Reply to: Maldives sea level not risen for 30-40 years

[alreadypacked]

We have not had any thread domination for a while


It’s FRIDAY

[pjclarke]

You really do not want to get into a qualifications war.

Dr Curry is indeed a distinguished atmospheric scientist, however paleoclimate is outside her speciality; in that exchange she made several statements that are simply and demonstrably untrue.

Bye for now. Its been real.

[BlasterBates]

Dr Curry's remarks refer to a paper now over a decade old, none of the issues raised is remotely relevant today.

See this exchange between Judith and the award-winning Gavin Schmidt of NASA, where she champions Andrew Montford's absurd book and raises some of the same 'issues'. Not her finest hour.

Is she senile too? By the way it's Professor Curry who has a chair in climate science, and testifies in the House of Representatives on climate change vs plain old Dr Gavin Schmidt.

[Mich the Tester]

The papers garnered together by 'CO2 Science' seem to be mainly single-proxy studies from single locations.

Trouble with that is that the variance at any individual point can be as much as 2-3C, more than enough to mask the long term trend, if there is one.

What you need to do in the context of quantifying a global change is to compile a multi-proxy reconstruction - the larger number of (reliable) proxies, the better. You can then average and weight the results to come up with a curve that represents a large area.

This is what Mann et al 2008 did, the paper analyses 1209 different proxies and finds

...recent warmth is unprecedented in the record.

The thick red line stands out like a sore thumb and obscures my view of the other lines which don't go up as quickly, which could be construed by someone less charitable than myself as an attempt to decieve the reader.


Oh, and I'm not even a climate skeptic.

[Mich the Tester]

Well that's pretty obvious - preferable to be a pirate in warmer weather.

You've read the graph wrong; global temperature rises as the number of pirates falls. Scientifically proven, innit.

[d000hg]

arrr!

Well that's pretty obvious - preferable to be a pirate in warmer weather.

[Mich the Tester]

Do AGW pro/anti combatants really think that just posting pictures of some graphs constitutes a scientifically sound argument?

arrr!

[Spacecadet]

Do AGW pro/anti combatants really think that just posting pictures of some graphs constitutes a scientifically sound argument?

We need a graph correlating the number of graphs posted with the strength of arguement

[d000hg]

Do AGW pro/anti combatants really think that just posting pictures of some graphs constitutes a scientifically sound argument?

[BlasterBates]

The papers garnered together by 'CO2 Science' seem to be mainly single-proxy studies from single locations.

Trouble with that is that the variance at any individual point can be as much as 2-3C, more than enough to mask the long term trend, if there is one.

What you need to do in the context of quantifying a global change is to compile a multi-proxy reconstruction - the larger number of (reliable) proxies, the better. You can then average and weight the results to come up with a curve that represents a large area.

This is what Mann et al 2008 did, the paper analyses 1209 different proxies and finds

...recent warmth is unprecedented in the record.

aha Mann et al. Yawn

Professor Judith Curry

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.

McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.

Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.

[BlasterBates]

Yawn. Click.

Your link shows a map with links to a list of peer reviewed papers all demonstrating the MWP in different regions of the world and a rebuttal.

And the rebuttal of a multitude of peer reviewed papers all showing a MWP from these scientists is a blogger.

The only paper he can cite is:

Mann et al. 2008

So what you are saying is that 20 or 30 scientists are talking rubbish and Michael Mann is the only one who's got it right.

Not very convincing. What happened to the idea of "Consensus".

But thx for posting even more evidence of an MWP from a number of sources.

I also find it interesting that you implicitly suggest the rebuttal applies to papers not on the list that you have never read.

Interesting scientific approach to come up with a standard rebuttal and apply to anything that haven't even seen.

[BlasterBates]

Now who is moving the goalposts? Medieval warmth in Greenland is not news, as I've pointed out. At the same time the Pacific and the Antarctic seem to have been cooler. But widespread, global warming, in the sense of temperatures rising on every continent, is a new thing.

With your newfound expertise, you should now be aware that using a borehole proxy to corroborate an ice core is not legitimate. Going back to medieval times the resolution of the borehole is measured in centuries, so the idea that it can pinpoint the Greenland MWP is nonsense.

hmm medieval warm period was local to Greenland.

I don't think so.

What about this evidence from the Swiss Alps.

CO2 Science

Distance from Switzerland to Greenland

...and how do you explain why this glacier in Chile both advanced and receded over the last one thousand years. A thousand years ago it was roughly where it is today.

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3...-3131-2011.pdf

Distance from Chile to Greenland

Was Asia cold?

apparently not

...not very local really.

It also seems that Antarctica cooling during a period of global warming isn't unusual

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

[BlasterBates]

Come on now, you're not seriously that stupid? I hope it was sarcasm?

I think what you mean is it's stupid to suggest that the affects of a sea level rise over a 50 year period would be visible to the naked eye.

I would agree on that and I think that is exactly what Morner was saying.

[d000hg]

Post some comparison photographs, there must be loads of them demonstrating sea level rises.

Come on now, you're not seriously that stupid? I hope it was sarcasm?

[BlasterBates]

OK I was mistaken on the scientific technique used in the bore hole, but their graph as Easterbrook's shows the same basic conclusion that temperatures are signifcantly lower now than they were a 1000 years ago. Now we won't resolve who's lying from that paper, suffice to say though Easterbrook's basic thesis, is corroborated in this paper, so it is in any case immaterial to the debate. The question why would he lie when he could simply have cited this paper instead?