No problem, just cherry pick data starting at 1600 or so, and make a movie about it. It'll all work out just fine....ignore that whole Little Ice Age thing, that wasn't really an issue, was it?

JCL

And now contrails, too -- sob!!

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/296592

Looks more like the TSX over the last few days

To bad Ed stelmack now sees a curling broom within the graph. Albertans need to cover their arses, let the carbon credits flow!

I dont expect to see this from any of the MSM outlets . they have their minds made up .

was it that cold in 1600? jeez it seems like only yesterday.

this is the derivative. plot it on the mean temperature graph and it would be smoother than Al Gores lies.

Icecap is a very useful site for all of this:

http://icecap.us/index.php

It would appear the second-warmest year- 1934 being THE warmest- was 1998, and it has gone downhill since then.

Just think. A thouand years ago it was even warmer than it is now.

But the polar caps did not melt.
But the polar bears did not drown.
But thousands of species Did Not go extinct because, as has been found out over the past few years, they have a genetically Built-in ability to compensate for these changes, built in because of the Thousands of warming and cooling cycles the Earth has gone through in the past 70 million years.

Philip Pullman will be disappointed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=LLITHGK5MA0ONQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/earth/2008/01/19/eapullman119.xml&page=1

I have printed this graph and am posting it on my office wall. I bet this graph will draw some questions and I'll say "This is the graph from An Inconvienient Truth, haven't you seen it before?"

"YAH, BUT... this time is different!!!"

Five... four... three...two...

I don't think that Loehle addressed some of the more serious criticisms, but it is an interesting graphic. Just eye-balling it stops at about 1950 and assuming that you can splice on the GISS data base or the HAD one if you prefer, temperatures have risen 0.6C since then. If you plot that on the graph you can see where the current values fit.

I will note that Paul over at Jennifer's didn't understand what he was posting since it is not a correction to Figure 2 at all. Figure 2 deals with Sensitivity of result to individual series.

Regards,
John

Actually John, they are corrections as reported by many sites on the net and the author's themselves. The hockey stick is dead John because it was based on bad science ... so mourn it and move on.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641#comments

By the way, are you suggesting that different data sources be combined to create a continuum ... like say, tree ring data tagged onto thermometer measurements ... surely not.

Paul: I am not sure what you mean abuot the corrections. My comment was that it was posted as a correction to Figure 2, but (as I said) Figure 2 has nothing to do with what was corrected.

In regards to the Hockey Stick, I would challenge you to look through as find my comments about it. I do not recall making any since I would have a hard time defending certain aspects of it and I only post about things I can defend in an argument. Let me ask you a similar question, do you understand what Loehle did well enough to defend his work?

Regards,
John

I am looking at the graphs on their pdf file now, jc. They state that very clearly that 'The series ends with a downtick because the last set of points are
averages that include the cool decades of the 1960s and 1970s.'

And if one plots an additionl .6C rise on the graph- as you suggested- one comes up with a period between 850 and 950 that was warmer than it was in 1998 (the second warmest year on record), and a second peak around 1000, also warmer than the second warmest year on record, 1998. In fact the first peak is still 1.5C above the .6 factor you instructed us to add to the graph for the most recent period of time.

So what I really want to see is that graph after 1998.....I suspect it points downward

Oh wait. I got it wrong, jc. You said to add .6C to the end of that chart. I took it from 0C, rather than the approximately -.25C on the chart. That now gives us....

A warming trend that stretches from around 600AD to 1100AD, with the warmest period running from about 850AD to 1000AD, and another major point in the early 20th Century which is still Higher than it is today. Does that sound about right?

...and I closed the pdf file. However I wish to add, that with the .6C correction (thanks to jc) being properly placed from the end of the data (at -.25C), we now get a Mideival Warm Period over two degrees warmer than it is now. Interesting!

John, my point is simply this, that the hockey stick is dead. That' all. Whether you agreed with it or not I don't care ... I just care that the hockey stick was one of the most important pieces in the IPCC propoganda campaign ... and it is now dead.

NASA website, as of this month:

'In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally) by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the certainty.'

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ godd...earth_temp.html

So 1934 WAS the warmest year in the past century, for the US... and there was almost NO difference in that temp from the rest of the globe.

A moment of silence -- a very long moment -- is exactly what you are likely to get from the MsM.

There has never been a more prolific generator of HUMAN HOT AIR THAN THE TOPIC OF AGW.

I see all this technical splitting of hairs. All this heated offensive dabate and name calling while Rome burns.

Pollution is the problem. Polar bears and whales are loaded with heavy metals and toxic chemicals.

Humans are at the top of the food chain but Goarcle and Fruitfly are running a smokescreen, so there is little mention in the press about the sudden rise of toxins we humans are all carrying now.

Monsanto, Dupont, Cargill, ExxonMibile Chemicals and the gang keep dumping the chemicals on crops and we continue eating them.

The biggest carbon pollution comes from tens of thousands of CoalGen plants.

Where is the debate about retrofit with clean-coal tech for our worldwide major polluter? Nil!

Collectively, we are barking up the wrong tree. = TG

Otter: you lost me completely now. The end point of the graph is in about 1950 at a value of +0.1. If you add 0.6 on to that you get +0.7. Which is higher than any other period. As best as I can figure, you took the temperature at year 0 or used the confidence interval as a value. Which ever, they are both wrong. And I have no idea where your 2 degrees number came from. Enquiring minds want to know.

Paul: I appreciate the fact that you don't care about my opinion of the hockey stick. However as you know I like to look at the underlying science and am interested in why people are so quick to accept the Loehle paper as being without error?

regards,
John

I can't take a slapshot with that! I want my stick back.

Inquiring minds want to know:

1) if it is warmer than the Mideival Warm Period, why is is not TOO HOT to grow grapes in France, as it was beack then?

2) if it is warmer than the MWP, why are we not growing corn in Greenland?

As you spoke to Paul, you mentioned more than one chart. Since there is only One chart on this page, I went to the source. The source clearly says when and why the data ended. I applied your .6C to the charts on the pdf file, which is the source of this thread. Now do you know?

And in NASA's most recent posting, 1934 is Still the warmest year on record.

And my wife is soon home. I shall leave it to others for now.

John: Without error or not is NOT the issue. The point, that you seem to miss again and again, is that the issue is far from settled, yet we are to change the course of industrialized society based on something as unsettled. AGW in the magnitude suggested by the IPCC IS NOT A FACT ... get over all the detailed analysis and knit picking and look at this wholistically ... and then politically.

I'd never legalize a drug, or license an aircraft, or authorize a insecticide on science as shaky as AGW science ... but let's all run out and transfer trillions of dollars to UN agency.

Otter: When I spoke to Paul, I was pointing out that the other site called it a correction to Figure 2 when in fact it was a correction to Figure 1. The title of the graph in question is Corrected Global Temp. Your error is that you are using the "un-corrected" reconstruction. However even using the old un-corrected data, your analysis is still wrong.

Paul: If you want to raise this as showing that some aspects of the science are not settled, then that is an defensible position. But what you have done is to replace a version of the "Science is settled" argument that you don't like with a version of the "Science is settled" that you appear to like. That is my point.

There is a large difference between saying this calls into question the previous study and saying this paper proves the previous study wrong.

Regards,
John

John: At this point there are so many "studies" looking at slightly different aspect of the issue, with overlap, that it doesn't matter any more because it seems that everyone brings into more question the "concesus".

All that matters is that the scientific issues are not settled ... yet that is the premise on which the IPCC is acting.

I'm not qualified, nor do I pretend to be, to parse is all down into mathematical arguements ... but I am qualified to see that the science isn't settled ... by a long shot ... and that's all that counts for me at this point.

Paul: As I said above, if you are posting it because you wish to raise the point that the paleoreconstructions are not settled, I agree. But you have to admit that that is not what you wrote.

However as I have posted before, there are several things that are settled in the scientific community.

1) We are responsible for the recent increase in CO2.

2) Increases in CO2 will cause an increase in downward IR radiation.

Even the skeptics such as Lindzen and Pilkey accept these.

Regards,
John

John: And water is wet.

... There is not agreement that we are responsible for all the recent increases in CO2

An Inconvenient Graph!

The new graphs are interesting. One can clearly see the colder weather which ushered in the Great Famine of 1315-1317 (and of which the story of Haensel and Gretel may contain an echo).

It needs to be said: the hockey-stick graph, which ignored well known and well documented history, was at best incompetence, and at worst, ... .

it was health care, then Kyoto/GhG et al and now the new crisis is global recession.

Just one damn crisis after the other. The MSM is so fickle, must be the need to flog the ad space to generate revenue.

TG,YOU FINALLY GOT TO THE HEART OF THE ARGUMENT! Never once in your rant about Monsanto,DuPONT et al did you mention any polluter from China, India, Russia or some African country.No place in any Kyoto agreement does it state that CO2 or pollution will be lessened.If you dont believe me then think of Al Gores houses(he has many) and his statement that he is carbon neutral.How the Hell do you do that?If DuPONT is a polluter then Al Gore is one.But hey,DuPont wont be if they buy carbon and pollution credits like Al Gore,in fact,they may be a good guy like Al if they buy enough.

Tony - how about some proof that "Polar bears and whales are loaded with heavy metals and toxic chemicals" that man put there ... like instead of naturally occurring.

Just for the record, pollution pisses me off ... but you can't but EVERYTHING on industry. Just because you can measure stuff today doesn't mean it wasn't around a thousand years ago.

In Manitoba they were blaming increased polution in the rivers on fertilizers and pig manure.They found that the problem was dams and the lack of flushing of the system in the spring.The rotting vegetation in the dam water was raising the pollutants.

Posted by: ural at January 24, 2008 12:43 AM

"Just because you can measure stuff today doesn't mean it wasn't around a thousand years ago."

Exactly! A fact that should/must always be considered. As detection limits have decreased many previous claims/results of research have had to be revisited.

Decades ago an anomalous mercury content in some remote lakes was attributed to copper smelters, upwind of the lakes, that had ceased operation 20 years earlier. Then the granites surrounding the lakes were checked.

Newer analytical techniques found some interesting things: lower than claimed mercury content in the copper ores that had been smelted, lower than expected levels of mercury in the coal used for smelting, and anomalously high levels of mercury in the rocks surrounding the lakes.

Built-in ability to compensate for these changes

I was at an ASME meeting last year, all prepared to discuss AGW and got pre-empted by an engineer saying, "Even if it IS true, we'll adapt. That's what humans do."

Silly engineer. He obviously hadn't seen Gore's movie or 'The Day After Tomorrow'. And who is HE to DARE to speculate on the group behaviour of humans, he doesn't even have a sociology degree!

Built-in ability to compensate for these changes

I was at an ASME meeting last year, all prepared to discuss AGW and got pre-empted by an engineer saying, "Even if it IS true, we'll adapt. That's what humans do."

Silly engineer. He obviously hadn't seen Gore's movie or 'The Day After Tomorrow'. And who is HE to DARE to speculate on the group behaviour of humans, he doesn't even have a sociology degree!