There is evidence that there was some MWP in NZ ( but not in Tasmania ? ) and that it was during different centuries (per the proxies) than the record shows in the Northern Hemisphere. There is no evidence I see that there was a contemporaneous warming in both hemispheres. It is POSSIBLE that there was, the error bars are quite large.

It is irrelevant. You aren’t “disproving” AGW by claiming that climate warmed for some other reason some other time. That’s probably the most important problem you have. We don’t care about then, we care about now.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Wat

We’ve been over the rate of warming in this century. Quantified it and compared it with the start of the interglacial. Ten times faster was the result. The CO2 similarly. Now we ALREADY did this once and not that long ago and since your memory apparently sncks as badly as your manners it didn’t stick.

Insulting me only tests my patience. It proves nothing.

Some slight warming over the last two hundred hundred or so years and, for some reason, you think it is not just remarkable but “an order of magnitude faster” than, say, the warming of the MWP or the cooling of the LIA

Nope… I didn’t mention the cooling of the Last Ice Age. I mentioned WARMING which had ITS driver from the Sun, similarly to what you postulate and which spent thousands of years in the process. I find it annoying that you keep laying these little traps so that you can play “gotcha”… it is VERY juvenile behavior. If you know something, spit it out. It is probably annoying YOU that I avoid them, which might explain the insults.

Tell us all what caused the MWP, since you are apparently such an expert. Tell us all how you KNOW that it was warmer. Given the margin of error of the experiments and proxies used kindly direct us to the time machine with which you send thermometers back to measure the temperature of the entire planet (quite a project actually) to overcome that margin. You and that claim about what we “know” about the MWP are completely out of line.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.html

Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, the MWP is irrelevant to what is happening now. You have presented no evidence or theory about why the MWP happened and there is little evidence about how extensive it was. You have further, presented no alternative theory about what is happening now.

I see nothing in your posts of any value, they fill a desperately needed emptiness.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Wat,

First you create an army of straw men, and then set about demolishing them. If it keeps you happy, I suppose that’s fine, but it doesn’t amount to sensible debate. You are also aggressively rude, which disinclines me to waste further time on your misinterpretation of the evidence.
When you’ve read (and understood) Spencer Weart’s excellent Discovery of global warming, we might have some basis for discussion.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bjchip,

- “temperature changes an order of magnitude faster than any observed in any known paleoclimate”

Good grief. I knew you had some strange ideas on the subject, but I had no idea you were so profoundly ignorant.
Some slight warming over the last two hundred hundred or so years and, for some reason, you think it is not just remarkable but “an order of magnitude faster” than, say, the warming of the MWP or the cooling of the LIA. No wonder you’ve scared yourself to death.

BOCC,

- “You mention Wegman. That was a politically-sponsored and motivated report, and has nothing to do with the reality of the underlying dispute”

Let’s grab just the first couple of lines from his entry in Wikipedia: “Edward Wegman is a statistics professor at George Mason University and chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics and is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and a Senior Member of the IEEE.”

So, firstly, this scholar confirmed that even completely random data passed through Mann’s program almost invariably produces the famous hockeystick graph then, secondly, identified and explained exactly why this happens; and your response to all that is to try and smear and dismiss it as a “politically-sponsored and motivated report, and has nothing to do with the reality of the underlying dispute”

Do you think your reply tells us more about the Wegman report, or more about you?

Let’s start from basics: Do you dispute Wegman’s findings concerning the Hockeystick chart – specifically that even completely random data produces an indistinguishable hockeystick chart? If so, on what grounds do you dispute it?
On the other hand, if you accept his findings, why are you a) still angrily defending the Hockeystick and b) trying to smear Wegman for documenting its failings?

- “Nobody has ever tried to deny the existence of a MWP or Little Ice Age. ”

Apart from your Hockeystick chart of course. The reason why it was so significant is precisely because it falsely depicted a completely stable historical climate, with no MWP and no LIA. That’s what made the recent warming seem to stick out like a saw thumb.

Let me repeat my question from my previous post, which you seem to have overlooked:
Which is correct? The Hockeystick, which asserts no MWP and no LIA, or this report which you mistakenly cited in support, but which actually contradicts it and says both those events did take place. They can’t both be right.

- “Processing the same proxy data in different ways still produces a clear hockeystick.”

This is not only incorrect it contradicts what you’ve just said about there being an MWP and LIA. If the Hockeystick pattern were correct then there could not have been an MWP or LIA because they are noticably missing from the chart. So make up your mind. What exactly are you saying? Do you even know yourself?

- “They certainly occurred in parts of the world, but there remain doubts about the MWP in particular being a truly global phenomenon (partly due to the limited availability of SH temperature proxy series).”

If you bothered to refer to the proxy collection I linked to, you’d know that this is untrue. There is evidence showing the MWP to be a global phenomenon.

- “But here’s a thing. Let’s suppose that you perform a miracle, and show that the MWP was as warm as today. That would mean that the climate system was capable of much greater unforced swings in temperature than we thought. We’ve now added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and it’s warming up. If you’re right, then we’re headed toward much greater temperature increases than even the IPCC’s worst projections suggest.”

Heads you win, tails I lose, eh? If the historical climate were stable, it means recent warming is really alarming. But if historical climate fluctuated significantly, it means future changes could be even bigger, which is really alarming.

It seems that, for you, whatever the climate does, that’s the thing we’ve got to be most alarmed about.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>because your vote by itself would not be enough to make a meaningful difference to the result.

It doesn’t.

I vote in order to feel like I have a say in the outcome, but the reality is that I don’t.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think it perhaps relevant to quote the original title of Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper of 1998: Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. It wasn’t about laying down tablets of stone – it was an enquiry, an exploration, and a fruitful one that has been replicated many times over.

You mention Wegman. That was a politically-sponsored and motivated report, and has nothing to do with the reality of the underlying dispute.

As far as the “hockeystick maker” in Mann’s technique is concerned, it’s there under certain conditions, but the effect is very small (Wahl and Ammann 2006). Processing the same proxy data in different ways still produces a clear hockeystick.

Nobody has ever tried to deny the existence of a MWP or Little Ice Age. They certainly occurred in parts of the world, but there remain doubts about the MWP in particular being a truly global phenomenon (partly due to the limited availability of SH temperature proxy series).

But here’s a thing. Let’s suppose that you perform a miracle, and show that the MWP was as warm as today. That would mean that the climate system was capable of much greater unforced swings in temperature than we thought. We’ve now added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and it’s warming up. If you’re right, then we’re headed toward much greater temperature increases than even the IPCC’s worst projections suggest.

But I’ suspect that’s not the point you’re trying to make…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And that’s because, absent the distinctive and alarming Hockeystick pattern, you are forced to admit that recent changes are entirely within the bounds of normal climate behaviour.

BullSH!T Mr Dabney… it means no such fncking thing.

You are ASSERTING by that statement of yours that temperature changes an order of magnitude faster than any observed in any known paleoclimate with CO2 changes 50 times faster than any observed in any paleoclimate are meaningless.

You have no evidence AND no theory to support that statement and I’d appreciate it if you would actually think before you made such an assertion.

Your insults and the rest of your tirade are rendered meaningless by that initial error. Did you really think you could slip it past me?

I am going to go to bed.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BOCC,

It’s not clear why you would quote the NAS report. It was a very limited review which specifically qualified its luke-warm approval by saying it’s only confident of the last 400 years history reconstruction and not the 1000 years depicted by the Hockeystick.

Did you actually read any of this stuff before grandly claiming it supports your position? Because quite clearly it doesn’t.

It merely used the neutral term “plausible” regarding the claim that recent temperatures were the warmest for a millenium. That is understandable, because all they’re saying is that there’s nothing inherent in the Hockeystick to rule out such a possibility. But the point here is that the panel restricted their efforts to the Hockeystick itself; they didn’t go looking for data (of which is there in abundance) to try and prove this point one way or the other.

As for your National Research Council report, it specifically mentions the Medieval Warm Period – something which was notably absent from the Hockeystick:- “Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents”

So, in support of the Hockeystick chart, which explicitly erases the MWP (and the LIA) from history, you cite a report which specifically says that both events did occur (and, again, this report specifically says it is “less confident” about claims made for the climate prior to 400 years ago – so you are completely wrong to claim that it supports the 1000 year period of the Hockeystick.)

So, again, did you actually read any of this stuff, or did you just grab the titles from Wikipedia?

First question: Which is correct? The Hockeystick, which asserts no MWP and no LIA, or this report which you mistakenly cited in support, but which actually contradicts it and says both those events did take place. They can’t both be right.

Further, you strangely don’t mention the Wegman Report which looked at Mann’s use of statistics in constructing the Hockeystick.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

This report confirmed that completely random data fed into Mann’s homemade computer program almost invariably results in a hockeystick-shaped chart which is indistinguishable from the notorious original. The effect can be reproduced at will.

More than that, the precise mathematical reason for this phenomenon was identified.

So – second question – do you understand and accept that completely random data passed through Mann’s program nearly always produces hockeystick charts? If not, why not.
Further, do you agree that such a hockeystick-shaped chart, produced by what is essentially a hockeystick-chart producing program, can have no significance whatsover?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I listed two. Are you innumerate as well?

And you fail to answer my question. I’ll take that as underlining your intention to avoid facing up to reality.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BOCC,

You said “The “hockeystick” has been specifically endorsed by ever major examination it has been subjected to”, clearly implying there was quite a number of them.

But you’ve just mentioned one.

Where are the others?

Before I refute the NAS one you mention, please supply a list of all the others you had in mind.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The National Academy of Sciences report & the National Research Council report (both US – linked at the Wikipedia page on the “controversy”), but perhaps more importantly, the point I made above – that the paper has proven a fertile source of inspiration for dozens of subsequent studies (most recent linked above), which you can read about in IPCC AR4 WG1.

That work, all of it, confirms that during recent decades the global average temperature has been warmer than any time in at least the last thousand years – probably longer. The rate of change in global average temp is currently (last 30 years) somewhere between 0.15 and 0.2C per decade, 15 to 20 times faster than the change in global average temp during the 5,000 years it took the world to warm out of the last ice age (about 5C).

There is no credible peer-reviewed paper that shows anything similar to your claim above.

And I suppose the world is still cooling is it? Or are you still shutting your eyes to the facts?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BOCC,

- “The “hockeystick” has been specifically endorsed by ever major examination it has been subjected to. ”

Could you list them, please.

- “Recent decades have been warmer than any time in the last few thousand years (perhaps since the last interglacial)”

On what evidence do you say this?

I have already pointed you at a site which has collated a very large collection of independant studies using various types of proxies, which demonstrate the the Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as recent temperatures, and quite possibly warmer.

You covering your ears and closing your eyes doesn’t change these inconvenient facts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Can you see why you have zero credibility?

Sorry, wat, you’re the loser in the credibility stakes, because you demonstrate (yet again) that you simply don’t understand the issues. The “hockeystick” has been specifically endorsed by ever major examination it has been subjected to. Mann’s paper wasn’t perfect, by any means, but it was the first to cover the subject in a rigourous way (over ten years ago!) – and most tellingly of all, has provided the foundation for a huge amount of subsequent work, all of which has confirmed the general conclusion. Recent decades have been warmer than any time in the last few thousand years (perhaps since the last interglacial), and the rate of change in the global average temperature unprecedented.

The planet is not cooling, It wasn’t the last time you asserted that as fact, and it still isn’t. Here’s an excellent explanation from Prof Barry Brook in Adelaide.

There’s only one charlatan on display here, and that’s you I’m afraid.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bjchip,

- “…and you are STILL stuck on the hockeystick! ”

And that’s because, absent the distinctive and alarming Hockeystick pattern, you are forced to admit that recent changes are entirely within the bounds of normal climate behaviour.
Such a bombshell revelation would cause most people to complete re-evaluate their position and back-off a long way from their earlier alarmism; but not you lot.

And that really lifted the lid on the shocking state of the so-called science behind your circus.

Another example would be the “adjustments” to the temperature record applied by organisations like NASA, whose previous good name has been dragged into the gutter. In essence, they apply a false warming trend to the data (if anything, they should apply an increasing negative adjustment to counter the urban heat island effect), and then announce that, er, there’s a warming trend.

Lies by crooks and charlatans.

- “I don’t reckon the “Hockey Stick” as originally presented or modified, has much of a handle. Too much fuzz. Not enough certainty in the data.”

That’s very big of you: Mann completely messed up the processing of his (cherry-picked) data so that even completely random numbers passed through his program almost invariably produce a hockeystick-shaped chart, and you say that there is “not enough certainty in the data.”

Can you see why you have zero credibility?

- “The confidence is quite high as scientific predictions go.”

Except for the fact that the planet is cooling you mean, rather than warming at faster and faster rates. Because that’s another thing, isn’t it: Your leading propagandists are telling people that the Earth is getting warmer faster, when in fact it’s doing the opposite. Yet still you berate the sceptics rather than those self-interested liars.

frog,

- “When will it be time to act? After the polar ice cap is gone?”

Cooling is predicted over the coming two or three decades. This understanding is based on a proper understanding of what drives climate change (and it sure ain’t CO2). However, if there is significant warming over that time then that will be the time to re-evaluate.

To do so whilst the climate is behaving perfectly normally (cooling, in line with predictions, while your theory insists it should be warming) would be a crime.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Individually, any changes any of us make are pointless. Obama can do more with one wave of his executive order machine than any mob of individuals. Theres no per-capita fudging there, just reality.

On the other hand you have to think that when the Republicans get back in, they’ll reverse all this stuff. Kinda like Ronnie having the solar panels on the White House removed, pretty much “gone by lunchtime”.

And kahikatea – the problem of your voting analogy is that voting isn’t an individual act: its a collective organised act. If you were to vote today it would have no effect. If 2m of us decided to vote today it would have no effect. It only had effect between certain hours on a certain day.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# IceBaby Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

> Wrong. It is true to say that any changes we make, including reducing the population to zero, will be utterly insignificant on a global scale.

Icebaby,
did you bother to vote in the recent election? Following your logic you shouldn’t have, because your vote by itself would not be enough to make a meaningful difference to the result.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

IceBaby Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

>>per capita,

That doesn’t mean anything.

A lone guy on a desert island could have the highest emissions per capita, but it is ludicrous to suggest he will have any effect on climate change.

the same applies to any individual american as well as any new zealander. there are states in the usa as small as nz… what if they demanded exemption on that basis? then within the other states, towns or industries began to claim exemption just because they alone could not make much of a difference?

peteremcc Says:
November 25th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

and so bjchip resorts to the precautionary principle again.

of course using that principle we would also be spending billions of dollars on space lasers to defend against attacking aliens and space nets to catch earth-bound meteors.

but building a space defence might cost us resources which could be expended on other uses, while cutting fossil-fuel usage merely defers the use of a resource, so there’s one difference

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There are many examples of single issue parties succeeding,

Liiike?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

wat – I like how you have moved the goalposts. First it was “We should do nothing until Australia and the USA do something.” Now, your argument has shifted to “We should do nothing until China and India do something”. When will it end? When will it be time to act? After the polar ice cap is gone?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

XYY – point taken. I am just giving Key the benefit of the doubt at the moment on this very serious issue. It won’t stop me from continuously hammering him, as any good opposition frog would do, but at this point I’ll keep my thoughts where they are – at the grave misgivings stage, and see where Key goes with it. On the flip side, promising a ‘review’ is the best way to look like you are making concessions without having to do bugger all. This is a lesson the Greens learned some years ago, but Act and the Maori Party have yet to learn. I hope I’m right.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)