How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

This is a very strong unambiguous claim. I'd like to pursue this in terms of HTBAGWS. Can anyone supply evidence, for or against, this claim? I think it would be instructive re the OP.

Let's see, now.

How could you figure that out?

Oh yeah...you could try reading Mann 98.

 

[mhaze]

I would hope they would all say that. Doesn't stop them forming an opinion, based on the best available evidence. Well let's ask the contributors to this thread, shall we? Is there anyone here who agrees that the majority of climatologists are of the opinion that the current warming is unprecedented in the last couple of millenia?

ETA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html

These reconstructions indicate that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere

Conclusions for the Southern Hemisphere and global mean temperature are limited by the sparseness of available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere at present.
​

Does not support your premise.

Got anything that does support it?

Only: The consensus of three JREF posters, with no evidence presented from actual science.

Warmology!

 

[Pixel42]

These reconstructions indicate that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented for at least roughly the past two millennia for the Northern Hemisphere

Conclusions for the Southern Hemisphere and global mean temperature are limited by the sparseness of available proxy data in the Southern Hemisphere at present.
​

Does not support your premise.

You've forgotten what my statement actually was again haven't you?

Look, I'll make a concession, OK? I should have checked the exact wording of the IPCC report before rounding it from memory to "a couple of millenia". Mea culpa. I still believe that the majority of climatologists would agree with "a couple of millenia" but I can only support that belief for "at least 1300 years". So I'll modify my statement as follows:

The majority of climatologists are of the opinion that the current warming is unprecedented in at least the last 1300 years.

This nitpicking derail was prompted by our unusually reasonable discussion (I should have known it wouldn't last) as to the meaning of the "hockey stick"; specifially, the fact that it doesn't just refer to the blade, but to the relative flatness of the shaft. You sad:

It is a fundamental and basic question: Is current temperature unprecedented in the last millenia, and thus must it most likely be due to man's effects?

So I'm saying that the majority of climatologists are of the opinion that the answer to that question is "Yes", and that therefore the "hockey stick" is real. And that I personally find the evidence and arguments to support that opinion convincing.

OK?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Let's see, now.

How could you figure that out?

Oh yeah...you could try reading Mann 98.

Are you seriously claiming that MBH 98 depends on the presence of a single proxy?

 

[mhaze]

Are you seriously claiming that MBH 98 depends on the presence of a single proxy?

Citation: McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005), Reply to comment by Huybers on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance,’’ Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023586.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422447fcb41132b40.png
Citation: McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005), Reply to comment by Huybers on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance,’’ Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023586.

So information isn't in Mann's paper, as you said, but in M&M's paper.

 

[mhaze]

I'd start with the original source, Mann's paper. M&M's graph is convenient, though, in answering the question posed. (For people who do not want or have time to read the articles).

But just grabbing a talking point from say, RC or CA is not really a great idea. Also, the real question here is not the question TS posed which has been fully answered, but this one:

"Do tree rings work (at all, somewhat, never, that's pretty funny) as a proxy for historical temperature?"

Mann thought tree rings did provide reliable indications of historical temperature. As a result of the controversy with McIntyre, this has been questioned. Likely the answer is no.

 

[mhaze]

You've forgotten what my statement actually was again haven't you?

Look, I'll make a concession, OK? I should have checked the exact wording of the IPCC report before rounding it from memory to "a couple of millenia". Mea culpa. I still believe that the majority of climatologists would agree with "a couple of millenia" but I can only support that belief for "at least 1300 years". So I'll modify my statement as follows:

The majority of climatologists are of the opinion that the current warming is unprecedented in at least the last 1300 years.

This nitpicking derail was prompted by our unusually reasonable discussion (I should have known it wouldn't last) as to the meaning of the "hockey stick"; specifially, the fact that it doesn't just refer to the blade, but to the relative flatness of the shaft. You sad:



So I'm saying that the majority of climatologists are of the opinion that the answer to that question is "Yes", and that therefore the "hockey stick" is real. And that I personally find the evidence and arguments to support that opinion convincing.

OK?

unusually reasonable discussion (I should have known it wouldn't last)

I admit to getting annoyed when there was simply NO evidence presented to support the assertion of several millenia, after numerous interchanges.

1,300 years is also highly questionable, since it intrudes on the Medieval Warm Period, but this is a different issue than "several millenia".

You've quoted the IPCC on the 1,300 years, but please note their wording "likely", "very likely", and so forth. This is a very different thing than a peer reviewed article saying "The data shows there is a statistically significant possibility that the last 1,300 years was not warmer than the current century".

So are we now talking about the unscientific opinions of climatologists, so to speak, or the scientific opinions based on data? Considerable wiggle room. By the way, I'm of the opinion that the MWP was in the same range of warmness as the current century, and that we are not sure if it was a little warmer or a little colder than the current century. Also that it doesn't matter. In the same general range would translate to "no statistically significant difference" in temperature between the MWP and today.

Well, in summary, I likely would not have commented if you had used 1,300 years, (although that is also an unsupportable proposition), and certainly would not have complained at 400 (coming out of the LIA and so forth).

 

[a_unique_person]

I'd start with the original source, Mann's paper. M&M's graph is convenient, though, in answering the question posed. (For people who do not want or have time to read the articles).

But just grabbing a talking point from say, RC or CA is not really a great idea. Also, the real question here is not the question TS posed which has been fully answered, but this one:

"Do tree rings work (at all, somewhat, never, that's pretty funny) as a proxy for historical temperature?"

Mann thought tree rings did provide reliable indications of historical temperature. As a result of the controversy with McIntyre, this has been questioned. Likely the answer is no.

As I have said before, why the very public, and vicious, war against Mann, then? The usual course is if you are right, and he is wrong, is to publish your paper that demonstrates this. Instead, we have trench warfare and character assassination.

 

[Pixel42]

I admit to getting annoyed when there was simply NO evidence presented to support the assertion of several millenia, after numerous interchanges

"A couple" is not "several". "Several" is a deliberate misquote - now I'm annoyed. And "a couple" is closer to 1300 than 400 is. I was irritated by such nitpicking because it ignored the important point, which was that the period in question covered the MWP, the relevant period when the accuracy of the "hockey stick" description is questioned. Which was what we were discussing before you found my minor rounding error so much more fascinating.

You've quoted the IPCC on the 1,300 years, but please note their wording "likely", "very likely", and so forth.

I was the one who quoted the IPCC's definitions of those terms. So obviously I've noted them.

This is a very different thing than a peer reviewed article saying "The data shows there is a statistically significant possibility that the last 1,300 years was not warmer than the current century".

"66-90% possibility" is different to "statistically significant possibility"? How?

So are we now talking about the unscientific opinions of climatologists, so to speak, or the scientific opinions based on data?

The latter.

By the way, I'm of the opinion that the MWP was in the same range of warmness as the current century, and that we are not sure if it was a little warmer or a little colder than the current century.

I know you are. So are a minority of climatologists. The majority disagree.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'd start with the original source, Mann's paper. M&M's graph is convenient, though, in answering the question posed. (For people who do not want or have time to read the articles).

But just grabbing a talking point from say, RC or CA is not really a great idea. Also, the real question here is not the question TS posed which has been fully answered, but this one:

Rubbish. Diamond made an outrageous claim. I questioned it. It has not been answered at all, let alone fully.

"Do tree rings work (at all, somewhat, never, that's pretty funny) as a proxy for historical temperature?"

Mann thought tree rings did provide reliable indications of historical temperature. As a result of the controversy with McIntyre, this has been questioned. Likely the answer is no.

This is a different issue.

Yet again, in typical mendacious fashion, you make a false claim and change the subject.

 

[TrueSceptic]

As I have said before, why the very public, and vicious, war against Mann, then? The usual course is if you are right, and he is wrong, is to publish your paper that demonstrates this. Instead, we have trench warfare and character assassination.

Because Mann, with Bradley and Hughes, published the 'Hockey Stick'. This was something the denialists could not allow to stand uncontested and they have used every tactic to discredit it and its authors. They are still doing it now. They will never stop doing it.

 

[mhaze]

Rubbish. Diamond made an outrageous claim. I questioned it. It has not been answered at all, let alone fully.

This is a different issue.

Yet again, in typical mendacious fashion, you make a false claim and change the subject.

So you are in denial of the relationship indicated in my posted chart in #1165?

 

[TrueSceptic]

So you are in denial of the relationship indicated in my posted chart in #1165?


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1422447fceaae7b7ff.png[/qimg]

I am disputing Diamond's claim that

Without that one proxy, the Hockey Stick shape disappears.

 

[a_unique_person]

Rubbish. Diamond made an outrageous claim. I questioned it. It has not been answered at all, let alone fully.

The claim by Diamond was pretty clear, the request by you in reference to it also. Mhaze has jumped around it on his pogo stick like a master.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The claim by Diamond was pretty clear, the request by you in reference to it also. Mhaze has jumped around it on his pogo stick like a master.

A master? Don't tempt me.

Even amongst GWS, he stands out, doesn't he?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
So you are in denial of the relationship indicated in my posted chart in #1165?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting...ceaae7b7ff.png

I am disputing Diamond's claim that

Quote:
Without that one proxy, the Hockey Stick shape disappears.
​

​

Please refer to (b) in the chart in 1165. I quote from the legend:

"(b) Without the bristlecone pines , the hockey stick disappears".
​

This refers to the Graybill pines which Diamond mentioned.

Is the matter now clear?

 

[fsol]

Is this where it disappears and then what you are left with doesn't pass validation?

 

[CapelDodger]

Even amongst GWS, he stands out, doesn't he?

mhaze is the Duracell Bunny of the breed.

 

[CapelDodger]

Is this where it disappears and then what you are left with doesn't pass validation?

I rather think so. What's more, it warms the LIA, the coldness of which was one of the orignial under-pinnings of GWScepticism. "We're just coming out of the Little Ice Age", that sort of thing. Now we get a warm period two centuries after the Greenlanders started suffering from global cooling? WTF is that all about?

There is simply no consistent GWSceptic position, apart from "Whatever it is (and it may not be anyway) it's not AGW."