Pre-1995 Temp Reconstruction Shows MWp and LIA

[IanC]

Climatic implications of ´<sup xmlns="">13</sup>C variations in a Japanese cedar (<i xmlns="">Cryptomeria japonica</i>) during the last two millenia

this is a delta 13C reconstruction from Japan.

the WUWT article is about why the IPCC shouldnt have credulously accepted M Mann's 'disappearing' of the MWP. Mann&#8217;s &#8216;hockey stick&#8217; claims of the MWP and LIA being local were refuted years before it was published | Watts Up With That?

what I would like to see is ^13C studies done at the same time, and on the same samples as treering width, area, and other measurements. if multiple lines of investigation from the same samples show similar results it would be much more convincing. especially if the experiment was designed by one group, collected by another, and measured by a third. with no deleting of inconvenient data of course.

 

[Old Rocks]

More than a dozen studies since Mann published his original paper. All confirm what his paper showed.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

 

[bripat9643]

More than a dozen studies since Mann published his original paper. All confirm what his paper showed.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

They're all based on the same bogus tree-ring proxy data, and they all use the same flawed statistical methods. Steve McIntyre examined all these hockey stick analysis, once removed, on his website - ClimateAudit.com

 

[Oddball]

Looks to me like the SS Hockey Puck took a hit amidships!

In the early 1990s, Japanese scientists Hiroyuki Kitagawa and Eiji Matsumoto extracted eleven tree ring cores from cedars on the South Pacific Japan island of Yakushima. The cores contained tree-rings going back some 2000 years. The researchers determined the carbon 13 isotope values and found the delta-13-C values fluctuated in a characteristic manner (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Temperature reconstruction for the South Japan island of Yakushima based on the C-13-isotopes. Attention! Temperature axis is inverted: cold temperatures are up and warm temperatures are down. Figure supplemented as to Kitagawa & Matsumoto (1995).

Hockey Stick Was Refuted Before Its Fabrication &#8211; Study Ignored &#8211; IPCC And Mann Took World On 10-Year Joyride

WE'RE TAKIN' ON WATER, MATES!....ARRRRRGH!

 

[Old Rocks]

Probably ignored because it is incorrect.

 

[Old Rocks]

More than a dozen studies since Mann published his original paper. All confirm what his paper showed.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

They're all based on the same bogus tree-ring proxy data, and they all use the same flawed statistical methods. Steve McIntyre examined all these hockey stick analysis, once removed, on his website - ClimateAudit.com

Sure, dumb ass, sure. And you obviously have never read anything concerning the proxies and data used in the other studies. Just flap your yap and demonstrate the depth of your stupidity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

the WUWT article is about why the IPCC shouldnt have credulously accepted M Mann's 'disappearing' of the MWP. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ claims of the MWP and LIA being local were refuted years before it was published | Watts Up With That?

How were they refuted?

 

[bripat9643]

More than a dozen studies since Mann published his original paper. All confirm what his paper showed.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

They're all based on the same bogus tree-ring proxy data, and they all use the same flawed statistical methods. Steve McIntyre examined all these hockey stick analysis, once removed, on his website - ClimateAudit.com

Sure, dumb ass, sure. And you obviously have never read anything concerning the proxies and data used in the other studies. Just flap your yap and demonstrate the depth of your stupidity.

They and their problems have all been discussed at Climate Audit. Most of them use the long discredited Bristlecone Pine studies.

 

[Old Rocks]

They're all based on the same bogus tree-ring proxy data, and they all use the same flawed statistical methods. Steve McIntyre examined all these hockey stick analysis, once removed, on his website - ClimateAudit.com

Sure, dumb ass, sure. And you obviously have never read anything concerning the proxies and data used in the other studies. Just flap your yap and demonstrate the depth of your stupidity.

They and their problems have all been discussed at Climate Audit. Most of them use the long discredited Bristlecone Pine studies.

LOL. So easy to repeat a really stupid lie, isn't it, Pattycake.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years

 

[IanC]

the WUWT article is about why the IPCC shouldnt have credulously accepted M Mann's 'disappearing' of the MWP. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ claims of the MWP and LIA being local were refuted years before it was published | Watts Up With That?

How were they refuted?

did you read the article? its not really that complicated.

the IPCC, Mann and others saw that the message would be much more dramatic if the MWP just went away and they could claim exceptional warmth. small fudges turned into bigger bodges which turned into outright misdirection and deception.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mann is the Bernie Madoff of Scientists

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the WUWT article is about why the IPCC shouldnt have credulously accepted M Mann's 'disappearing' of the MWP. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ claims of the MWP and LIA being local were refuted years before it was published | Watts Up With That?

How were they refuted?

did you read the article? its not really that complicated.

the IPCC, Mann and others saw that the message would be much more dramatic if the MWP just went away and they could claim exceptional warmth. small fudges turned into bigger bodges which turned into outright misdirection and deception.

Ohhpee can't read.

I've posted articles that he couldn't read either

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More than a dozen studies since Mann published his original paper. All confirm what his paper showed.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920...."

LOL

What a borehole

 

[Oddball]

Probably ignored because it is incorrect.

More likely they were ignored because they didn't point to the desired conclusion that the warmerists want.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Probably ignored because it is incorrect.

More likely they were ignored because they didn't point to the desired conclusion that the warmerists want.

When the data does not support the conclusion, find new data. If you can't find new data correct the old data until it fits.

How do you think Einstein was so successful? He made up charts and stuff about the speed of light and got Bohr and other to say the science is settled and they had consensus.

 

[IanC]

Sure, dumb ass, sure. And you obviously have never read anything concerning the proxies and data used in the other studies. Just flap your yap and demonstrate the depth of your stupidity.

They and their problems have all been discussed at Climate Audit. Most of them use the long discredited Bristlecone Pine studies.

LOL. So easy to repeat a really stupid lie, isn't it, Pattycake.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years

you never actually read anything from the skeptical side do you? Mann 2008 uses sediment cores that were deemed unacceptable for temp proxy by the author. once inserted into the methodology the results were turned upside-down for a better fit! and this guy and his work are taken seriously?

Mann2008 was indeed run separately without treerings but with the Tiljander core. and without the Tiljander cores but with the treerings. and both still had residual hockeystick shape. but of course without either one or both of those proxy sets the validation stopped ~1650. yes they prove it was colder during the LIA.

Old Rocks- does it never occur to you that these tainted proxies and questionable methodologies should not be used? do you not understand that throwing out the data that disagrees with you and emphysising the data you like distorts the results?

you better get used to bad papers like Gergis getting pulled. Mann98,99,08 wouldnt get through now either. it has been a tough haul but the antiseptic light of day is getting through to the cesspool of Hockey Team climate science

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks- the latest thread at Climate Audit is kinda interesting. you should read it.

it uses Mann and Schmidt's made up temperature set and pseudo-proxies that they developed earlier to rebut something else. the interesting part is that screening proxies for agreement in the training period actually gives worse results than using all the proxies or just a random set of proxies. good agreement in one time frame does not gaurantee good agreement over the whole length. yet another crack in the edifice. screening for hockey sticks only gets you hockey sticks, not the truth

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet, when researchers not at all connected with Mann use differant proxies, from very differant sources, they still come up with something that looks kinda like a hockey stick. With us on the high end right now.

As with the BEST study, no matter how the study is done, if it does not fit the preconcieved notions of those trying to deny what is currently happening, it will be found to be somehow wanting. Watt stated that he would accept whatever Muller found when the study was announced. Now, since the study verified all the earlier studies, he states that the methodology was in error.

In the meantime, the continental ice in Greenland and Anarctica continues to melt faster than predicted, the Arctic Ice is headed for an all time low, and we are having a hot year coming off a double La Nina, and still in ENSO neutral conditions. Reality is rapidly making the denialists look like the fools they are.

 

[bripat9643]

Yet, when researchers not at all connected with Mann use differant proxies, from very differant sources, they still come up with something that looks kinda like a hockey stick. With us on the high end right now.

"Not at all connected with Mann?" He sits on the boards of Climate Journals that approve their papers for publication. He's one of their buddies. The Climate Research industry consists of a very small clique of people who all know each other quite well.

As with the BEST study, no matter how the study is done, if it does not fit the preconcieved notions of those trying to deny what is currently happening, it will be found to be somehow wanting.

The same goes for warmist cult members.

Watt stated that he would accept whatever Muller found when the study was announced. Now, since the study verified all the earlier studies, he states that the methodology was in error..

Even if true, that would not prove the study was done correctly. The only way to prove it that is look at what was actually done. third party opinions about it are irrelevant.

In the meantime, the continental ice in Greenland and Anarctica continues to melt faster than predicted, .

Wrong. It's not even melting in Antartica. It's getting thicker.

the Arctic Ice is headed for an all time low, and we are having a hot year coming off a double La Nina, and still in ENSO neutral conditions. Reality is rapidly making the denialists look like the fools they are.

Total horseshit. Average global temperature is trending down, not up.

 

[Oddball]

Yet, when researchers not at all connected with Mann use differant proxies, from very differant sources, they still come up with something that looks kinda like a hockey stick. With us on the high end right now.

"Not at all connected with Mann?" He sits on the boards of Climate Journals that approve their papers for publication. He's one of their buddies. The Climate Research industry consists of a very small clique of people who all know each other quite well.

Which tells us all we need to know about "peer review".