Abbott: "Warmer when Jesus was a boy"

[Hawkamania!]

Hey hawky, hows wattsupwithtaht going with his weather station analysis?
Still inadvertently helping the real climate scientists or has he quietly dropped that one?

Its going well. The climate alarmists are still sweating over the work he and his team of volunteers are doing much to the chagrin of the discredited team of menne et al.

How's the real climate camp going? Are they still deleting constructive criticism based on solid scientific evidence on their site?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Its going well. The climate alarmists are still sweating over the work he and his team of volunteers are doing much to the chagrin of the discredited team of menne et al.

How's the real climate camp going? Are they still deleting constructive criticism based on solid scientific evidence on their site?

No its not, but you and I both knew that anyway...
When he does finally release his "analysis", tomorrow, next year, next millennium...?

 

[Hawkamania!]

No its not, but you and I both knew that anyway...
When he does finally release his "analysis", tomorrow, next year, next millennium...?

I answered your questions and you krudded out of answering mine.

How's the real climate camp going? Are they still deleting constructive criticism based on solid scientific evidence on their site?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

I answered your questions and you krudded out of answering mine.

How's the real climate camp going? Are they still deleting constructive criticism based on solid scientific evidence on their site?

You had questions? oops sorry.
Err Real Climate? Yeah the science blog run by shock horror, real climate scientists is powering along. Over a million hits per day apparently. Hint: they are experts in their field, not retired tv weather men.
So when does anfernee release his weather stations analysis? Hmmm?

 

[Dry Rot]

I answered your questions and you krudded out of answering mine.

He usually deflects like that, plus pretty poor abuse.

 

[Hawkamania!]

You had questions? oops sorry.
Err Real Climate? Yeah the science blog run by shock horror, real climate scientists is powering along. Over a million hits per day apparently. Hint: they are experts in their field, not retired tv weather men.
So when does anfernee release his weather stations analysis? Hmmm?

When all the stations in the USHCN network are audited, you will get the report like everyone else.

And on your real climate crew, aren't some of them members of "The Team" famous for the "hide the decline" email and other shonky practices as uncovered by the Climategate leaking?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

When all the stations in the USHCN network are audited, you will get the report like everyone else.

And on your real climate crew, aren't some of them members of "The Team" famous for the "hide the decline" email and other shonky practices as uncovered by the Climategate leaking?

Poor old anfernee has had over 90% of the stations results for the last 12-24 months but because they show exactly the opposite of what he wants them to show (ie they show cooling and he tried to fabricate the results but was sprung) so so he is absolutely humiliated. Poor bastard - and you support him.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Poor old anfernee has had over 90% of the stations results for the last 12-24 months but because they show exactly the opposite of what he wants them to show (ie they show cooling and he tried to fabricate the results but was sprung) so so he is absolutely humiliated. Poor bastard - and you support him.

The fail is strong in you.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...courtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/

Despite the proper collegial approach to scientific interaction, and in contrast to the NIH policy, they have prematurely published a paper using a subset of the site classifications that Anthony has completed (and, moreover, the site classification data they used has not even gone through final quality assurance checks!) . They used only ~40% of the USHCN sites yet over 87% have actually been surveyed by Anthony’s volunteers.

The Editor who oversaw this paper is also to blame for the early appearance of this article. I was quite surprised to learn that despite the central role of Anthony Watt’s analysis in the paper, he was not asked to be a referee of the paper. This is inappropriate and suggests the Editor did not provide a balanced review process.

Ouch!

And on your real climate crew, aren't some of them members of "The Team" famous for the "hide the decline" email and other shonky practices as uncovered by the Climategate leaking?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

The fail is strong in you.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...courtesy-by-the-national-climate-data-center/
Ouch!

And on your real climate crew, aren't some of them members of "The Team" famous for the "hide the decline" email and other shonky practices as uncovered by the Climategate leaking?

Can you post something from a climate expert just once? Please.?
You and the disgraced Pielke are very apt bedfellows.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Can you post something from a climate expert just once? Please.?
You and the disgraced Pielke are very apt bedfellows.

Climate experts? Like the ones exposed by Climategate?

I'd rather get my information from scientists that actually use the scientific method in their research thanks.

 

[TheBloods]

What's wrong with saying "when Jesus was a boy"? It provides a meaningful and understandable historical reference.

And there is good evidence to show that the climate was warmer, as it has been in the past through its cycles. But highlighting this is meaningless - it's not about the temperature or the increase, it's about the relatively rapid increase in the past century.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

What's wrong with saying "when Jesus was a boy"? It provides a meaningful and understandable historical reference.

And there is good evidence to show that the climate was warmer,

There is no evidence that show the climate was warmer than now. None what so ever.

 

[TheBloods]

There is no evidence that show the climate was warmer than now. None what so ever.

More importantly though, you - like so many others - have managed to focus on the wrong point.

 

[medusala]

There is no evidence that show the climate was warmer than now. None what so ever.

Is reading the thread beyond you? There are a number of published peer reviewed studies which show exactly that. See links to one earlier.

 

[ralphmalph]

Is reading the thread beyond you? There are a number of published peer reviewed studies which show exactly that. See links to one earlier.

Are you referring to the one about the shellfish in Iceland? Does that show much more than that it was warmer in that part of Iceland for the lifespan of that shellfish?

I only skimmed the paper but I'm not sure they extrapolated from that to the global average temperature ...

 

[medusala]

Are you referring to the one about the shellfish in Iceland? Does that show much more than that it was warmer in that part of Iceland for the lifespan of that shellfish?

I only skimmed the paper but I'm not sure they extrapolated from that to the global average temperature ...

There is argument over that just as those of a particular bent will do their utmost to claim MWP was regional (odd how they change their tune when it comes to Artic ice though). The accuracy of proxies is also questionable particularly with trees as per the now disgraced Hockey Stick. Noone claims certainty exists.

Still, when someone boldy claims "there is no evidence" we can safely dismiss their views as Just Another Cheerleader.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

More importantly though, you - like so many others - have managed to focus on the wrong point.

I certainly hope those graphs are not what you are basing your evidence on. There are no references, and not even temperature points on one of them.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

The accuracy of proxies is also questionable particularly with trees as per the now disgraced Hockey Stick.

That could possibly be the most stupid sentence ever posted on a forum about climate change.

 

[medusala]

That could possibly be the most stupid sentence ever posted on a forum about climate change.

The unreliabity of trees for proxies and particularly the ones as used by the Hockey Stick mob has been extensively noted.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=200

Comparisons with direct temperature measurements back to 1880 show a high correlation with tree growth. However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960. At this point, while temperatures rise, tree-ring width shows a falling trend. This divergence between temperature and tree growth is called, imaginatively, the divergence problem.

The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf

Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this
report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years as it shows an increasing trend in about 1850 that has been attributed to atmospheric CO2 fertilization.” It is not surprising therefore that this important proxy in MBH98/99 yields a temperature curve that is highly correlated with atmospheric CO2. We also note that IPCC 1996 stated that “the possible confounding effects of carbon dioxide fertilization
need to be taken into account when calibrating tree ring data against climate
variations.”

In addition, as use of fossil fuels has risen, so does the release of
oxides of nitrogen into the atmosphere, some of which are deposited as nitrates, that are fertilizer for biota. Thus tree ring growth would be correlated with the deposition of nitrates, which, in turn, would be correlated with carbon dioxide release. There are clearly confounding factors for using tree rings as temperature signals.

 

[Hawkamania!]

I certainly hope those graphs are not what you are basing your evidence on. There are no references, and not even temperature points on one of them.

That the first graph Bloods posted was in the report "Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment" that was released in 1990. Maybe you should contact the ipcc and let them know of your grievances regarding their graph presentations?

Jo Nova has a good piece on this topic.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/gullible-rudd-steps-right-in-it/

Gullible Rudd steps right in it

Rudd let slip a line in his frustration this week that reveals how little he knows about the topic he holds so dear. He has so completely swallowed the PR on climate science, that when poked, he reflexively fires back exaggerated scientific claims that would make even the IPCC blush. In 2007 the IPCC and Gore et al offered Rudd the perfect Election-Wedge-on-a-Platter. They’d primed the audience with propaganda; trained the crowd to recite: Carbon is pollution. It looked like a no-brainer. Yet having based his leadership and campaign on it, it’s obvious he had not done even the most basic of checks (and still apparently hasn’t).


It’s an abject lesson in the importance of doing some homework before rewriting a nation’s economy.

 

[TheBloods]

I certainly hope those graphs are not what you are basing your evidence on. There are no references, and not even temperature points on one of them.

They are just some examples of many.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

The unreliabity of trees for proxies and particularly the ones as used by the Hockey Stick mob has been extensively noted.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=200

Comparisons with direct temperature measurements back to 1880 show a high correlation with tree growth. However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960. At this point, while temperatures rise, tree-ring width shows a falling trend....

The very site you reference here (skeptical science), states that
"The conclusions of most recent studies are that the MWP (Medievil Warm period) was on average cooler than today"

Bloods, this is worth a read for you too:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Common-graphical-tricks-and-the-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

 

[Hawkamania!]

Anyone who uses the "skeptical science" blog as a resource should have a read of this first.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

Medieval Warm Period was warmer: Cook says that only locally - globally, it was cooler, he argues. However, the "reconstructions" he offers are linked to the discredited hockey-stick studies (and especially the discredited people behind them). The best evidence is actually historical in origin, from the traditional civilized places, and it does suggest that the period was warmer than the present. It's unlikely that the whole world was "much cooler" than expected from these temperatures. But even if it were so, the temperature e.g. in England was (and is) more important for the Englishmen than the global mean temperature. Finally, in a recent BBC interview, top alarmist and hockey-stick advocate Phil Jones admitted that the MWP was warmer than the present on the whole Northern Hemisphere and he only speculatively suggests, with no real evidence, that it could have been different on the Southern Hemisphere. Even if the MWP were only warmer on the Northern Hemisphere, it would still make the claims that the present is "unprecedentedly warm" very awkward.

Jo Nova did a great piece on the Medieval Warm Period.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

But Steven McIntyre was suspicious. He wanted to verify it, yet Mann repeatedly refused to provide his data or methods — normally a basic requirement of any scientific paper. It took legal action to get the information that should have been freely available. Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, like stock prices, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten. Mann had left out some tree rings he said he’d included. If someone did a graph like this in a stock prospectus, they would be jailed.

This link has an interactive map with graphs showing evidence of the Medieval Warm Period as a global influence (the image is too big to post in a forum).

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

 

[TheBloods]

One of the biggest problems with the global climate change debate are the zealots on BOTH sides. They both refuse to accept any possible evidence that may weaken their case at all.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Anyone who uses the "skeptical science" blog as a resource should have a read of this first.

Jo Nova did a great piece on the Medieval Warm Period.

Again Hawk mania, your picking your information from opinion pieces rather than science. Its very easy to manipulate complex scientific data, and make assumptions that simple dont hold, which a true scientist wouldnt let happen.

For example, your Jo Nova lass has no scientific qualifications, and loves nothing more than a good conspiracy theory. She believes Bush was behind 9/11 !.

All fun and games in the blogosphere, until someone starts to believe them.