[katkinkate]

This is really funny. There is a AGW skeptic prof at the University of Ottawa who bases his work on tree ring data. I never heard the denialists try to shred his work. So, if the data works in favour of the denialist mantra then it is trumpeted as "proof", if the data goes against the denialist mantra then it is time to jump up and down and throw excrement like a bunch of chimps.

Shows the mentality of the denialist camp. They are not interested in scientific truth of the situation, but in 'proof' of their viewpoint. This is not science but religion.

[Lore]

for the last time....past history is just that, recent history is more important. I could equally take a time frame from 1939 to 1980 which shows cooling....no relevance on what is going to happen in the next few years. What is relevant is what has been happening recently. Please explain why CO2 has continued to increase during this period if it is the cause. The sun has gone silent on the other hand which links pretty well with the decreasing temperatures.
So 7 or 8 years (we could include 1998 which would mean 11 years) isn't a trend but 1980 to 1998 is? Could you share with us all your statistical proof please?

Another idiotic response by the spin Doc. Deniers love to quote history when it's convenient for them to do so. Now all of sudden it's what's happened to temperatures in the last 7 years, not the last 10, or in other words, lets just ignore the whole history of the temperature record all together and forget that it shows an upward trend. What a joke! Still haven’t produced a 1999 - 2009 temperature record have you? Well, go ahead and keep digging your hole.

My reference of a "cooling trend over such a short time span" refers to it being just that, a trend within a short time span. While as you know climate change has to be viewed over much longer periods of time. You can't be that thick that you can believe you’re fooling anyone by your rhetoric to the contrary?


As you know very well and has been explained here on numerous occasions, CO2 affects can be overridden briefly by natural variability. Temperatures are, if anything, accelerating — but not in a monotonic fashion. GISS, which has a better temperature record, finds a 0.19°C (0.34°F) warming over the past decade.

OH is that right. You disagree with my contention that Briffa knew about the Schweingruber series and other data even though he mentioned it in older publications? You disagree that it wasn't included in any of the Biffa and friends papers used in the IPCC reports? Either you haven't a clue what I'm refering to here or you just want to ignore it. McIntyre has pointed to this problem for years.
So where is the Schwiegruber data in Briffas recent publication? He has it, why isn't he using it along with Yamal?

Uh... because that wasn't the data he received. Should he have used more samples? Probably, everyone, including Briffa agrees with that. Doesn't change the outcome.

The whole affair is just another denial witch hunt. It is the season you know. The scientific issue has a magnitude between small and zero with regards to scientific implications to climate change.

Your quote from the Russian email simply justifies my point.....he has new data (we haven't seen it) he says including it with the Yamal data gives almost a Briffa result. Steve showed the identical effect in his sensitivity study. If you remove the Yamal data there is no warming, it overides the grouped results. I stand by my arguments.

Here is the link to Rashit Hantemirov's preliminary data, how's your Russian?

Link

As DeepClimate says, "McIntyre could submit that "sensitivity" test as a small article (e.g. in GRL) or a comment. That would be a better way of assessing its merit." Instead he relies on his blog. So far, and for the most part, it's only stimulated conversation among the denial blogs themselves.

[rockdoc123]

Uh... because that wasn't the data he received. Should he have used more samples? Probably, everyone, including Briffa agrees with that. Doesn't change the outcome.

As I pointed out and you would know if you did your reading Briffa had the Schwiengruber data, he referenced it and wrote a paper on it back in the late nineties. He did not include it in any of his papers over the past few years which reference only Yamal data. You are out of touch with the argument on divergence that has been going on for several years.

As to the Hantemirov paper I am unfortunately very poor at reading cryllic. At any rate there is no data provided here. One would hope if he publishes the paper the data is made available. It is apparent the Yamal data is included in the analysis, what isn't apparent is what other data replicates the results i.e if the divergence problem exists here then there is zero difference with what McIntyre has been talking about.

Shows the mentality of the denialist camp. They are not interested in scientific truth of the situation, but in 'proof' of their viewpoint. This is not science but religion.

\

Uh sorry you've got it backwards here. What is being pointed to is the tree ring data was used to prove the hockey stick. For various reasons that interpretation is being questioned. The divergence in datasets suggests a problem in selective data inclusion, the fact that tree rings may not be a direct indicator of temperature with other factors that affect their growth also suggests a problem. Wegmann in his review pointed out that there was an inappopriate use of statistical analysis in the studies incorporated in the last IPCC report. No one from the critical side of the view have argued the tree ring data is the be all and end all. The only comment that was ever made was that by using the Yamal data exclusively to get the hockey stick the MWP was also created. Since there is independant evidence in droves for MWP no one actually cares.

I believe the shoe is solidly on the other foot, and has been for sometime.

[kiwichick]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152242.htm