Research: Rise in Temps Unlike Anything Seen in 2000 Years

[Jack Hays]

Debunking is in process.

[h=1]Hockey Stick Groundhog Day[/h]Posted on 31 Jul 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 15 Comments
Some ancient history Fifteen to twenty years ago, Michael Mann and colleagues wrote a few papers claiming that current warming was unprecedented over the last 600 to 2000 years. Other climate scientists described Mann’s work variously as crap, pathetic, sloppy, and crap. These papers caught the interest of Stephen McIntyre and this led to the …

 

[calamity]

Debunking is in process.

[h=1]Hockey Stick Groundhog Day[/h]Posted on 31 Jul 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 15 Comments
Some ancient history Fifteen to twenty years ago, Michael Mann and colleagues wrote a few papers claiming that current warming was unprecedented over the last 600 to 2000 years. Other climate scientists described Mann’s work variously as crap, pathetic, sloppy, and crap. These papers caught the interest of Stephen McIntyre and this led to the …

Correction: Denial is in process.

 

[Jack Hays]

Correction: Denial is in process.

". . . Steve McIntyre is on the case, see this twitter thread. The first tweet refers to this weighting issue, and number 4 in the sequence mentions the “superscreening” point. The last (at time of writing), number 23, shows how drastic the screening out of North American tree-ring proxies is in the latest papers.
There is also some decline-hiding going on: in one of the Canadian datasets used, when the time series showed the ‘divergence problem’ (heading downwards when temperature goes upwards), the divergent parts of the series were just deleted. See this blog post by Shub with the relevant parts of the paper highlighted. Again, if you do this, when you combine all the data to get an overall picture, you will get a stronger hockey stick effect. . . ."

 

[ataraxia]

If true, exactly what would you suggest doing to change it?

That's something that we as a society have to have a serious discussion about. It's going to be a long and difficult discussion and will require compromising and juggling between all sorts of opposing and clashing, but often equally legitimate, considerations and ideals. But that's true of a lot of things in life.

But you can't just deny the overwhelming science just because you are afraid of what it might mean if true. You have to start with the facts first.

 

[calamity]

". . . Steve McIntyre is on the case, see this twitter thread. The first tweet refers to this weighting issue, and number 4 in the sequence mentions the “superscreening” point. The last (at time of writing), number 23, shows how drastic the screening out of North American tree-ring proxies is in the latest papers.
There is also some decline-hiding going on: in one of the Canadian datasets used, when the time series showed the ‘divergence problem’ (heading downwards when temperature goes upwards), the divergent parts of the series were just deleted. See this blog post by Shub with the relevant parts of the paper highlighted. Again, if you do this, when you combine all the data to get an overall picture, you will get a stronger hockey stick effect. . . ."

Denial has all sorts of bogus sources. Fact remains, the things climate scientists predicted twenty years ago about AGW are coming to fruition as we speak.

Are We Watching the Arctic Pass a Tipping Point This Summer?

 

[Jack Hays]

Denial has all sorts of bogus sources. Fact remains, the things climate scientists predicted twenty years ago about AGW are coming to fruition as we speak.

Are We Watching the Arctic Pass a Tipping Point This Summer?

Sadly for those "climate scientists," they are not. The Arctic is doing just fine.

 

[calamity]

Sadly for those "climate scientists," they are not. The Arctic is doing just fine.

Bull****

 

[ataraxia]

Sadly for those "climate scientists," they are not. The Arctic is doing just fine.

Says who?

Because this is what is in fact happening in the Arctic:
Arctic Climate Change | WWF Arctic

 

[Jack Hays]

Bull****

Says who?

Because this is what is in fact happening in the Arctic:
Arctic Climate Change | WWF Arctic

[h=2]Ice Box July: Unusual Cold, Surface Frost Sweep Across Central Europe! July Arctic Ice Volume Trend Now Increasing[/h]By P Gosselin on 9. July 2019
Where have all the globe-trotting climate ambulance chasers gone? Well, they’re nowhere to be found in Europe nowadays. Hat-tip: Snowfan in Germany The reason is the unusual cold that has swept across a large swath of the continent and which has sent temperatures plummeting to near freezing. Icebox July: Parts of Central Europe saw ground […]

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]CG2 and Ex Post Picking[/h]Jul 31, 2019 – 6:20 PM
Jul 31, 2019: Noticed this as an unpublished draft from 2014. Not sure why I didn’t publish at the time. Neukom, lead author of PAGES (2019) was coauthor of Gergis’ papers.
One of the longest-standing Climate Audit controversies has been about the bias introduced into reconstructions that use ex post screening/correlation. In today’s post, I’ll report on a previously unnoticed Climategate-2 email in which a member of the paleoclimatology guild (though then junior) reported to other members of the guild that he had carried out simulations to test “the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about”, finding that the results from his simulations from white noise “clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend”, a result that he described as “certainly worrying”.
A more senior member of the guild dismissed the results out of hand: “Controversy about which bull caused mess not relevent.” Members of the guild have continued to merrily ex post screen to this day without cavil or caveat.
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL.

“I’m not reading these papers in depth, but they are totally wrong and their authors know nothing about the issue”, says anonymous poster with a history of lying about his education.

Once again, the denier of science.

I didn't read them, in-depth either, but I went to the source links in the linked material, and read the starts of some, and scanned through others. I at least opened them and saw the article lies about their content.

 

[Threegoofs]

Once again, the denier of science.

I didn't read them, in-depth either, but I went to the source links in the linked material, and read the starts of some, and scanned through others. I at least opened them and saw the article lies about their content.

“I skimmed some articles, and since I know more about this subject than the experts who actually do the research and have the ability to submit papers to Nature Geoscience, I can tell you it’s all a pack of lies”

LOL.

If you could only hear yourself.

 

[calamity]

Once again, the denier of science.

I didn't read them, in-depth either, but I went to the source links in the linked material, and read the starts of some, and scanned through others. I at least opened them and saw the article lies about their content.

Yes, you are a denier of science. And, that you refuse to read papers which contradict your bias does explain why.

Thanks.

 

[Grand Mal]

Yes, I took note. Not looking to argue the point but, even if everyone in the US did as you did, the effect would be only for the person. Not everyone in the US can afford to make such a change and not everyone can utilize wind and solar effectively. Now that is just the US, the I country that I believe is doing the most to limit environmental pollutions. Nations such as China and India are huge polluters and show no sign of decreasing. Any true attempt at reducing climate warming by humans has to be done on a global scale.

I would love to erect a personal windmill, one person in our neighborhood did so and everyone wanted to copy him. We live on the coast and have an ocean breeze everyday. The city took note and went door to door trying to get people to say it made too much noise. Everyone told them there was no noise and they wanted one, me included. The city counsel quickly got together and banned windmills on private property in our city.

Sounds like you need a new city council.

 

[Grand Mal]

[h=2]Ice Box July: Unusual Cold, Surface Frost Sweep Across Central Europe! July Arctic Ice Volume Trend Now Increasing[/h]By P Gosselin on 9. July 2019
Where have all the globe-trotting climate ambulance chasers gone? Well, they’re nowhere to be found in Europe nowadays. Hat-tip: Snowfan in Germany The reason is the unusual cold that has swept across a large swath of the continent and which has sent temperatures plummeting to near freezing. Icebox July: Parts of Central Europe saw ground […]

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sea ice minimums happen in September and since 1980 have decreased an average of 12.8% per decade.

 

[Lord of Planar]

“I skimmed some articles, and since I know more about this subject than the experts who actually do the research and have the ability to submit papers to Nature Geoscience, I can tell you it’s all a pack of lies”

LOL.

If you could only hear yourself.

The experts that wrote the papers did not write the article. The author of the article is lying about what the experts are saying.

Please get that through your thick head. I am not claiming to know more than the experts writing the papers. I am saying the papers do not say what the lying pundits say they say.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, you are a denier of science. And, that you refuse to read papers which contradict your bias does explain why.

Thanks.

Not true. I read enough to see the MACH pundit was lying. I summarized the lies before I said:

"I see no reason to read the papers in-depth, but if someone wished to state why they think MACH didn't lie about what the papers really said, then please select one of the source papers, link it, and quote what supports MACH. I say is a pundit's lie about the paper. "

Please read the papers yourself, and show me where I am wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

The experts that wrote the papers did not write the article. The author of the article is lying about what the experts are saying.

Please get that through your thick head. I am not claiming to know more than the experts writing the papers. I am saying the papers do not say what the lying pundits say they say.

Oh. You were saying you couldnt even read the news article.


I'm sure you looked at the nature geoscience papers though.

And as usual, you 'know' that what the authors wrote in the introduction and conclusions section really wasnt what they meant. :roll:

 

[Sunsettommy]

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sea ice minimums happen in September and since 1980 have decreased an average of 12.8% per decade.

Yet the article doesn't bother to mention the conditions of the region in the first 3/4 of the Holocene, you know the first 10,000 years or so.....

The first chart in YOUR link shows that the decline STOPPED after 2006, based on a record of just 40 years out of a 12,000 year Holocene time frame.

This means you and NASA have no credible point to make over some sea ice decline.

:lol:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Oh. You were saying you couldnt even read the news article.


I'm sure you looked at the nature geoscience papers though.

And as usual, you 'know' that what the authors wrote in the introduction and conclusions section really wasnt what they meant. :roll:

There were four or more papers within the links. I read enough of all of them to see the article in the thread was lying about what the actual papers say.

One was in Nature Geoscience, another three in Nature.

Remember, I have a subscriptions to these. I can read past the abstract, but the abstract says a lot too.

 

[calamity]

Not true. I read enough to see the MACH pundit was lying. I summarized the lies before I said:

"I see no reason to read the papers in-depth, but if someone wished to state why they think MACH didn't lie about what the papers really said, then please select one of the source papers, link it, and quote what supports MACH. I say is a pundit's lie about the paper. "

Please read the papers yourself, and show me where I am wrong.

I doubt that to be true.

 

[Jack Hays]

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sea ice minimums happen in September and since 1980 have decreased an average of 12.8% per decade.

A Geological Perspective on Arctic Sea Ice Extent (AKA PIP25: “Miracle on Ice”)

Guest review article by David Middleton We’re often bombarded with headlines line this: Arctic sea ice continues its downward spiral At 4.6 million square kilometres in coverage, this year’s sea ice minimum is the sixth lowest on record. The problem with headlines like this is the fact that the “record” only dates back to 1979.…
October 8, 2018 in Paleoclimatology.

in ​

Paleoclimatology

​

​

​

Science debunks the "Arctic sea ice extent at its lowest for at least 1500 years" meme

These headlines have been recently making the rounds, such as this article at vox.com which describes “sudden scary ice melt in the Arctic, in three charts One of the charts is below, along with some peer reviewed science that says otherwise. By Paul Homewood h/t Andyg55 In December, NOAA released its latest annual Arctic Report Card,…

February 22, 2018 in Alarmism, Arctic.

 

[Grand Mal]

Yet the article doesn't bother to mention the conditions of the region in the first 3/4 of the Holocene, you know the first 10,000 years or so.....

The first chart in YOUR link shows that the decline STOPPED after 2006, based on a record of just 40 years out of a 12,000 year Holocene time frame.

This means you and NASA have no credible point to make over some sea ice decline.

:lol:

Hell are you babbling about? Decline stopped in '06? You obviously don't know how to read a graph. The mean sea ice in '12 was about a million square kilometres less than in '06. And what the hell are you on about "Holocene time frame"? Are you seriously comparing the sea ice change in a single generation to change over a geological era?
Give your head a shake. You guys who think you can dumpster-dive the internet and come up with random bloggers who refute NASA and NOAA data just make yourselves look, well, stupid.

 

[Threegoofs]

There were four or more papers within the links. I read enough of all of them to see the article in the thread was lying about what the actual papers say.

One was in Nature Geoscience, another three in Nature.

Remember, I have a subscriptions to these. I can read past the abstract, but the abstract says a lot too.

Yeah. The end of the abstract in the Nature paper was pretty clear:

By contrast, we find that the warmest period
of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for
more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence
that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in
terms of absolute temperatures
, but also unprecedented in spatial
consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

Still LOLing that you dont know how to access papers without a subscription.

Heres the Nature Letter No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold
periods over the preindustrial Common Era

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hell are you babbling about? Decline stopped in '06? You obviously don't know how to read a graph. The mean sea ice in '12 was about a million square kilometres less than in '06. And what the hell are you on about "Holocene time frame"? Are you seriously comparing the sea ice change in a single generation to change over a geological era?
Give your head a shake. You guys who think you can dumpster-dive the internet and come up with random bloggers who refute NASA and NOAA data just make yourselves look, well, stupid.

No it is your rose colored glasses that needs to be changed, since that CHART in the YOUR link shows that every year AFTER 2012 has finished at a higher number, that is SEVEN years on a row!

Meanwhile from MASIE and SII



and,



This shows that the decline from 1979 has stopped after 2006, you are so far out of date!