no one has refuted or "debunked" the facts



We are .2 degrees above the median after over 30 years. For the past 2 years there is a decline. These are the stats

Now may claim the seas are rising dramatically, or the temperatures are creating millions of climate refugees, or that the Arctic ice field has disappeared on schedule, or that there are raging hurricanes, or that the sky is falling, but it just isn't so.

nsidc says the following

quote Global sea level rose by about 120 meters during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilized between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year. Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s, provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 millimeters per year.

They go on to describe the IPCC climate modelling (computerized projections) as estimating 4 mm per year in future years, but, the data just doesn't show this

While all agree we are still in a post ice age recovery and the earth has warmed and the oceans have risen, there is no dramatic extreme as described by the Global Warming fanatics, dreamers, scaremongers, and flimflam artists.

Arn

[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 01-28-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: They go on to describe the IPCC climate modelling (computerized projections) as estimating 4 mm per year in future years, but, the data just doesn't show this

The present data doesn't show sea level rise for future years? Really..?

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Aren't you the guy who started a thread headlined "Only post in this thread when you're drunk" and has remained one of its most prolific contributors?

He seems to feign outrage at times, often after posting worse himself. Soon this thread will be slammed with Copy and Pastes of articles from right wing denier sites I suspect.

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The present data doesn't show sea level rise for future years? Really..?

Yes really. You can establish a pattern and project it out, but the earth has a way of going random on you. Look at the record, it is up and down like a yoyo

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Yes really. You can establish a pattern and project it out,

You missed the point. You're claiming 'data' disproves future sea level rise of 4mm per year - but the data you presented shows sea levels are rising and this rise has accelerated.

The pattern was 1.7mm per year for the 20th century. It's currently about 3mm per year since 1993 (which is faster than what the IPCC predicted in 2007 btw). It's expected to be 4mm per year by 2100. That's the pattern from data you personally quoted.

You also claimed sea levels are not rising at all, despite recently posting evidence not once, but twice, stating sea levels are indeed rising. You constantly disagree with yourself and claim all sorts of frivolous things.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Look at the record, it is up and down like a yoyo

Only if you use a yoyo while walking up a flight of stairs. That's what the record shows.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-28-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Now may claim the seas are rising dramatically, or the temperatures are creating millions of climate refugees, or that the Arctic ice field has disappeared on schedule, or that there are raging hurricanes, or that the sky is falling, but it just isn't so.

The First Rule of The Evidence Against Anthropogenic Global Warming Club is: You do not talk about the IPCC Report. The Second Rule of The Evidence Against Anthropogenic Global Warming Club is: You do not talk about the IPCC Report...
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...057033-94.html#p3724


"Sea Level Is Not Rising" by Professor Nils-Axel Morner
copyrighted in 2011
http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1380557907.pdf

quote In 2008, at an international meeting on sea level in Portugal, Professor Morner was awarded the Golden Chondrite of Merit from the University of the Algarve "for his irreverence and his contribution to our [sic] understanding of sea-level change."

"Groundbreaking" work in the field of sea levels science, contributions to the rapidly expanding technology of finding underground water resources using dowsing wands, and a Golden Chondrite of Merit award to boot--what's not to like? He could be the next Dos Equis "Most Interesting Man in the World" if the incumbent ever decides to retire.


A dowsing wand. "Stay thirsty my friends.."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-28-2014).]

Reference Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625 where the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimeter data shows that of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century is 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr. This works out to 1.8 cm per decade or about 10 cm or 2 inches since 1950



This graph shows very clearly shows the same data as the TOPEX/Poseidon data, and is the basis of the argument on sea level rise. Measured in millimeters, the total rise from 1850 forward to 2010 is about 200 millimeters, which is about 7.874 inches over 160 years. It also shows that the rate is not particularly accelerating.

I posted the Nils Morner interview of 2007 to show there are disparate views on the data that IPCC provides. Morner rightly pointed out that there is no dramatic earth shattering global inundation by the sea. Claims of pending disaster for New York city, and other low lying land, are fatuous and disingenuous.

I also posted the Moldives to show they are still an island paradise for tourists and despite claims made in 2007 that they were going to be inundated no such thing has happened.

I also posted this graph which clearly shows that at the end of 35 years we are still 0.2 degrees above median and falling.



there is no pattern of Global Temperature rise and the oscillation of the temperatures in the past decade is proof of that.

Arn

You just got some back up Bear. Michelle Bachmann has just issued a warning about trusting science. You're not alone! edited to add: Whoops! on further investigation I discovered it was a satirical article. If it had been anyone but Michelle I would have picked up on it right away. edited one more time: In retrospect my attempt at humor looks to me now like a cheap shot. Sorry!

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 01-29-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Aren't you the guy who started a thread headlined "Only post in this thread when you're drunk" and has remained one of its most prolific contributors?

And you think that using person anecdotes in a debate is OK? Of course you do. Most of your posts in this thread have been of a person nature.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: there is no pattern of Global Temperature rise and the oscillation of the temperatures in the past decade is proof of that. Arn

Again why is it we should take your word over every major scientific body?

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: The paper looks at AD 550 – 1980. "The present" is not 34 years ago. And 65 trees from a single location? Not impressed. More robust evidence refutes your opinion on what that scientific paper means. The following studies are multi-site multi-proxy vs your single site single proxy[/URL].

You had recently posted that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't global, and Manns hockey stick graph tries to say that it didn't exist at all. This is just one more piece of evidence that Mann is wrong. There are plenty of others.

This is just about impossible to format on my phone, but here is the link to the original list of references

http://www.climatedepo t.com...er-than-the-present/

‘More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was real, global, & warmer than the present’

Climate Depot's Medieval Warm Period Round Up of Studies

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMarch 8, 2013 8:50 AM

Global warming activists and media outlets are hyping a new study published in Science that claims the Earth is experiencing unprecendted temperatures. See: New York Times: Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years & Associated Press: HEAT SPIKE UNLIKE ANYTHING IN 11,000 YEARS
But the new study is counter to a preponderance of existing peer-reviewed studies showing the Medeiveal Warm Period and the Roman Warming were both as warm or warmer than today without benefit of modern emissions or SUVs.
Penn State Professor Michael Mann has made similar claims of modern temperatires being the warmest, but such “Hockey Stick” temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature.
The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”
In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”
Climate Depot has assembled a small sampling of peer-reviewed studies, data and analyses that refute Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature claims of unprecedented 20th century warmth.
See: Evidence of Prior Unprecedented Global Warming Discovered In Scotland, Medieval Period Low CO2 Levels Likely At Fault
Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies. Plus Roman era was similar to early 20th Century – ‘Climate models cannot explain what caused warming 1000 years ago, nor cooling 300 years ago, so they can’t rule out the same factors aren’t changing the climate today (though they claim they can). If climate models can’t explain the past, they can’t predict the future’
Danish Meteorological Institute Scientist Issues Another takedown of UN & Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ – ‘We cannot from these reconstructions conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500-1000 years’
Paper finds Medieval Warm Period in Arctic was much warmer than the present – ‘A paper published in Polar Research finds that temps at two sites in Arctic were much warmer than at the end of 20th century. At one site, Longyearbyen, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was a remarkable 9C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000. At the 2nd site, Vardo, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was about 3.3C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000′
New paper finds Medieval Warming Period was ~1°C warmer than current – ‘A new paper published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology finds that the Medieval Warming Period ‘was warmer than the late 20th century by ~1°C.’
Paper finds Medieval Warm Period in Arctic was much warmer than the present – ‘A paper published in Polar Research finds that temps at two sites in Arctic were much warmer than at the end of 20th century. At one site, Longyearbyen, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was a remarkable 9C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000. At the 2nd site, Vardo, the11-year running-mean peak winter temperature was about 3.3C warmer than at the end of the record in 2000′
Earth was warmer in Roman and Medieval Times say German researchers – ‘While CBS touts a ‘groundbreaking’ government report linking extreme weather and climate change, German researchers find 2,000 years of cooling and warmer temps in medieval times and the Roman era’
UK Daily Mail: Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age – ‘Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought -with measurements dating back to 138BC – Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now -and world has been cooling for 2,000 years’
New Study reveals ‘trees make a Hockey Stick snap’
Evidence of Prior Unprecedented Global Warming Discovered In Scotland, Medieval Period Low CO2 Levels Likely At Fault
New Peer-Reviewed Study: Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now — UN IPCC has got it all wrong, say scientists – Published in hefty climate journal Nature Climate Change, the cooling effect of orbital shifting on the climate has been up to four times as powerful as anthropogenic (human-caused) warming pressures’
Medieval Warming Exceeds Modern Warming, Per New Research Using 120 Proxies – ‘Those inconvenient global warming science facts that climate doomsday pundits hate – another major study determines Medieval Warming hotter than Modern Warming’
New EU Study Confirms Modern ‘Unprecedented’ – ‘Warming Is a Bogus Claim New research documents that the Roman and Medieval Periods were warmer than the modern era across Northern Europe, plus establishes that a slight cooling trend exists – the inconvenient global warming science facts’
New Paper Shows European Alps Were Just As Warm 900 Years Ago, Strong Natural Variations –Another peer-reviewed paper,another smashed hockey stick – ‘The results show that summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterized by two warm periods (AD 1053–1171 and 1823–1996) and two cold phases (AD 1172–1379 and 1573–1822)…’Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century’
Another hockey stick snaps! Southern Hemisphere Hockey Stick Goes Belly Up: ‘ The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold’
‘…unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study…The problems with the paper in a nutshell: 1.upside down proxy data again 2.preselection of data, ignoring the whole set in many cases 3.though they tried to justify preselection, the paper’s methodology doesn’t hold up (circular reasoning) 4.inability to replicate given the data and methods used’
Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age Show Up In S. America Too: ‘Yet another new study adds more to growing mountain of evidence that Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon’ – The authors did an analysis of pollen and charcoal from Laguna San Pedro,a small closed-basin lake located in the Andes of Chile’
UN IPCC Claim: ‘New paleo records from Australasia provide evidence of MCA warming around 1250–1330′ – Not only are the ‘new’ Gergis proxies not new; they were prominently displayed in the AR4 section on SH proxies
Law Dome in Mann et al 2008
Antarctica Global Warming: Advanced Science Methods Establish That Medieval Period Was Warmer – ‘With constant frigid temperatures, the idea of modern Antarctica ‘global warming’ that is ‘unprecedented’ seems rather ludicrous -indeed it is ludicrous, as latest research again confirms Medieval Warming Period was hotter’
New paper confirms Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon, related to solar activity – Paper published in Geophysical Research Letters confirms that ‘the Little Ice Age was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar [activity] and volcanic forcing [activity], and was not simply a seesaw-type redistribution of heat between the hemispheres as would be predicted by some ocean-circulation hypotheses’
New Paper: Earth heated up in Medieval times without human CO2 emissions — ‘Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe’ – ‘Study throws doubt on orthodoxies around ‘global warming’ — It then cooled down naturally & there was even a ‘mini ice age’. A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse U. in NY state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ wasn’t just confined to Europe…it extended all the way down to Antarctica –which means that Earth has already experience global warming without aid of human CO2 emissions’
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Takes Another Huge Hit: South America’s Hot Medieval Temperatures – New research determines that South America did experience the Medieval Warming and temperatures were higher during MWP, contrary to Michael Mann’s hockey stick “science
Chinese Study Confirms MWP and LIA: ‘During the last 2000 years there have been swings in temperatures of between 2C and 3C’ – ‘Colder intervals occurred around 100 BC, 400 AD, 1200 AD and 1700 AD. — ‘Warmer intervals occurred around 200 AD and 900 AD’ — ‘The 20thC warming is of a smaller magnitude than the MWP’
Deja Vu ’72? ‘Dr. Lamb was also the source of the paleoclimate graph used in the 1990 & 1995 IPCC reports which shows an inconvenient hotter Medieval Warming Period than the present’ – ‘The following IPCC report threw away Dr. Lamb’s graph in favor of Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph, which served to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period. This was the purpose of Mann’s hockey stick, as stated in the climategate emails, to eliminate or “contain the MWP” according to Mann’
German 2000-Year Peat Bog Temperature Reconstruction Shows Strong Central European Variations – ‘Yet another temperature reconstruction out there showing once again Michael Mann was wrong’
German Peat Bog Study Verifies Extreme Warm Temperatures of Medieval Period – Modern Warming Less
Peer Reviewed Study Establishes Unprecedented Medieval Warming On Tropical Island In Southern Hemisphere
New paper finds temperatures and precipitation were higher 1000 years ago – ‘The paper finds higher temps & precipitation were present during Medieval Warming Period (960-1100 AD) than at the end of 20th century. This paper adds to published work of 986 scientists who have documented that Medieval Warming Period was as hot or hotter than present and was a global phenomenon. This study also shows both the rate and magnitude of the rise in temps from the year ~ 700-880 AD was much greater than over a comparable period including 20th century’
Chinese Research Discovers There Was Historical ‘Unprecedented Warming’ Before There Was Modern ‘Unprecedented Warming’
Unprecedented Warming Strikes New York, Prior To Modern CO2 Levels: New Study Finds Medieval Period Warmer
New Research From Alaska Determines That Modern Global Warming Is Well Below Past Warming Periods
Study: ‘Evidence from 180 proxy records of widespread N. Hemisphere warmth in 9th to 11th centuries…indicates that warmth in 10th & 11th centuries was as uniform as current 20th century warming’
Watch Now: Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook slaps down Michael Mann: There are ’1900 papers in the geologic record’ about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age
New Northern Hemisphere Research: 30 Datasets Prove Roman/Medieval Warmings Hotter Than Current Temps
Temp Reconstruction Clearly Shows Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age: Roman Warm Period and MWP ‘were both warmer than 1961-1990′
New Swiss Evidence Proves Modern Warming Cooler Than Medieval Warming Period, Study Finds
Peer-Reviewed Cherry Blossom Reseach Confirms Japan’s Medieval Climate Warmer Than Current One
‘The Case for a Global Medieval Warm Period Grows Ever Stronger’
Chinese Peer-Reveiwed Study Provides Overwhelming Evidence That UN IPCC Is Wrong: Medieval Warming Was Hotter – ‘More research from China confirms Medieval temperatures were significantly warmer than current ones. The study also provides direct evidence that the Medieval Warming was a global phenomenon, not just a European regional climate condition, as the IPCC speculates.’
New Russian Research: River Floodplains Provide Conclusive Evidence That Medieval Warming Greater Than Modern Warming
The California Medieval Warming Remains Unprecedented: 3.0°C Hotter Than Modern Global Warming
Newest Research Confirms Greenland Region Roasted With Medieval Winter/Summer Temps 3°C Hotter Than Modern Era
What Does Ural Mountains’ Tree Line Say About Modern Warming? Definitely Not As Robust As Medieval Warming
New Chinese study in GRL disputes the hockey stick conclusions: ‘New peer reviewed study illustrates that current warm period is neither unique nor unprecedented’
Peer-Reviewed Research: Unprecedented Global Warming During Medieval Period, Boreholes Reveal
China’s 2,000 Year Temperature History: Declaring anthropogenic emissions have pushed modern temps beyond historical counterparts disregards lessons of 2,000 years of Chinese temps’
Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts UN IPCC: ‘More peer-reviewed science contradicting the warming-alarmist ‘scientific consensus’ was announced’ – ‘A new study shows that the well-documented warm period which took place in medieval times was not limited to Europe, or the N. hemisphere: it reached all the way to Antarctica…In other words, global warming has already occurred in historical, pre-industrial times, and then gone away again. Lu et al’s work is published in the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters’
See: Climate Depot’s FactSheet on Mann’s Various ‘Hockey Stick’ Creations — The ‘most discredited study in history of Science’
Mann at it again! ‘Very erroneous conclusions’- Michael Mann’s newest invention! The Hurricane ‘Hockey Stick!’ – Climate Depot’s FactSheet on Mann’s Various ‘Hockey Stick’ Creations

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-29-2014).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Maso, my source for the refutation of the Mann hockey sticks shows their math. And no, that has NOT been refuted. Besides, would you EVER acknowledge that I had proved a point, no matter how solid the evidence I provided to you?

That "proof" has already been discredited and the original hockey stick has been vindicated by many other climate researchers. Mcintyre found errors in Mann's methods but he was not able to show that these errors changed the final result in a meaningful way.

quote Scientists found that the issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick were minor and did not affect the main conclusions of MBH98 or Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999. Mann himself had already stopped using the criticised statistical method in 2001, when he changed over to the RegEM climate field reconstruction method.

quote The MMO5 paper claimed that 1902–1980 centering would produce hockey stick shapes from "persistent red noise", but their methods exaggerated the effect. Tests of the MBH98 methodology on pseudoproxies formed with noise varying from red noise to white noise found that this effect caused only very small differences which were within the uncertainty range and had no significance for the final reconstruction. McIntyre and McKitrick's code selected 100 simulations with the highest "hockey stick index" from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%.

bear, I have no personal vested interest in AGW. I gain nothing from it. I actually stand to lose a lot from it, because I love big engines and I love cold weather. But I have an interest in reality and science and that's why I believe it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: This is just about impossible to format on my phone, but here is the link to the original list of references

And you've read absolutely none of it. Polly want a cracker?

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-29-2014).]

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: All overblown hype.

WRONG. PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED. Your claim is INVALID.

I'll get back to Mann later.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG. PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED. Your claim is INVALID.

More overblown hype.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'll get back to Mann later.

Doubt it. But if you actually Mann up and start addressing the various issues with your conspiracy theories...

Be sure to focus on the dozens of reconstructions that have upheld Mann's conclusion as well.

For example, please explain why the Medieval Warm Period in Marcott et al global reconstruction is not statistically robust. Be sure to keep in mind the spike at the end is irrelevant to the Medieval Warm Period and instrumental data from HadCRU shows a prominent spike.

Source.

"In the span of a century or two, man-made changes to the atmosphere wiped out 5,000 years of natural climate change. People can argue about the uptick at the end of the Marcott reconstruction — I’ll do so myself — but for most who do so, it’s just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that global temperature really has increased in the last century, at a speed not seen in at least the last 11,300 years. We know this, thermometers have made it plain, only those in denial still deny it."
Source.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-29-2014).]

Flyinfieros I don't know if you are hillarious or pathetic posting all your junk science from the lunatic left.

I've posted data from NSIDC that clearly shows your postings are largely junk.

We are still only .2 degrees above the median. Considering we have been in a downward temperature trend since the last 2013 point of reference we are likely down even below that.

The infamous hockey stick graph is totally debunked.

Arn

Debunk of Mann and Medeivel Warm Period, part one

Links here

http://www.populartechnolog...pers-supporting.html

Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Using Historical Climate Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues of Statistical Inference
(Energy & Environment, Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 1-10, January 2004)
- Craig Loehle

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data (PDF)
(Science, Volume 306, Number 5696, pp. 679-682, October 2004)
- Hans von Storch et al.

* Response to Comment on "Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data"
(Science, Volume 312, Number 5773, pp. 529, April 2006)
- Hans von Storch et al.

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 3, February 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 20, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 20, October 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Are multiproxy climate reconstructions robust?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Number 23, December 2005)
- Gerd Burger, Ulrich Cubasch

Debating about the climate warming
(Progress in Natural Science, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 1-6, January 2006)
- Wang Shaowu et al.

Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
- David Holland

Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Number 6, February 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 94, Numbers 3-4, June 2009)
- Craig Loehle

A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 5-44, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner

* Discussion of: A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 55-60, March 2011)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

* Rejoinder: A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? (PDF)
(Annals of Applied Statistics, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 99-123, March 2011)
- Blakeley B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner


Medieval Warm Period:

The Little Ice Age as Recorded in the Stratigraphy of the Tropical Quelccaya Ice Cap
(Science, Volume 234, Number 4774, pp. 361-364, October 1986)
- L. G. Thompson et al.

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 143-169, March 1994)
- Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 183-197, March 1994)
- Ricardo Villalba

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, pp. 289-297, March 1994)
- De'Er Zhang

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
(Science, Volume 274, Number 5292, pp. 1503-1508, November 1996)
- Lloyd D. Keigwin

Time scales and trends in the central England temperature data (1659–1990): A wavelet analysis
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 11, pp. 1351-1354, June 1997)
- Sallie Baliunas, Peter Frick, Dmitry Sokoloff, Willie H. Soon

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa (PDF)
(South African Journal of Science, Volume 96, Number 3, pp. 121-126, 2000)
- P. D. Tyson, W. Karlen, K. Holmgren, G. A. Heiss

Caribbean sea surface temperatures: Two‐to‐three degrees cooler than present during the Little Ice Age
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 27, Number 20, pp. 3365-3368, October 2000)
- Amos Winter, Hiroshi Ishioroshi, Tsuyoshi Watanabe, Tadamichi Oba, John R. Christy

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? (PDF)
(Science, Volume 291, Number 5508, pp. 1497-1499, February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability (PDF)
(Science, Volume 295, Number 5563, pp. 2250-2253, March 2002)
- Jan Esper et al.

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Number 14, pp. 1-4, July 2002)
- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

The 'Mediaeval Warm Period' drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China
(The Holocene, Volume 12, Number 5, pp. 511-516, July 2002)
- Guoqiang Chu et al.

The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area
(Journal of Lake Sciences, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 209-216, September 2002)
- Z. Jin et al.

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 2, pp. 89–110, January 2003)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 36, Issues 1-2, pp. 17-29, March 2003)
- T. M. Cronin et al.

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 233-296, May 2003)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates

Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)
(Paleoceanography, Volume 18, Number 2, June 2003)
- Carin Andersson et al.

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
(Annals of Glaciology, Volume 39, Number 1, pp.127-132, June 2004)
- P. A. Mayewski et al.

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, pp. 113-125, July 2004)
- K. V. Kremenetski et al.

Estimating Climatic Timeseries From Multi-Site Data Afflicted With Dating Error (PDF)
(Mathematical Geology, Volume 37, Number 2, pp. 127-140, February 2005)
- Craig Loehle

Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record (PDF)
(Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 235, Issues 3-4, pp. 741-751, July 2005)
- A. Mangini et al.

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

* Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch

* Reply To: Comments on Loehle, "correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies"
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle

Climate and environment reconstruction during the Medieval Warm Period in Lop Nur of Xinjiang, China
(Chinese Science Bulletin, Volume 53, Number 19, pp. 3016-3027, October 2008)
- ChunMei Ma

Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 31, Numbers 7-8, December 2008)
- Hakan Grudd

"Medieval Warm Period" on the northern slope of central Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang, NW China (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 11, June 2009)
- Yun Zhang et al.

Evidence for a warmer period during the 12th and 13th centuries AD from chironomid assemblages in Southampton Island, Nunavut, Canada
(Quaternary Research, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp. 27-37, July 2009)
- Nicolas Rolland et al.

Temperature variation through 2000 years in China: An uncertainty analysis of reconstruction and regional difference
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Number 3, February 2010)
- Q.-S. Ge et al.

Two millennia of North Atlantic seasonality and implications for Norse colonies (PDF)
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March 2010)
- William P. Patterson et al.

Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium (PDF)
(Climatic Change, Volume 100, Numbers 3-4, pp. 733-756, June 2010)
- Takuro Kobashi et al.

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, Volume 50, Number 3, pp. 383-392, June 2010)
- V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov

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, Volume 50, Number 3, pp. 393-402, June 2010)
- V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov

Amplitudes, rates, periodicities and causes of temperature variations in the past 2485 years and future trends over the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau (PDF)
(Chinese Science Bulletin, Volume 56, Numbers 28-29, pp. 2986-2994, October 2011)
- Yu Liu et al.

quote Originally posted by newf: He seems to feign outrage at times, often after posting worse himself. Soon this thread will be slammed with Copy and Pastes of articles from right wing denier sites I suspect.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Flyinfieros I don't know if you are hillarious or pathetic posting all your junk science from the lunatic left. I've posted data from NSIDC that clearly shows your postings are largely junk. We are still only .2 degrees above the median. Considering we have been in a downward temperature trend since the last 2013 point of reference we are likely down even below that.

We are 0.2 degrees above the 1980-2010 average, that doesn't mean the temperature rise has only been 0.2 degrees. This has been pointed out multiple times already.

quote The infamous hockey stick graph is totally debunked.

All those scientists should have just looked at this one chart instead of doing all that research. But why even look at the chart when you can look outside and see how cold it is?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Debunk of Mann and Medeivel Warm Period, part one

All junk.

The first cited study is published at a social science journal turned low standards climate journal with a chief editor enforcing her political agenda.

Second study published at the same trashy journal, plus a Heartland Insitute bio. You know, that political lobbyist organization.

Third and fourth studies are by a guy who believes AWG is real:
"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." - Hans von Storch

What were you hoping to prove with a list of studies anyway? If you can't apply them to the discussion they're absolutely worthless. Have you actually read any of them?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: As for Marcott...

More junk. McIntyre really showed his colors with Marcott. He should have been looking for answers, but as Tamino explains:
"That would require him actually to do some science."
Source.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Using YOUR OWN STANDARD, you can't use any arguments from Taminos blog. First, because you don't think blogs are a legitimate source of climate arguments, second because Taminos is unidentified and therefore has unknown credentials.

You're incapable of separating politically biased blogs from ones with scientific integrity. Tamino is after the truth. McIntyre is only interested in raising questions, not finding answers.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Also, what "Tamino" essentially said was "ok, so the results aren't really usable, but we still believe it anyway".

Your understanding of Marcott is rather poor and delusional.

"In the span of a century or two, man-made changes to the atmosphere wiped out 5,000 years of natural climate change. People can argue about the uptick at the end of the Marcott reconstruction — I’ll do so myself — but for most who do so, it’s just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that global temperature really has increased in the last century, at a speed not seen in at least the last 11,300 years. We know this, thermometers have made it plain, only those in denial still deny it."
Source.

quote Originally posted by newf:

Well who didn't see it coming.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-30-2014).]

LOL... Flyinfieros still denies anything that disagrees with his delusion.

The Hockey Stick graph is not anywhere close to the actual temperature historic readings.

The median temperature still is only .2 degrees or less, off the last benchmark posted

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Hockey Stick graph is not anywhere close to the actual temperature historic readings.

Except several reconstructions have upheld the 'hockey stick'. Of course you deny their validity because it disagrees with your delusions. Your opinion is predetermined by your political allegiance, not scientific reasoning.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The median temperature still is only .2 degrees or less, off the last benchmark posted

UAH colder than GISS and CRU. No surprise you prefer to pick that dataset. Yet UAH still shows temperatures are increasing. Your point is entirely null.

Source.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-30-2014).]

Here is the original hockey stick graph



Here is the sub graph



Here is the historical data graph



I don't see any relationship here.

The hockey stick graph is just pure fiction.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: I don't see any relationship here.

Get your eyes checked.

Your "sub graph" shows ~0.45°C of warming since 1979.

Your "historical data graph" shows ~0.45°C of warming since 1979.

The different scale of time seems to confuse you.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-30-2014).]

selective vision eh?

The hockey stick shows a pretty steady climb from 1970 to 2004.

The UAH graph does not. It shows 2004 to be about .35 above median while the hockey stick shows about .55 above median.

Totally different.

The 1999 graph shows a completely different set of figures from the later hockey stick.



Even the 2004 set which were jiggered, do not agree with the hockey stick



You are defending a dead horse.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The hockey stick shows a pretty steady climb from 1970 to 2004. The UAH graph does not.

The different scale of time is confusing you.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: It shows 2004 to be about .35 above median while the hockey stick shows about .55 above median.

You're comparing different time scales, different data sets, and different medians. Using their median for comparison is illogical.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Totally different.

Yet they just show roughly the same amount of warming since 1979.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: You are defending a dead horse.

You just compared three global temperature graphs to US temperature graphs without it even registering.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-30-2014).]

Love the name calling.

So mature.

Brad

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-30-2014).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5:

???? = "wealth redistribution"

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-30-2014).]