Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

[rdean]

Republican scientist is an oxymoron

 

[IanC]

Republican scientist is an oxymoron

how can you be so stupid?

 

[Crick]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

 

[Crick]

Evidence? Shown to be incorrect how? By who? What lies has he told?

From AR5

 

[Crick]

 

[Crick]

 

[ralfy]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Proof of which is? Ian, how about some real science, and not the lies of McIntyre.

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives.

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.

 

[IanC]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives.

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.

here are the three studies plotted out for the last thousand years. you can easily google the actual studies, and there are many other borehole studies available to give context to the Huang papers

 

[Crick]

Here is the abstract to their 2000 paper
Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from boreholetemperatures Abstract Nature

Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures
Shaopeng Huang1, Henry N. Pollack1 & Po-Yu Shen2

1. Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1063, USA
2. Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7, Canada

Correspondence to: Henry N. Pollack1 Correspondence and request for materials should be addressed to H.N.P. (e-mail: Email: [email protected]).

For an accurate assessment of the relative roles of natural variability and anthropogenic influence in the Earth's climate, reconstructions of past temperatures from the pre-industrial as well as the industrial period are essential. But instrumental records are typically available for no more than the past 150 years. Therefore reconstructions of pre-industrial climate rely principally on traditional climate proxy records1, 2, 3, 4, 5, each with particular strengths and limitations in representing climatic variability. Subsurface temperatures comprise an independent archive of past surface temperature changes that is complementary to both the instrumental record and the climate proxies. Here we use present-day temperatures in 616 boreholes from all continents except Antarctica to reconstruct century-long trends in temperatures over the past 500 years at global, hemispheric and continental scales. The results confirm the unusual warming of the twentieth century revealed by the instrumental record6, but suggest that the cumulative change over the past five centuries amounts to about 1 K, exceeding recent estimates from conventional climate proxies2, 3, 4, 5. The strength of temperature reconstructions from boreholes lies in the detection of long-term trends, complementary to conventional climate proxies, but to obtain a complete picture of past warming, the differences between the approaches need to be investigated in detail.
*******************************************************************************************

 

[Crick]

Here is the 2008 Abstract. In this case, the entire article is available.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record

Abstract
[1] We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data borehole temperature data and the instrumental record - Huang - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

I note that these data put current temps above the MWP's.

 

[ralfy]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives.

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.

Why not investigate the matter further? For example, you can find out why the number of boreholes used were decreased. There's also a list of borehole data available online. You can also look at the manner by which other scientists used that and other data sets, how the IPCC looked at multiple assessments, how the NAS analyzed the same data sets for its final report, and how it assessed surface temperature reconstructions. That way, you'll be able to answer your own questions instead of relying on forum members to do that for you.

In any event, you will realize that the science is not "bad" at all.

 

[ralfy]

Ian, do you believe Mann's 'hockey stick' has been refuted, and if so, please explain whether you are referring to the MWP or the warming of the 20th century.

Mann's hockey sticks, in all version have been shown to be incorrect. In both methodology and data. His claims of error and certainty are also wrong. He is also guilty of lying. And not just in papers, books and blogs but in court and to congressional hearings.

Large-scale reconstructions validate it:

List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2 000 years - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ralfy- you're new here. I have gone through all of this stuff before, especially Old Rocks. There are lots of interesting threads in the archives.

I told you before that people have to make up their own minds. So I clicked your link to see what you are being influenced by. An obscure name popped up that is actually familiar to me. Huang and Pollack boreholes. In 1997 they used 6000 boreholes and their graph showed a strong MWP and LIA. In 2000 they chopped it down to 600 boreholes and that is the graphic that was added to the Spaghetti graph. In 2008 they bumped up the number of boreholes to a few thousand and the MWP and LIA were back again. I am not going to guess what their intentions were in deriving the 2000 'odd man out' chart. Or why they have returned to a more realistic reconstruction. But you have to wonder why one of the studies got publicity and the other, more thorough, studies did not.

here are the three studies plotted out for the last thousand years. you can easily google the actual studies, and there are many other borehole studies available to give context to the Huang papers

That's why the list I shared contains multiple reconstructions and not just one. That's also why the NAS published a report analyzing the same.

 

[ralfy]

Here is the 2008 Abstract. In this case, the entire article is available.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record

Abstract
[1] We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data borehole temperature data and the instrumental record - Huang - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

I note that these data put current temps above the MWP's.

There's also

6.6.1.2 What Do Large-Scale Temperature Histories from Subsurface Temperature Measurements Show - AR4 WGI Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate

This plus many other studies plus the NAS analysis of reconstructions and the NAS final report and the BEST report show that the situation is far removed from the claim that "the science is bad."

 

[SSDD]

Here is the 2008 Abstract. In this case, the entire article is available.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record

Abstract
[1] We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961–1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data borehole temperature data and the instrumental record - Huang - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

I note that these data put current temps above the MWP's.

How many peer reviewed studies from all over the globe would you like to see that find that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature?

 

[Crick]

I haven't the slightest care about either. You folks are the one grasping at MWP straws. From my point of view, the MWP is completely irrelevant.

 

[Crick]

There are a few points about the MWP in which you might be interested. Sea level increased from the warming and so did North Atlantic cyclone activity.

 

[SSDD]

There are a few points about the MWP in which you might be interested. Sea level increased from the warming and so did North Atlantic cyclone activity.

The point is that it puts the present well within the limits of natural variation and the destruction of industry, jobs, and ways of life are not necessary....not to even mention the literally millions of brown lives in the third world that environmentalist policy and activism cost.