Antarctic and Arctic gaining ICE.. Not Melting...

[Crick]

I assume, Ian, you're keeping in mind that borehole temperatures are local.

 

[IanC]

I assume, Ian, you're keeping in mind that borehole temperatures are local.

what's the matter? havent had your coffee yet? or are you just retarded?

 

[Crick]

I had not had my coffee but no, I am not retarded. You are rude, though.

 

[jc456]

I assume, Ian, you're keeping in mind that borehole temperatures are local.

what's your point?

 

[Old Rocks]

Two standard deviations in the minus. More proof that it is cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science 9 October 1998:
Vol. 282 no. 5387 pp. 279-281
DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5387.279

• REPORT

Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective

1. Henry N. Pollack*,
2. Shaopeng Huang,
3. Po-Yu Shen

+Author Affiliations

1. ↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed.

• ABSTRACT

Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of Earth has increased by about 0.5°C and that the 20th century has been the warmest of the past five centuries. The subsurface temperatures also indicate that Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.0°C over the past five centuries. The geothermal data offer an independent confirmation of the unusual character of 20th-century climate that has emerged from recent multiproxy studies.

OK, now let's see what others have found.

 

[Old Rocks]

More;

The borehole temperature record of climate warming in the mid-continent of North America

• W.D. Gosnold, a, ,
• P.E. Todhunterb,
• W. Schmidta

Check access


Purchase $39.95

• 

doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(97)00002-7
Get rights and content


Abstract
Ground-surface temperature (GST) histories, determined from a carefully selected set of twenty-nine borehole temperature profiles, show a warming trend over the last century that increases systematically with latitude in the mid-continent of North America. Except one site in north Texas, the borehole locations lie within a 500 × 1000 km transect that extends from the Kansas-Nebraska border into southern Manitoba. Ground-surface warming during the last century increases from +0.4°C at 41.1°N to + 2.0°C at 49.6°N. Surface air temperature (SAT) warming in the transect, determined from Historical Climatology Network stations, increases from + 0.5°C per century at 40°C per century at 48.8°N. These warming trends agree with the regional warming pattern predicted by GCM simulations of global warming. However, the magnitudes of warming determined from the GST and the SAT data agree in regions where seasonal ground freezing does not occur but differ significantly where seasonal ground freezing does occur. Analysis of ground and air temperature coupling suggests that the greater warming observed in the GST histories in seasonally frozen ground is due to a secular increase in soil moisture that corresponds with increased precipitation during the past 50 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming - D Arrigo - 2006 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 1984 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Abstract
[1] Previous tree-ring–based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions portray a varying amplitude range between the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), “Little Ice Age” (LIA) and present. We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts. Unlike earlier studies, we quantify differences between more traditional (STD) and Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) methodologies, concluding that RCS is superior for retention of low-frequency trends. Continental North American versus Eurasian RCS series developed prior to merging to the hemispheric scale cohere surprisingly well, suggesting common forcing, although there are notable deviations (e.g., fifteenth to sixteenth century). Results indicate clear MWP (warm), LIA (cool), and recent (warm) episodes. Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600–1609) to warmest (1937–1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely “flatten out” estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global “fingerprint.” Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

Full article available at the site.

 

[Old Rocks]

PLOS ONE Growing Season Temperatures in Europe and Climate Forcings Over the Past 1400 Years
Conclusions
We found that our results were accurate back to 750. Cold periods prior to the 20th century can be explained partly by low solar activity and/or high volcanic activity. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) could be correlated to higher solar activity. During the 20th century, however only anthropogenic forcing can explain the exceptionally high temperature rise. Warm periods of the Middle Age were spatially more heterogeneous than last decades, and then locally it could have been warmer. However, at the continental scale, the last decades were clearly warmer than any period of the last 1400 years. The heterogeneity of MWP versus the homogeneity of the last decades is likely an argument that different forcings could have operated. These results support the fact that we are living a climate change in Europe never seen in the past 1400 years.

Again, full article available at the site.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Crock keeps posting up old pro-cagw crap. Much of which has been debunked or shown inaccurate. But all were peer reviewed by tightly controlled people in favor of CAGW.

SO much damage done by these people with the protection of crap and publishing of crap. The crap is so deep I haven't time to answer it all. Nor will i waste my time doing so.

The empirical evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Old Rocks]

Links to the articles debunking any of this, you silly little adolescent asshole.

 

[IanC]

as per usual, crick and old rocks simply ignore anything that doesnt fit into their view of things.

I actually found it quite interesting going through borehole papers, there are links to some of them in message #40. a few things I found out-

boreholes can be quite different even when they are only kilometers apart.

there are thousands of borehole samples.

the patterns and shapes of borehole composites seem to be very malleable. a large sample paper from the late 70's just happened to perfectly match Lamb's temperature reconstruction (the one from FAR, large MWP and LIA). Huang's 1997 version from above actually went back 20,000 years BP, showing the last Ice Age. it used over 6000 samples from around the world.

Huang 2000 seems to have been published to support the new millenium Mannian paradigm, using a 600 sample subset to show (something?) with an embarrassingly high certainty level.

Huang 2008 seems to be a return to a more typical shape. with explanations as to why the whole temp series was lowered, and why they accidentally thought 1900 was 1980 in previous papers. hahahahahaha.


I have said it before and I will say it again. proxy reconstructions are dependent on which samples are selected (preselected usually), the methodologies used to 'enhance' the temperature signal (Mann often gives certain series 100+ times the weighting, or even flips the series upsidedown if need be), and the arbitrary scaling and offsets used to combine different types of proxies.


I am not against reconstructions using proxies. they can give us useful information about the past and they are all we have. what I am against is data mining to support preconceived conclusions. the Gergis paper is a glaring example of this. they gave a methodology in their paper that would minimize the risk of only selecting proxy data that showed hockeystick shapes. when it was shown that in reality they had data mined for hockeysticks (after the paper was accepted for publication but before being published) the Journal insisted that they follow their stated methodology. Gergis et al decided to withdraw their paper rather than publish embarrassing results.

 

[IanC]

On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming - D Arrigo - 2006 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres 1984 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Abstract
[1] Previous tree-ring–based Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions portray a varying amplitude range between the “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP), “Little Ice Age” (LIA) and present. We describe a new reconstruction, developed using largely different methodologies and additional new data compared to previous efforts. Unlike earlier studies, we quantify differences between more traditional (STD) and Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) methodologies, concluding that RCS is superior for retention of low-frequency trends. Continental North American versus Eurasian RCS series developed prior to merging to the hemispheric scale cohere surprisingly well, suggesting common forcing, although there are notable deviations (e.g., fifteenth to sixteenth century). Results indicate clear MWP (warm), LIA (cool), and recent (warm) episodes. Direct interpretation of the RCS reconstruction suggests that MWP temperatures were nearly 0.7°C cooler than in the late twentieth century, with an amplitude difference of 1.14°C from the coldest (1600–1609) to warmest (1937–1946) decades. However, we advise caution with this analysis. Although we conclude, as found elsewhere, that recent warming has been substantial relative to natural fluctuations of the past millennium, we also note that owing to the spatially heterogeneous nature of the MWP, and its different timing within different regions, present palaeoclimatic methodologies will likely “flatten out” estimates for this period relative to twentieth century warming, which expresses a more homogenous global “fingerprint.” Therefore we stress that presently available paleoclimatic reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric scales, about MWP warmth relative to the present anthropogenic period and that such comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale.

Full article available at the site.

ya kno, I kinda have to respect Roseanne D'Arrigo. when she was asked at the congressional hearing for the hockeystick graph about cherrypicking evidence she said "it's hard to make cherry pie without picking cherries". hahahahaha

 

[mamooth]

Ian, be clear. She put up a slide on why cherrypicking is bad. Are you disagreeing or agreeing with her that cherrypicking is bad?

I just ask because you seem to be mocking her, which would imply you're very pro-cherrypicking.

 

[IanC]

Ian, be clear. She put up a slide on why cherrypicking is bad. Are you disagreeing or agreeing with her that cherrypicking is bad?

I just ask because you seem to be mocking her, which would imply you're very pro-cherrypicking.

Mamooth- just so we are clear on this point. You are stating that D'Arrigo was against cherry picking?

 

[mamooth]

I can't be sure, given I haven't seen her actual words. But that's the implication I get.

Just so we're clear, do you have any source for your rumor besides an unsupported claim from McIntyre or an unsupported claim from Montford?

As a cure for your Montford/McIntyre inspired delusions, I'd recommend this debunking from RealClimate/Tamino. Old stuff, but denier urban legends have a long shelf life.

RealClimate The Montford Delusion

 

[IanC]

mamooth- I'll get around to pulling up some info on d'Arrigo when I have the time and inclination. she and her senior partner Jacoby have been hiding data for decades, they only archive proxies that show the 'correct' information. that is so common in climate science that it can be considered SOP.

 

[IanC]

as per usual, crick and old rocks simply ignore anything that doesnt fit into their view of things.

I actually found it quite interesting going through borehole papers, there are links to some of them in message #40. a few things I found out-

boreholes can be quite different even when they are only kilometers apart.

there are thousands of borehole samples.

the patterns and shapes of borehole composites seem to be very malleable. a large sample paper from the late 70's just happened to perfectly match Lamb's temperature reconstruction (the one from FAR, large MWP and LIA). Huang's 1997 version from above actually went back 20,000 years BP, showing the last Ice Age. it used over 6000 samples from around the world.

Huang 2000 seems to have been published to support the new millenium Mannian paradigm, using a 600 sample subset to show (something?) with an embarrassingly high certainty level.

Huang 2008 seems to be a return to a more typical shape. with explanations as to why the whole temp series was lowered, and why they accidentally thought 1900 was 1980 in previous papers. hahahahahaha.


I have said it before and I will say it again. proxy reconstructions are dependent on which samples are selected (preselected usually), the methodologies used to 'enhance' the temperature signal (Mann often gives certain series 100+ times the weighting, or even flips the series upsidedown if need be), and the arbitrary scaling and offsets used to combine different types of proxies.


I am not against reconstructions using proxies. they can give us useful information about the past and they are all we have. what I am against is data mining to support preconceived conclusions. the Gergis paper is a glaring example of this. they gave a methodology in their paper that would minimize the risk of only selecting proxy data that showed hockeystick shapes. when it was shown that in reality they had data mined for hockeysticks (after the paper was accepted for publication but before being published) the Journal insisted that they follow their stated methodology. Gergis et al decided to withdraw their paper rather than publish embarrassing results.

I'm a little old for Sesame Street but I had watch it sometimes with nieces and nephews. They had a game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. The graph has three versions of borehole data. Can you pick out which one is not like the others? I knew you could. Can you pick out the one that the scientists at IPCC decided would look the best in their report? I knew you could.
.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

Dr. Benny Peiser is a longtime paid denier shill with zero climate science experience. Only dishonest deniers have ever called him a "global warming expert".

WHY would manboob attempt to piss all over Dr. Peiser?

Could it be that the guy has called bullshit on the "consensus" claims of the AGW Faithers?

Why yes. That might well be it:

Dr. Benny Peiser 8217 s Letter to 8220 Science 8221 and Its Rejection

Of course, there could be another reason. Maybe manboob is actually so ignorant that he believes that if you attack the individual opponent on a personal level, that DOES somehow translate into a refutation of WHAT the man had to say.

 

[jc456]

Well so much for the alarmist drivel. Even one of their own now admits IT ISNT HAPPENING!

The poles are not melting according to a global warming expert Dr Benny Peiser Nature News Daily Express
Source

Dr. Benny Peiser is a longtime paid denier shill with zero climate science experience. Only dishonest deniers have ever called him a "global warming expert".

WHY would manboob attempt to piss all over Dr. Peiser?

Could it be that the guy has called bullshit on the "consensus" claims of the AGW Faithers?

Why yes. That might well be it:

Dr. Benny Peiser 8217 s Letter to 8220 Science 8221 and Its Rejection

Of course, there could be another reason. Maybe manboob is actually so ignorant that he believes that if you attack the individual opponent on a personal level, that DOES somehow translate into a refutation of WHAT the man had to say.

or, merely that manboob is nothing but a person full of stupid!!!!