Cobb: Are we moving toward a fact-free future?

[dissident]

Please check your PM, dorlomin.

These Dergachev and Raspopov papers are amateur hour nonsense. For example, this gem:

This IPCC conclusion is based on the climate
reconstructions presented in [Mann et al., 1998,
1999]. Based on the actually anomalously high tem
perature in 1998, this researcher concluded that
warming at the end of the 20th century in the North
ern Hemisphere was unprecedentedly considerable,
and the IPCC report predicts that the temperature will
substantially rise in the current century.

These two clowns forgot to check the 2000-2010 period covered before the date of their published articles. To anyone with something other than vacuum between the ears it is clear that a one off anomaly in 1998 cannot account for the Mann "hockey stick".

[dorlomin]

Many thanks dissident And once more what are we seeing that is not expected before 1970?

Since the 1970s we have had a massive change between solar energy and temperature.

Variations on the old 'its the sun' meme.

[rockdoc123]

These two clowns forgot to check the 2000-2010 period covered before the date of their published articles. To anyone with something other than vacuum between the ears it is clear that a one off anomaly in 1998 cannot account for the Mann "hockey stick".

This was not the point of the paper and why I referenced to it. This is what I said:

similarly, Dergachev and Raspopov, 2010 in their own review of all of the Mann and other proxy data pointed out that incoherence amongst the datasets results in close to a flat line (the hockey stick handle) when the various datasets are averaged as done by Mann, effectively removing the climate signals from each and creating an artificial construct. Hence the need to look at the reconstructions individually or in groups that do not require averaging.

If you want to argue that they did not do that, or that their statistical analysis is incorrect then fine. Otherwise trying to debunk my comments through strawman argument seems a bit sad. Yes the authors did use solar cycles (as others have) to explain the MWP etc. So what, I don't remember that being what was argued here no anything to do with the point I was making. If you want to argue about solar influences then start another thread. I'm more than willing to point to the numerous bits of research that have been done (and a lot quite recently) that point to something more than TSI coming into play.

Also Dissident I think you need to look at what you posted. The authors point to Mann, 1999 not the more recent papers in 03, 08 etc. Their comments are relative to that particular publication from my read.

A point that needs to be made here is that standard scientific reference is made to various papers that offer data, interpretation, analysis, conclusions etc on a number of topics. The reference might actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the conclusions of that particular paper but the important point is the reference is correct. For instance some scientist might note in his publication that thin section analysis of lunar samples show that plagioclase feldspar twins are statistically thinner than has been recorded for terrestrial plag feldspars. He might eventually end up concluding that the moon is not solid but that conclusion in no way detracts from the observations made, which will be referenced by various authors and used to make their own conclusions.

[dorlomin]

Figure 1 presents the variations in the global air
temperature [www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tempera
ture] and in the amount of carbon dioxide in the
Earth’s atmosphere [http://climate4you.com/Green
houseGasses.htm]

Ok so their reference for CO2 levels aka the keeling curve is a website called climate4you!

Fig. 5. Comparison of the temperature reconstructions obtained using the geothermal method: (a) the relative average global sur
face temperature (the solid thick line with regard to one standard error) compared with the relative variations in the global air
temperature (the 5 year moving averages) obtained instrumentally; (b) the surface temperature over Australia (1) compared with
the temperature reconstructed over the Northern Hemisphere (2) [Pollack et al., 2006] with regard to uncertainties.

And here is me thinking its only bad people who tap an instrument record onto a dataset.


Here is there global borehole reconstruction. 1500 is not the medieval.
Here is their borehole reconstruction that does hit the medieval and it is only from the Urals.

Fig. 4. The comparison of changes (a) in the GCR intensity (10Be and Δ14C): the radiocarbon concentration in the Earth’s atmo
sphere under the action of GCRs [Stuiver and Quay, 1980] (1), the GCR intensity based on the measurements of the 10Be con
centration in Greenland [Usoskin et al., 2002] (2), Antarctic [Raisbeck et al., 2002] (3) ice; (b) in the reconstructed temperatures
of the Northern Hemisphere: the smoothed instrumental series of data (1), the series of [Mann et al., 1999] (2), and [Moberg et
al., 2005] indirect data (3); and (c) in the data of borehole thermometry in the Ural boreholes [Demezhko and Golovanova, 2007]
during the last millennium: the minimal estimate (1) ± the double standard error relative to the average value, the maximal esti
mate (2), and the optimal estimate (3).

Taping a global instrument record onto an icecore! Wow.

They are also proposing a -1.5C temperature change for the little ice age? That kind of change would push us to the brink of a return to glaciation. If the earth is that vulnerable to changes in solar output then why is it suddenly completely invulnerable to changes in the greenhouse effect? But that said I really strongly dispute their 1.5C figure as having any global meaning.

These two papers are largely a lot of editorialising about how the bog standard tropes of the skeptics and very thin on anything new. If anything they are getting referenced as a "peer reviewed" source for the usual Watt\ Morano\ Monckton type talking points.

The actual borehole data is a little well, interesting. Certainly would have been a very short paper if they had stuck to talking about boreholes. It shows a figure of the little ice age that if taken serisouly means we have a very very sensitive climate. But it is a very poor fit for past solar activity which shows a lot more variation than their reconstruction is showing.

On the whole I am not really seeing why anyone who had actually read the paper would want to use it. Unless the intention was to use it as a reference and hope no one else would read it.

[rangerone314]

I think it is an interesting backdrop to this debate, the nature of American culture. It is one in which athletes are worshiped and religious belief is as strong as secular scientific belief.

What kind of culture comes up with a derogatory term "nerds" for smart people?

I think all of it, whether evolution or climate change are party defined by American cultural values.

[rockdoc123]

Ok so their reference for CO2 levels aka the keeling curve is a website called climate4you!

What point did you miss about why I referenced the paper? I did not mention anything to do with CO2 and I certainly did not discuss their use of the instrumental record. What I did reference was their point that one cannot blindly amalgamate all of the proxy data and that improper statistical treatment results in a flat hockey stick handle, something that McIntrye pointed out as well. That was also bore out by my reference to Mcshane which you even linked to a diagram from so you've read it. Do you disagree with McShane as well? If you want to argue it is OK to merge all of these proxies then do so.

These two papers are largely a lot of editorialising about how the bog standard tropes of the skeptics and very thin on anything new

It you believe this is somehow a counter to what I claimed then you really need to take a course in debating. You are throwing up a strawman argument.

On the whole I am not really seeing why anyone who had actually read the paper would want to use it. Unless the intention was to use it as a reference and hope no one else would read it.

probably due to the fact you didn't bother to read why I referenced the paper.
This whole discussion has been you trying to misdirect all along the way.

Let us revisit where the arguments were and you can answer these very simple questions, hopefully with appropriate references:

1. Do you believe that stripbark data should be kept in the proxies. Stripbark data makes up a healthy percentage of a number of the Mann and friends papers.
2. Do you believe there is no problem with Yamal data? Should Yamal data be removed or kept in the proxies? Should the missing Polar Urals data be included as well?
3. Do you recognize the fact that removing Yamal and stripbark bristlecone data from the proxies removes a proxy delineated “hockey stick”
4. Please explain the methodology and why you think it is theoretically correct to use instrument data along with tree ring, ice core and other proxy data?
5. Do you believe that the MWM was as warm or warmer than current temperatures? Do you believe it was global?

Quite simple questions really and they speak to what the argument here was regarding the “hockey stick”

[SeaGypsy]

Anyone got an ice core record from anywhere in SE Asia/ Oceania? The only glaciers are in NZ and the southern ocean/ sub antarctic, a tiny one in Papua. The tree ring record is the only method possible in the rest of this vast region, severely limited due to forest distribution and decimation of old hardwood forests. There are no ice core records from Australia up through to south west China and the beginning of the Himalayas.

[rockdoc123]

Yes there are limitations on the ice core record obviously. There is a lot of information from Antarctica and South America of course but for the area you are talking about that particular proxy is lacking. There are a lot of proxy records for China and Japan but probably too far north.
There are a few proxy studies for New Zealand :

Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317

Based on stalactite data. MWP slightly warmer than currently.

Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208

Stalagmites and MWP warmer than present

Lots and lots of China proxy data. I have references if you would like, PM me.