Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

That's funny I didn't think CERN published in Forbes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

Wow. So I guess all Professors make at east $200,000 a year. In spite of factual evidence to the contrary. You responded by saying something about James Hansen, so obviously that proves me wrong - every Professor in the nation just got a raise to at least 200k thanks to your altering of reality based on a non-sequitor outlier!

You go out of your way to be dumb, don't you?

I showed that climate scientists make lots of extra money on the side.

You've demonstrated no general rule, only provided a few anecdotes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So you also have no benefit package? Do those benefits have a cash value? Do I think all professors make half a million dollars? Fuck no. My parents were educators at the public school and university levels. I know they're mostly not rich. But I do know some can be incredibly well off depending on field and their contracts.

I'm surprised about not getting any money for speaking engagements. I knew some who did. And I know music professors often get to be paid for their performances and whatnot they do outside the university setting.

I didn't realize your University owned you. Of course I assume you're telling the truth, because anyone can claim anything.

The University I work for owns my research.

Boy did YOU choose poorly then. I didn't realize that even speaking about the research you made for them was their property too.

Must suck big.

No wonder you don't think anyone else can or should fare better by making smarter decisions. Or you're one heck of a bitter altruist.

My research is funded by federal and local government, the people own it. I fail to see the problem with that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

 

[code1211]

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous &#8212; that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

That's funny I didn't think CERN published in Forbes.

As referenced above, Forbes reported on the research published in the journal Nature.

I'm glad you find this to be funny. Are you laughing at CERN, the 8000 scientists from around the world who work there, the 60 countries they come from or just because laughter helps in pursuing a healthy life style?

You asked for an alternative explanation for the warming that did not use Anthropogenic forcings. CERN gives you one. What say you?

 

[code1211]

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

You asked for an alternate and now you have one.

Thjere are also about a dozen other factors from cloud cover to ocean currents that impact climate and they all seem to reduce CO2 to a weak sister of any forcing at all.

By the standard your source used to undermine the CERN work applies just as well to the CO2 boogie man. While CO2 rises with constancy, the temperature rises, falls, stalls and in general ignores the impact that CO2 should be having.

The question was posed and answered. How do you feel about CERN as the source of your any other cause to explain the warming?

 

[Old Rocks]

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

These people do not read actual science articles. They only repeat what an obese junkie on the radio says the articles stated. I have repeatedly posted paragraphs from articles they stated were proof that AGW was wrong, where the author had stated exactly the opposite. Walleyes is particularly egrerious in doing this.

They have used this article this way before, and others, as well as I, have published what the article itself said, just as you did. But in another month, you will see them repeating exactly the same thing.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

You asked for an alternate and now you have one.

Thjere are also about a dozen other factors from cloud cover to ocean currents that impact climate and they all seem to reduce CO2 to a weak sister of any forcing at all.

By the standard your source used to undermine the CERN work applies just as well to the CO2 boogie man. While CO2 rises with constancy, the temperature rises, falls, stalls and in general ignores the impact that CO2 should be having.

The question was posed and answered. How do you feel about CERN as the source of your any other cause to explain the warming?

Total BS, Code. In the long term, there are only two factors that matter. The amount of energy recieved from the sun, and the amount the Earth retains. One we cannot change, and one we have changed. A 40% increase in CO2, 150+% in CH4, and a number of industrial gases that have no natural analog, and are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For the last ten years the Total Solar Irradiance has declined slightly. But the warming has continued, and the cryosphere has shrunk significantly.

In real life observations, there is no link at all between cosmic rays and warming.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

 

[westwall]

The University I work for owns my research.

Boy did YOU choose poorly then. I didn't realize that even speaking about the research you made for them was their property too.

Must suck big.

No wonder you don't think anyone else can or should fare better by making smarter decisions. Or you're one heck of a bitter altruist.

My research is funded by federal and local government, the people own it. I fail to see the problem with that.

Nor should you. Just like Mann, Jones, and All the others work is paid for by the taxpayers. I wonder why they refuse to release their raw data? What are they hiding?

 

[westwall]

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

So, you're an astro physicist. Tell us what this part of the abstract means.

"Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold."

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data. Walleyes, you are a hoot.

 

[westwall]

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

These people do not read actual science articles. They only repeat what an obese junkie on the radio says the articles stated. I have repeatedly posted paragraphs from articles they stated were proof that AGW was wrong, where the author had stated exactly the opposite. Walleyes is particularly egrerious in doing this.

They have used this article this way before, and others, as well as I, have published what the article itself said, just as you did. But in another month, you will see them repeating exactly the same thing.

Neither do you! I have shown repeatedly the papers you posted that didn't support your dogma. What's your excuse?

 

[westwall]

Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data. Walleyes, you are a hoot.

There have been over a dozen that also showed that no matter what number you punch into his model it allways crerates a hockey stick. In the real world that is called FAILURE.

And more importantly the NAS concluded it was a faulty graph. Funny how you don't reference them and their scathing review of it and his work.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure you have. From Anthony Watts, versus Nature, Science, and Journal of Geophysics.

For someone that claims to be a member of the Royal Society and the AGU, you certainly denigrate the scientists in these organizations. But you never present your views at the podium in one of their meetings.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data. Walleyes, you are a hoot.

There have been over a dozen that also showed that no matter what number you punch into his model it allways crerates a hockey stick. In the real world that is called FAILURE.

And more importantly the NAS concluded it was a faulty graph. Funny how you don't reference them and their scathing review of it and his work.

Scathing review? Really? OK, why don't we go to the source.

National-Academies.org | Newsroom

Read Full Report

Date: June 22, 2006
Contacts: Bill Kearney, Director of Media Relations
Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <[email protected]>


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years;
Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600


WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.


Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years. Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers. The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted.


The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."


The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.


The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.


The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that. Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites. On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions. Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age.

You see, Walleyes, some of us have actually read the articles.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data. Walleyes, you are a hoot.

See the Global Warming? It's under my pinkie

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous &#8212; that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
&#8220;&#8230;at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.&#8221;
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

You asked for an alternate and now you have one.

The lead author on the paper says we don't.

But hey, I guess you and Forbes are better experts on the paper than the lead author

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Boy did YOU choose poorly then. I didn't realize that even speaking about the research you made for them was their property too.

Must suck big.

No wonder you don't think anyone else can or should fare better by making smarter decisions. Or you're one heck of a bitter altruist.

My research is funded by federal and local government, the people own it. I fail to see the problem with that.

Nor should you. Just like Mann, Jones, and All the others work is paid for by the taxpayers. I wonder why they refuse to release their raw data? What are they hiding?

"Their" raw data isn't actually owned by them, genius.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:
“…at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.”
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate

So, you're an astro physicist. Tell us what this part of the abstract means.

"Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold."

1) It means exactly what it says.

2) It means CLOSE to the following: the role of cosmic rays in the formation of clouds is poorly understand, and here we present the first results from an experiment designed to investigate this. The addition of ammonia causes an increase in the formation of cloud seeds, and.....


Its cut off at the end because you picked a weird place to cut the abstract.

 

[IanC]

Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data. Walleyes, you are a hoot.

Old Rocks just doesnt get it. there are hundreds or thousands of proxy data sets available. many come in different versions because they are updated by adding additional measurements, or conversely by taking some data points out. Mann has a habit of using specific proxies that have a favourable shape, using eccentric methodologies that empasize outliers, and then padding the whole thing with normal proxy sets that just add noise but leave the shape alone.

one proxy in particular really annoys me. a sediment core taken in Tiljander was specifically labelled as unsuitable for use in temperature reconstructions by the author because of known disruptions in recent times. not only does Mann continue to use it but he ignores the fact that his methodology actually turns the proxy upside-down as a better fit!

NAS specifically stated that bristlecone pines were unsuitable for temperature reconstructions, yet they then turned around and said there must be some truth in Mann's work because other people had reproduced somewhat similar shaped graphs. but they all used bristlecones!!! the Wegman report demolished Mann's methodology in several ways, and a further study said they came to the same conclusions as Wegman. but no one has recinded MBH98 or 99 as the worse than useless pieces of shit that they are.

the unseen damage is that other papers use Mann's work as a basis for their studies. the poison spreads. arguing with the Hockey Team is bad for your career and that is why these travesties keep getting past peer review.