Then trying to insinuate all I do is read a web site.
Well my apologies but it strikes me as odd that a lot of the diagrams you post and the exact arguments show up on Cooks site.
But you are playing a little game here. Funnily enough it is the game you have been trained to play by McIntyre. Write really long boring meandering posts that go nowhere and declare yourself a winner.
Where is the temperature reconstruction from McIntyre?
First off I pointed to publications by McIntyre and McItrick in peer reviewed journals (which you claimed didn't exist0. Those articles as well as the other ones I linked to all show those temperature reconstructions (which you asked for). The initial plots I showed of the response to removing Yamal and including the other Russian data are “temperature reconstruction from McIntyre”. I also pointed to a recent paper that has a temperature reconstruction which shows a higher MWP although it uses the exact same data as Mann and his cohorts. In a discussion of the hockey stick there is really no better place to reference than McIntyre, he has deconstructed each and every paper by Mann, Briffa etc….why would you ignore the expert who did all the work and formulated the arguments? I find that a rather silly approach.
Also if you are looking for a “spaghetti graph” recreation McIntyre has a few of those in his early posts on the dendro data but quickly moved away from that approach the reason being that by merging the datasets you are required to make adjustments (so they are comparable in the same graph) that are statistically unsound and artificially change the various datasets. His view, and that of others, is that by looking at individual proxy records in detail, applying the proper statistics and screening you get results that are internally consistent.
The paper I referenced (McShane and Wyner, 2011) made precisely that point and by applying proper statistics they get something that shows a very accentuated MWP which Mann and others omitted through the need to make corrections to the data in order to plot them on top of each other. 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.
Dergachev, V.A. and Raspopov, O.M. 2010a. Reconstruction of the Earth‘s surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 1. Experimental data. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 50: 383–392.
Dergachev, V.A. and Raspopov, O.M. 2010b. Reconstruction of the Earth‘s surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 2. Experimental data analysis. Geomagnetism and Aeronomy 50: 393–402.
There are numerous examples of paleo-reconstructions that demonstrate a MWP higher than or as high as the recent warm period. I pointed to only one previous another would be:
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler 92A: 339–351
Where they show the Roman Warm Period (~100 – 200 AD) and the MWP (~1000 – 1100 AD) as being slightly warmer than the current period in the northern hemisphere
Kobashi et al, 2010 showed the MWP being slightly warmer than the current warm period for the area around Greenland
Kobashi, T., Severinghaus, J.P., Barnola, J.-M., Kawamura, K., Carter, T., and Nakaegawa, T. 2010. Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Climatic Change 100: 733–756.
And Clegg et al, 2010 showed a reconstruction for southern Alaska where both the RWP and MWP were warmer than the current warm period.
Clegg, B.F., Clarke, G.H., Chipman, M.L., Chou, M., Walker, I.R., Tinner, W., and Hu, F.S. 2010. Six millennia of summer temperature variation based on midge analysis of lake sediments from Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 3308–3316.
You routinely post links to WUWT.
Actually I don’t. I hardly ever post links from there, occasionally when there is something interesting and I am not sure what you are suggesting. This is what Watts had to say recently about climate change and CO2 through a guest post from Robert Brown of Duke University:
This is silly. On WUWT most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW, certainly not the scientists or professional weather people (I myself am a physicist) and honestly, most of the non-scientist skeptics have learned better than that. What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO_2. They challenge this on rather solid empirical grounds and with physical arguments and data analysis that is every bit as scientifically valid as that used to support larger estimates, often obtaining numbers that are in better agreement with observation.
Jo Nova also wrote a letter that appeared on WUWT with the same point being made:
Firstly, to save time and money we must analyze the leaders of the denial movement. I have emailed or spoken to virtually all of them.
They are happy to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming, that humans produce CO2, that CO2 levels are rising, and that the earth has warmed in the last century. According to Hansen et al 19841, Bony et al 20062, and the IPCC AR4 report3, the direct effect of doubling the level of CO2 amounts to 1.2°C (i.e. before feedbacks).
All they need are is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models. Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback4) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.
There is a small group that Judith Curry refers to as the “sky dragons” who believe that CO2 is not a forcing at all but this is not the widely held view amongst skeptics as is quite apparent from how often they are torn apart on Climate Etc. discussions.
Funny though how the usual leaps of lack of logic go from the MWP being warmer than today by some mystical force but suddenly feedbacks being weak today. The so called skeptics are not even trying to be consistent. They cant show a warmer MWP, and also insist feedbacks must be low. That and the constant effort to create mysticism about feedbacks.
The warmer or as warm MWP has been demonstrated by so many papers it is actually quite astounding (I think I have references in my notebook for about 200 and I know there are more). For you to be ignorant of the literature says something about your credibility in this argument. You are making things up and portraying them as fact. And I would point out if the knowledge around feedbacks was as simple as you suggest (which it isn’t) there wouldn’t be so much research being devoted to the subject. In a recent paper Carslaw et al, 2010 noted that based on their analysis of the impact of aerosols and climate forcings both from observational data and models and stated:
the number of drivers of change is very large and the various systems are strongly coupled
there have therefore been very few studies that integrate the various effects to estimate climate feedback factors
the level of scientific understanding of the climate drivers, interactions and impacts is very low.
Carslaw, K.S., Boucher, O., Spracklen, D.V., Mann, G.W., Rae, J.G.L., Woodward, S., and Kulmala, M. 2010. A review of natural aerosol interactions and feedbacks within the Earth System. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10: 1701–1737.
And closely linked is the discussion regarding clouds and whether or not they act as a direct forcing or only as a feedback. This is still hotly debated. I could go on and on about other feedbacks that are poorly constrained but won’t bother as I’m pretty sure you aren’t interested.
The problem here is you want to try to describe the whole climate argument around what you call “simple physics” which is not much different than the story about a blind man trying to describe an elephant from touching its tail. Simple physics only works when all “other things being equal" applies. Unfortunately in climate it never applies.
When you ask them why it was as warm in the Cambrian they insist we cannot know anything about the distant past.
When you ask them why it was so warm during the PETM they insist we cant know anything about the distant past.
When you ask them how we were able to get from glacial to interglacials they wave their hands and say 'natural variation'.
This is BS and you know it. There are a host of papers written up to around 2003 that talk to Paleozoic climate and what might have been the drivers. The discussion around glaciers has been in the paleo literature for well over 50 years. It is only recently that some scientists have been trying to explain everything by CO2, which is ridiculous because there are periods in the earth’s history where that is empirically impossible to do as the two are disconnected irrespective of any arguments regarding changes in the suns output through time. The issues around working with any data from the Paleozoic is that the isotope error bars get bigger and that in itself creates some uncertainty.
And what you dismiss as “natural variation” or magic refers to the vast research that has been done and continues to be done on subjects such as ENSO, the Atlantic and Pacific decadal oscillations, the apparent delayed link between solar influx and ocean temperatures and its possible relationship to AO, carbon sequestration and the interplay between the ocean and the atmosphere, other solar forcings such as solar magnetic dipole changes, cosmic gamma rays etc. There are scads of scientists working on this research and publishing continuously and I suspect they will continue to do so, meanwhile ignoring your claim that their research is not valuable given it all comes down to “simple physics”. I guess for simpletons it might.