced a report highly critical of it. In it they suggested that bristlecone pine proxies not be used; Mann continued to use them. Recently a study has came out, Loehle 2007, of temperatures of the last 2000 years which does not use tree ring measurements at all. There is no hockey stick; there is a pronounced MWP and LIA. Discussion here.

Talking points for the British Ministry of EverTruthy Climate Propaganda says to always say the science is settled. Mann claims that the MWP was just European, not world wide.

Efforts to effect this historical revisionism seem to have not worked.

Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 107 for "medieval ice age".
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 578 for "european ice age"
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 383 for "european warm period".
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 453,000 for "little ice age"
Personalized Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000 for "medieval warm period"
​

Recent years have not shown an increase in temperature "unprecedented and alarming" which "require urgent action now". Given these facts, how does one integrate into a balanced and reasonable view of science published, peer reviewed work such as the following, from Hansen?

thick ice sheets provide not only a positive feedback... potential for cataclysmic collapse.....projected warmings under BAU would initiate albdeo-flip changes...

possible to save the Arctic from complete loss of ice...if absolute reduction of air pollutant forcings is achieved along with a reduction of CO2 growth...most rapid feasible slowdown of CO2 emissions, coupled with a forced reductions of other forcings, may just have a chance of avoiding disastrous climate change.....albedo feedback whipped the planet to hellish hothouse conditions...whipsaw between cold and warm.........imminent peril is initiation of dynamical and thermodynamical processess on the West Antartic and Greenland ice sheets....devastating sea-level rise will inevitably occur....activate the albedo-flip trigger....BAU GHG scenarios would cause large sea-level rise this century......best chance for averting ice sheet disintegration seems to be intense simultaneous efforts to reduce both co2 emissions and non-co2 climate forcings...
​

Climate Change and Trace Gases Hansen et al 2007
doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052

 

[CapelDodger]

That he considers AGW a hoax makes him a nut? No, that makes him rational. But even to those whom thought it did, a nut is not a buffoon.

It makes him as rational as someone who believes 9/11 was a hoax.

As for your disrespect to his religious beliefs, makes no difference to me. As you may be aware, Hansen has quite strong religious beliefs; so does Christy and many others. You, you've expressed a preference for Atheism (and/or Odin, IIRC). I've got no problem with that; of course; some might say you were a nut, but not a buffoon.

"Strong religious beliefs" do not extend automatically to the quote varwoche provided. That's not strong religious belief, that's tiny-minded bigotry. I know a buffoon when I see one, and Inhofe is a buffoon. Buffoons in Congress - or Parliament - are a grand old tradition.

Thanks for the reply; you've convinced me of what I thought, that a rational, serious opponent to the extreme left wing environmental position, such as Senator Inhofe, is easier delt with by way of Ad Hominem attacks than actually debating his position.

Rational and serious? Crazed and extreme more like.

His opposition is not to extreme left-wing environmentalism, it's to anything that doesn't fit his cosy world-view. Such as the reality of AGW - which does not require an extreme left-wing position to accept. Trust me on that. AGW as a fact is not a political question. It is to Inhofe, of course, but then he's a buffoon.

 

[CapelDodger]

More hockey stick.

1. Hundreds of studies show the Medieval Warming Period, which is NOT on the Hockey Stick. Without the MWP, the AGW theory loses all circumstantial evidence (AGW becomes GW, not man made) as cited in #2.

Global warming caused by what? Where's the extra energy coming from, and why aren't we able to detect it? OK, the energy must be coming from the Sun, but why is it accumulating? Do you have anything on that? Surely somebody has, and surely you'll have heard about it on ClimateAudit. What is it?

The second obvious question is : why isn't energy accumulating because of the increased greenhouse effect from increased greenhouse gases?

Supplementary to the second question : if something's preventing warming by increased greenhouse effect, why isn't it preventing warming by the answer to the first question? What is so peculiar about greenhouse warming?

The MWP is on the Mann et al reconstruction, just not with the prominence you desire.

 

[mhaze]

It makes him as rational as someone who believes 9/11 was a hoax. "Strong religious beliefs" do not extend automatically to the quote varwoche provided. That's not strong religious belief, that's tiny-minded bigotry. I know a buffoon when I see one, and Inhofe is a buffoon. Buffoons in Congress - or Parliament - are a grand old tradition.

Rational and serious? Crazed and extreme more like. His opposition is not to extreme left-wing environmentalism, it's to anything that doesn't fit his cosy world-view. Such as the reality of AGW - which does not require an extreme left-wing position to accept. Trust me on that. AGW as a fact is not a political question. It is to Inhofe, of course, but then he's a buffoon.

My, my, you misunderstand. I only asked for quotes and or evidence to support your assertion that he is a buffoon. In the absence of direct evidence, I'll then assume you just want to denigrate him for being on the "other side". Really, there is a long history of this with you, AUP, Varoche etal: Relative to any and all persons, organizations, journals, and what not that didn't fit your neat tidy little AGW world view.

General spin points, such as what you've mentioned, do not qualify for the positive assertion of buffoonery. You are quite welcome to show by an evidence based approach that a reasonable person should consider him either a nut or a buffoon.

Trust? No, that isn't what I do.

 

[mhaze]

The MWP is on the Mann et al reconstruction, just not with the prominence you desire.

Now that's good for a laugh. I thought I better zoom way in and use extra arrows to help find it.

Global warming caused by what? Where's the extra energy coming from, and why aren't we able to detect it? OK, the energy must be coming from the Sun, but why is it accumulating? Do you have anything on that? Surely somebody has, and surely you'll have heard about it on ClimateAudit. What is it?

The second obvious question is : why isn't energy accumulating because of the increased greenhouse effect from increased greenhouse gases?

Supplementary to the second question : if something's preventing warming by increased greenhouse effect, why isn't it preventing warming by the answer to the first question? What is so peculiar about greenhouse warming?

Well, I think those are good questions, as long as they don't lead in the direction of something like "it must be AGW because Gosh Darnit we just can't think of anything else!!!".

You're asking for an energy budget, basically.

But isn't this the same as asking for corrections to the radiative forcing chart of the IPCC? That would be either in terms of correcting, say the solar factor or the cloud effects.

Or for the feedbacks, correcting the positive feedback noted for water cycle to a negative feedback.

 

[CapelDodger]

I had a look at the CO2Science link, but didn't go through all the references. Are there really hundreds of them? It didn't look like it, but I didn't actually count them.

I did take a look at the Asian Level 1 references.

Yakushima Island

The authors analyzed δ13C variations of Japanese cedars growing on Yakushima Island, southern Japan (30°20'N, 130°30'E), in
an effort to reconstruct a high-resolution proxy temperature record over the past two thousand years. The Medieval Warm
Period occurred between AD 800-1250 and from the authors' Figure 3, peak warmth during this time was about 1°C above that of
the Current Warm Period.

Sadly the graph ends at about 1970, before the Current Warm Period. And one is bound to wonder why Japanese cedars are so much more dependable than bristlecone pines - has this been audited by McIntyre et al?

Polar Ural Mountains, Russia

This work revealed that "a large number of well-preserved tree remains can be found up to 60-80 meters above the current tree
line, some dating to as early as a maximum of 1300 years ago," and that "the earliest distinct maximum in stand density occurred
in the 11th to 13th centuries, coincident with Medieval climatic warming." Since Marzepa cites many studies that conclude that
"increases in tree-line elevation, and associated increases in tree abundance within the transient tree-line ecotone, are
associated with extended warm periods," and that "the vertical gradient of summer air temperature in the Polar Urals is
0.7°C/100 m," we conclude that the Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant
portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.

Notice the "extended warm periods"? I don't think that refers to thirty years, which is the extent of the Current Warm period.

Note also that the conclusion is apparently arrived at by the people at CO2Science, not the authors of the paper. The specificity of 0.56C rather gives that away, quite apart from the fact that there are no quotes around it. It's rather silly - but that's CO2Science for you. Mature trees springing up overnight, or perhaps moving upwards when opportunity presents and nobody's watching.

Pearl River Delta, Shenzhen Bay, China

(Honghan, Z. and Baolin, H. 1996. Geological records of Antarctic ice retreat and sea-level changes on the northern bank of the
Shenzhen Bay. Tropical Sea 4: 1-7.
Zicheng, P., Xuexian, H., Xiaozhong, L., Jianfeng, H., Guijian, L. and Baofu, N. 2003. Thermal ionization mass spectrometry
(TIMS)-U-series ages of corals from the South China Sea and Holocene high sea level. Chinese Journal of Geochemistry 22:
133-139.)

In an analysis of past sea level history in the South China Sea, Zicheng et al. (2003) cite the work of Honghan and Baolin (1996,
in Chinese), wherein they say these authors found that "the climate temperature at 1000 a B.P. is 1-2°C higher than that at present
time," referring to the Futian section on the eastern bank of the Pearl River, Shenzhen Bay, China (~22.5°N, 113.5°E).

This seems a tad convoluted. CO2Science cites one paper that cites another that specifically relates Antarctic ice retreat to
sea-levels in Southern China. Admittedly the Honghan paper is in Chinese, but I can rustle up a couple of Chinese readers with no trouble. They're not particularly science-literate, but you'd have thought CO2Science has the resources to find a Chinese reader who is.

Nothing mentioned about the corals in the (presumably English-language) Zicheng paper. Odd that.

Lake Qinghai, China
The authors developed a quantitative reconstruction of temperature changes over the past 3500 years based on alkenone
distribution patterns in a sediment core retrieved from China's Lake Qinghai (37°N, 100°E), based on the alkenone unsaturation
index that has been calibrated to the growth temperature of marine alkenone producers and "to temperature changes in
lacustrine settings on a regional scale." This work revealed that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 900-1500)
exceeded the temperature of the latter part of the 20th century by about 0.5°C.

Now we have 0.5C (not 1-2C), a MWP of 900-1500CE, and the "latter part" of the 20thCE. And, according to the graph presented,
there's been a cooling during the 20thCE. I can't help thinking McIntyre could shred this had he the time and inclination.

Dengloujao Reef, Leizhou Peninsula, China
In an analysis of past sea level history in the South China Sea, Zicheng et al. (2003) cite the work of Baofu et al. (1997, in
Chinese), who investigated palaeotemperatures of the coral reef at Dengloujao, Leizhou Peninsula, China (~20.25°N, 110°E) and
reported that "sea-surface temperature at 1170 a B.P. is 2°C higher than that at present time."

Again we get nothing directly, just a citation of another study. Why is that? Were there other citations that were not so CO2Science friendly? Perhaps McIntyre could take some time to find out, if he's not still busy cooling Africa the way he cooled the US lower-48.

Seriously, how much of this do you think would survive the ClimateAudit treatment? It won't get it, of course, because that's not what ClimateAudit is about, but hypothetically?

What we end up with is a movable MWP, a movable temperature difference, and possibly moving trees.

I've no problem with there being a Medieval Warm Period similar to the 20thCE before about 1970, due to similar conditions - low levels of vulcanism and relatively high levels of solar activity. What I have a problem with is there being any sign of the rapid climate change that has occurred in the last three decades or so. Which is the relevant period when it comes to AGW.

 

[CapelDodger]

My, my, you misunderstand. I only asked for quotes and or evidence to support your assertion that he is a buffoon. In the absence of direct evidence, I'll then assume you just want to denigrate him for being on the "other side". Really, there is a long history of this with you, AUP, Varoche etal: Relative to any and all persons, organizations, journals, and what not that didn't fit your neat tidy little AGW world view.

Jeebus H fu...

(Pause and count to 10. Calm now? OK, continue)

It isn't my habit, nor that of Schneibster, aup, varwoche, Megalodon et al to politicise and personalise AGW. We don't obsess about Al Gore, Hansen, Mann, the IPCC, and all the other demons you and yours go on and on about. I don't even claim that Inhofe is a right-wing buffoon. He's just a buffoon.

General spin points, such as what you've mentioned, do not qualify for the positive assertion of buffoonery. You are quite welcome to show by an evidence based approach that a reasonable person should consider him either a nut or a buffoon.

Trust? No, that isn't what I do.

It most certainly is. You also distrust, according to your own desires. Do you seriously think this isn't obvious? Sadly, you probably do.

Why don't we just drop the personalisation and politicisation? Forget left-wing extremism and anti-industrial scientific conspiracies on the one hand, Inhofe, FoxNews and weblogs on the other. AGW isn't about that.

Most particularly, forget Al Frickin' Gore. He never was POTUS, and never will be.

 

[mhaze]

I had a look at the CO2Science link, but didn't go through all the references. Are there really hundreds of them? It didn't look like it, but I didn't actually count them.

I did take a look at the Asian Level 1 references.

Sadly the graph ends at about 1970, before the Current Warm Period. And one is bound to wonder why Japanese cedars are so much more dependable than bristlecone pines - has this been audited by McIntyre et al? Notice the "extended warm periods"? I don't think that refers to thirty years, which is the extent of the Current Warm period.

Note also that the conclusion is apparently arrived at by the people at CO2Science, not the authors of the paper. The specificity of 0.56C rather gives that away, quite apart from the fact that there are no quotes around it. It's rather silly - but that's CO2Science for you. Mature trees springing up overnight, or perhaps moving upwards when opportunity presents and nobody's watching.

This seems a tad convoluted. CO2Science cites one paper that cites another that specifically relates Antarctic ice retreat to
sea-levels in Southern China. Admittedly the Honghan paper is in Chinese, but I can rustle up a couple of Chinese readers with no trouble. They're not particularly science-literate, but you'd have thought CO2Science has the resources to find a Chinese reader who is.

Nothing mentioned about the corals in the (presumably English-language) Zicheng paper. Odd that.



Now we have 0.5C (not 1-2C), a MWP of 900-1500CE, and the "latter part" of the 20thCE. And, according to the graph presented,
there's been a cooling during the 20thCE. I can't help thinking McIntyre could shred this had he the time and inclination.



Again we get nothing directly, just a citation of another study. Why is that? Were there other citations that were not so CO2Science friendly? Perhaps McIntyre could take some time to find out, if he's not still busy cooling Africa the way he cooled the US lower-48.

Seriously, how much of this do you think would survive the ClimateAudit treatment? It won't get it, of course, because that's not what ClimateAudit is about, but hypothetically?

What we end up with is a movable MWP, a movable temperature difference, and possibly moving trees.

I've no problem with there being a Medieval Warm Period similar to the 20thCE before about 1970, due to similar conditions - low levels of vulcanism and relatively high levels of solar activity. What I have a problem with is there being any sign of the rapid climate change that has occurred in the last three decades or so. Which is the relevant period when it comes to AGW.

Yeah, I think in terms of MWP being hundreds of years in duration. Not sure how you precisely relate it to the last 30. what exactly would be the point of that? Where do you get 30 being the extent of the current WP?

I figured it perhaps from 1900 or so.

What we end up with is a movable MWP, a movable temperature difference, and possibly moving trees.
​

Should all that be precise?

Like, everything starts like clockwork?

Then maybe it did I but available records only show a glimpse here and there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now that's good for a laugh. I thought I better zoom way in and use extra arrows to help find it.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/142244740de7844279.png[/URL]

There it is, peaking around 1300CE. That would be good enough for CO2Science (were it not for the upsurge towards the end).

Well, I think those are good questions, as long as they don't lead in the direction of something like "it must be AGW because Gosh Darnit we just can't think of anything else!!!".

If they do lead that way they become bad questions? Isn't that a tad judgemental?

You're asking for an energy budget, basically.

I'm asking for reasons why it's changed, certainly.

But isn't this the same as asking for corrections to the radiative forcing chart of the IPCC? That would be either in terms of correcting, say the solar factor or the cloud effects.

We have a good knowledge of the solar and cloud factors from direct observations, by satellites. What else you got?

Or for the feedbacks, correcting the positive feedback noted for water cycle to a negative feedback.

How would that explain a positive energy-balance?

Surely what you need is an unexplained positive feedback to explain that - but not a positive feedback to a CO2-forcing. It would have to be a very specific positive feedback, one that doesn't amplify a CO2-forcing but does amplify some other forcing - whatever it is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp

Looking at the positive forcings there, CO2 is well ahead of the field. What comfort are you finding in it?

 

[David Rodale]

There it is, peaking around 1300CE. That would be good enough for CO2Science (were it not for the upsurge towards the end).




If they do lead that way they become bad questions? Isn't that a tad judgemental?



I'm asking for reasons why it's changed, certainly.



We have a good knowledge of the solar and cloud factors from direct observations, by satellites. What else you got?



How would that explain a positive energy-balance?

Surely what you need is an unexplained positive feedback to explain that - but not a positive feedback to a CO2-forcing. It would have to be a very specific positive feedback, one that doesn't amplify a CO2-forcing but does amplify some other forcing - whatever it is.



Looking at the positive forcings there, CO2 is well ahead of the field. What comfort are you finding in it?

We have a good knowledge of the solar and cloud factors from direct observations, by satellites. What else you got?

More talk without references. Spencer studies clouds and precipitation systems. Can you just ignore his work?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

FACTOID: Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day.

More on clouds if you didn't notice in a previous post:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf

What else you got?

Question: How much more does water (oceans) absorb/store heat than the atmosphere (vapor)?

Answer: Oceans absorb/store 1000x the heat than the atmosphere. The rest isn't hard to figure out.

Do you ever read CA in depth?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2386#more-2386

Apologist Eli Rabett (Joshua Halpern) recently lamented that in order for dendrochronologists to update tree ring studies used in MBH98/99 (aka Mann’s Hockey Stick) that they “have to drive out to the ass end of nowhere”. It’s such an inconvenience for those that just perform data wrangling in the office, instead of going out to get their hands dirty, that a study used as the basis for legislation hasn’t had its data updated in almost 10 years!

Thanks to Mr. Pete and Steve McIntyre, a recent outing in Colorado to get updated core samples from the very same trees used in Mann’s study proved that it’s not so hard after all. In fact they were able to have a Starbucks in the morning, do the field work, and were back home in time for a late dinner. No futzing with grant proposals, no elaborate plans submitted for approval, just basic honest field science. The samples they collected are in a dendrochronology lab undergoing analysis.

Another ongoing discussion about MWP and Loehle's reconstruction, all out in the open, no games, no refusal to submit data, methodologies or other games Mann & friends are so good at.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380

Correlation is not causation right? At some point however it must mean something wouldn't you agree? There certainly is no correlation of CO2 to temperature. Please review the following paper and summarize what is incorrect with references of course.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwreview_oism150.pdf

We're still waiting for a peer reviewed paper of how CO2 raises temperature ~2.5C with 2xCO2. Climate models are not evidence.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, I think in terms of MWP being hundreds of years in duration. Not sure how you precisely relate it to the last 30. what exactly would be the point of that? Where do you get 30 being the extent of the current WP?

It's only during the last thirty years or so that the accumulated CO2 has reached a high enough level to have a significant impact. Had it not been for sulphate aerosols - another product of industrialisation - it might well have shown fifty years ago, but that's speculation.

I figured it perhaps from 1900 or so.

Why?

What we end up with is a movable MWP, a movable temperature difference, and possibly moving trees.

​

Should all that be precise?

If you're using it as a counter to the warming over the last thirty years, yes.

Like, everything starts like clockwork?

Isn't that what you're demanding when you ask for a direct correlation between CO2-load and climate?

Then maybe it did I but available records only show a glimpse here and there.

Not surprising given how slowly - but exponentially - CO2-load has increased since the dawn of the industrial era. Warming during the early part of the 20thCE (the positive energy-budget) is explicable by the reduction in vulcanism after Krakatoa, which was the last really big one, with some small contribution from increased solar output. A gradual return to normal, essentially. From the early 40's growing anthropogenic sulphate aerosols came of age, replicating the effects of vulcanism (CO2 accumulation was having an opposite effect, minor in comparison but also growing). In the 70's efforts were introduced to reduce sulphate aerosols for reasons unrelated to climate change, so that effect declined. CO2 continued to accumulate, and that accumulation continues.

 

[CapelDodger]

More talk without references. Spencer studies clouds and precipitation systems. Can you just ignore his work?
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Yup.

Mind you, given the weather here today, I did notice this :

"
FACTOID: Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day."

I couldn't ignore how much water vapour came out of the atmosphere around here. I didn't notice any CO2 doing the same - but it wouldn't be so obvious, so I may have missed it.

More on clouds if you didn't notice in a previous post:
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Stephens2005.pdf

And yet I still don't feel out-flanked.

What else you got?

I didn't have those in the first place. I've got about a third of a bottle of Famouse Grouse Malt, 1992 vintage, right here beside me. Can you say the same?

Question: How much more does water (oceans) absorb/store heat than the atmosphere (vapor)?

Quite a bit, from first principles.

Answer: Oceans absorb/store 1000x the heat than the atmosphere. The rest isn't hard to figure out.

The rest of what?

Do you ever read CA in depth?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2386#more-2386

I know a cess-pit when I see it, and I don't dive in. I'm prepared to look at it, but not live in it.

Another ongoing discussion about MWP and Loehle's reconstruction, all out in the open, no games, no refusal to submit data, methodologies or other games Mann & friends are so good at.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380

Well there's a thing.

Correlation is not causation right?

Cliched.

At some point however it must mean something wouldn't you agree?

No.

There certainly is no correlation of CO2 to temperature. Please review the following paper and summarize what is incorrect with references of course.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwreview_oism150.pdf

I appreciate your polite request, but what with having a life and everything I'll politely decline.

We're still waiting for a peer reviewed paper of how CO2 raises temperature ~2.5C with 2xCO2. Climate models are not evidence.

There's your problem. You demand one paper that proves it.

 

[mhaze]

Yup.
I know a cess-pit when I see it, and I don't dive in. I'm prepared to look at it, but not live in it.

Even keeping trade of one thread there is a chore, there are hundreds. Six months ago Climateaudit.org could be kept up with. No way now.

Another ongoing discussion about MWP and Loehle's reconstruction, all out in the open, no games, no refusal to submit data, methodologies or other games Mann & friends are so good at.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380
​

He submitted it to blog for critical review. To make a better peer reviewed paper?

 

[varwoche]

That he considers AGW a hoax makes him a nut? No, that makes him rational.

A hoax involves deliberate deception. Are you claiming that AGW science is a wide spread hoax?

 

[a_unique_person]

Even keeping trade of one thread there is a chore, there are hundreds. Six months ago Climateaudit.org could be kept up with. No way now.

Another ongoing discussion about MWP and Loehle's reconstruction, all out in the open, no games, no refusal to submit data, methodologies or other games Mann & friends are so good at.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2380
​

He submitted it to blog for critical review. To make a better peer reviewed paper?

After reading that link, I'm thinking it would be better to have a global organisation, with a formal charter, and rules to follow. There is too much ad hoc chatter, crossed discussion, irrelevent waffle, uninformed comment and unanswered questions for it to be of any real use to anyone. They could then concentrate on collating what they claim to know, in an orderly fashion, with regular reports being produced that allow others to see just exactly what it is they are claiming, and be able to properly evaluate it.

 

[mhaze]

After reading that link, I'm thinking it would be better to have a global organisation, with a formal charter, and rules to follow. There is too much ad hoc chatter, crossed discussion, irrelevent waffle, uninformed comment and unanswered questions for it to be of any real use to anyone. They could then concentrate on collating what they claim to know, in an orderly fashion, with regular reports being produced that allow others to see just exactly what it is they are claiming, and be able to properly evaluate it.

Because there is no organized, coherent "they". It's a blog. But you are right, no one takes on the task of collating what is a vast information, fact and comment base.

Well, almost no one. I saw one guy had taken the comments from one thread and combined the best of them into a paper that was published, seems like it was on IPCC organization style or the like.

 

[mhaze]

A hoax involves deliberate deception. Are you claiming that AGW science is a wide spread hoax?

I don't need to claim anything. Just asking for specific quotes or references to support Inhofe being a buffoon or a nut.

Surely you understand that the first impression of someone saying a certain politician is a buffoon or a nut is just to presume that the person voicing the opinion is of the opposite persuasion on some issues?

 

[David Rodale]

Because there is no organized, coherent "they". It's a blog. But you are right, no one takes on the task of collating what is a vast information, fact and comment base.

Well, almost no one. I saw one guy had taken the comments from one thread and combined the best of them into a paper that was published, seems like it was on IPCC organization style or the like.

Unless you follow along consistently it can be difficult to understand what's going on. However, Steve McIntyre and a few others know what's going on and he does collate certain topics into a new thread. Take for instance the Loehle reconstruction paper. I followed it from the beginning so have a good grasp of the subject matter. JEG jumped in with very critical remarks and the usual ad hom attacks which seems to be the gold standard for the hockey Team.

Now that everyone knows who JEG really is, by criticizing Leohle like he did, he inadvertently condemned the Mann et al hockey sticks.

Read here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2388

Emile-Geay asks of Loehle:

Where are the CE, RE, and most importantly R-squared statistics that are so dear to ClimateAuditers ? How are we supposed to guess whether the reconstruction has any skill ?

I agree with this 100%. These statistics are part of the game and should be provided. While I think that these statistics have to be very carefully assessed and that the risk of spurious RE statistics is not understood by climate scientists at all, I agree that readers are entitled to such information about any proposed reconstruction presented as a positive alternative.

But the more interesting issue in this demand is surely not the performance of the Loehle reconstruction, but the dissonance between Emile-Geay’s demand for a verification r2 statistic from Loehle as compared to past contortions by Mann (and Ammann) in trying to cover up the MBH verification r2 failure.

Read on.

 

[varwoche]

I don't need to claim anything. Just asking for specific quotes or references to support Inhofe being a buffoon or a nut.

Inhofe claims that AGW is a massive hoax and you think he's rational. I infer from this (and other of your posts) that you also think that AGW is a massive hoax. You are welcome to correct me of course.

Surely you understand that the first impression of someone saying a certain politician is a buffoon or a nut is just to presume that the person voicing the opinion is of the opposite persuasion on some issues?

Not really. An open-minded person learns the facts before knee-jerking to a partisan presupposition.

 

[mhaze]

Inhofe: January 4, 2005

Inhofe claims that AGW is a massive hoax and you think he's rational. I infer from this (and other of your posts) that you also think that AGW is a massive hoax. You are welcome to correct me of course.

Certainly, here are your corrections.

What is not rational? What is buffoonery? Where is a nut?

Inhofe: January 4, 2005

As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns.

For these groups, the issue of catastrophic global warming is not just a favored fundraising tool. In truth, it's more fundamental than that. Put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith. Therefore contending that its central tenets are flawed is, to them, heresy of the most despicable kind.

Furthermore, scientists who challenge its tenets are attacked, sometimes personally, for blindly ignoring the so-called "scientific consensus." But that's not all: because of their skeptical views, they are contemptuously dismissed for being "out of the mainstream." This is, it seems to me, highly ironic: aren't scientists supposed to be non-conforming and question consensus? Nevertheless, it's not hard to read between the lines: "skeptic" and "out of the mainstream" are thinly veiled code phrases, meaning anyone who doubts alarmist orthodoxy is, in short, a quack.

I have insisted all along that the climate change debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion. Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data-and by serious scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are heard.[/quote]
​

Not really. An open-minded person learns the facts before knee-jerking to a partisan presupposition.

But will you?