My, my. The Mann graph has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies by many scientists.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick
Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).
Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).
Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006)
Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.
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.
Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).
Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.
Notice that the differant lines are from differant scientific studies? Not just Mann.
Now, if you wish, I can go to Google Scholar and present a whole bunch of papers confirming the above. Would you like me to do that?
More discredited Michal Mann and his fraud.... You need new material. every single paper that attempts to give man credibility has been shown fraudulent by either out right deception or manufacturing data.
Now Booby, how about a source?
What is the upper end of the time scale on that graph Ian?
Ahh, never mind, finally caught the kabp (thousands of years before present. "Before Present" refers to 1950. I strongly suspect that a graph of instrumental data carrying that forward to, say 2014, would show a continuation of the rather dramatically rising temps with which your graph ends.
And, of course, Huang and Pollock did precisely what you complain about the IPCC doing: a shorter term reconstruction, shown here:
And, in perusing Huang & Pollock, I came across text equating 1800 BP with AD 200. Therefore, they are using 2000 AD as the "Present".
changed yet again? while I am glad you now know what date the present is in that study, could you tell me where your original 1950 came from? was it in one of the other HP papers?
It was standard practice in paleo-fill-in-the-blank. What did you think BP meant?
From Dictionary.com
B.P.
1.
Bachelor of Pharmacy.
2.
Bachelor of Philosophy.
3.
Finance. basis point.
4.
Archaeology. before the present: (in radiocarbondating) in a specified amount of time or at aspecified point in time before a.d. 1950:
between 2 and 3 million years b.p.; humangroups living in cities by 5000 b.p.
5.
Commerce. bills payable.
Effect of revising the PAGES Arctic 2k database on the Arctic annual temperature reconstruction published recently by the PAGES 2k Consortium1. (a) Reconstruction calculated using the original (black) and updated database presented here (red). (b) Scatter plot illustrating the influence of the revisions; 1:1 line shown in red. (c) Time-series of the differences in reconstructed temperature (revised—original); no change shown as red line. (d) Comparison between Kaufman et al.7 Arctic—wide temperature reconstruction and the revised PAGES 2k Arctic reconstruction (averaged to decadal values). Note the factor-of-two difference in the temperature scales.
Figure 1: Polar projection showing the location and archive type of proxy temperature records in the PAGES Arctic 2k database.
An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2 000 years Scientific Data
See, Pattycake, instead of presenting baseless flap yap, you could use scientific papers that support your arguement. If you can find any.
how does that work?For Crick- New Pages2k Data Paper Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
that is the graph of the data (data which had to be forced from the authors by the journal) which appears in old rocks' linked graph at the bottom, with two scales both in degrees Celcius.
which one is clearer? how can this type of bulllshit keep getting repeated over and over again, year after year? where are the adults in climate science, and when will they say enough is enough?
how does that work?For Crick- New Pages2k Data Paper Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
that is the graph of the data (data which had to be forced from the authors by the journal) which appears in old rocks' linked graph at the bottom, with two scales both in degrees Celcius.
which one is clearer? how can this type of bulllshit keep getting repeated over and over again, year after year? where are the adults in climate science, and when will they say enough is enough?
how do I know which part of the graph is for the axis on the left or the one on the right since they are both C. I was being facetioushow does that work?For Crick- New Pages2k Data Paper Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
that is the graph of the data (data which had to be forced from the authors by the journal) which appears in old rocks' linked graph at the bottom, with two scales both in degrees Celcius.
which one is clearer? how can this type of bulllshit keep getting repeated over and over again, year after year? where are the adults in climate science, and when will they say enough is enough?
What do you mean?
how do I know which part of the graph is for the axis on the left or the one on the right since they are both C. I was being facetioushow does that work?For Crick- New Pages2k Data Paper Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
that is the graph of the data (data which had to be forced from the authors by the journal) which appears in old rocks' linked graph at the bottom, with two scales both in degrees Celcius.
which one is clearer? how can this type of bulllshit keep getting repeated over and over again, year after year? where are the adults in climate science, and when will they say enough is enough?
What do you mean?
Maybe because it is real scientists presenting real evidence, rather than an undegreed intornet poster flapping yap.
Effect of revising the PAGES Arctic 2k database on the Arctic annual temperature reconstruction published recently by the PAGES 2k Consortium1. (a) Reconstruction calculated using the original (black) and updated database presented here (red). (b) Scatter plot illustrating the influence of the revisions; 1:1 line shown in red. (c) Time-series of the differences in reconstructed temperature (revised—original); no change shown as red line. (d) Comparison between Kaufman et al.7 Arctic—wide temperature reconstruction and the revised PAGES 2k Arctic reconstruction (averaged to decadal values). Note the factor-of-two difference in the temperature scales.
Figure 1: Polar projection showing the location and archive type of proxy temperature records in the PAGES Arctic 2k database.
An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2 000 years Scientific Data
See, Pattycake, instead of presenting baseless flap yap, you could use scientific papers that support your arguement. If you can find any.
This is exactly what makes Old Rocks so infuriating to deal with. I started a thread to discuss this exact paper and he stayed out of it except to link the original paper that had even more errors in it.
I am not going to bother rehashing the whole thing but I would like to point out the one graph that has two y-axis, both in degrees Celsius. Why would they have different scales other than to obfuscate the results? How does this crap get through peer review?
