Here's an interesting study..

[Old Rocks]

I just realized there are no hockey sticks in any of those graphing's..

I know of a lot of papers that have ZERO hockey sticks in them, they cover regions of the planet. Many show little to no warming in them.

Warmists in this forum show strong allergic reactions to published papers I post, it seems they can't handle it.

OK, post them if they are from peer reviewed scientific journals. If the are from shit sites like WUWT, forget it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I just realized there are no hockey sticks in any of those graphing's..

I know of a lot of papers that have ZERO hockey sticks in them, they cover regions of the planet. Many show little to no warming in them.

Warmists in this forum show strong allergic reactions to published papers I post, it seems they can't handle it.

OK, post them if they are from peer reviewed scientific journals. If the are from shit sites like WUWT, forget it.

Your attitude is why you are ignorant and stupid on this topic.

The published papers are many and some have been around for decades, yet you indicate you have NEVER seen or read any of them.

 

[Crick]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Oceans cover 70% of the world.

Yes they do.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

[Crick]

"lack of warming in sheltered regions" indicates CO2 is not retaining heat, only water vapor is.... That one's gonna hurt!

Sorry, gosh, I missed it. When did mainstream science attempt to declare that water vapor wasn't a greenhouse gas?

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly Billy is a burger flippin' ignoramous that attempts to parade himself as a degreed atmophysicist. He and Mr. Westwall continually post links in which they misrepresent what was in the links. Sage is not exactly a trusted publisher of scientific papers.

SAGE Publications - Wikipedia

OASPA membership[edit]
SAGE Publishing was a founding member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) when it was established in 2008.[9] In November 2013, OASPA reviewed SAGE's membership after the Journal of International Medical Research published a false and intentionally flawed paper created and submitted by a reporter for Science as part of a "sting" to test the effectiveness of the peer-review processes of open access journals (see Who's Afraid of Peer Review?).[10] SAGE's membership was reinstated at the end of the six month review period following changes to the journal's editorial processes.[11]

 

[Sunsettommy]

This Marcott chart is a lie since the author himself says it is not robust and NOT part of his original thesis he published, it was added later:

Here is the chart from his THESIS paper, it in chapter 4:

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is a reply to McIntyre who asked him about the chart:

"Dear Stephen,

Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. Specifically, we concluded this based on several lines of evidence. (1) Comparison of the Standard5x5 reconstruction with the RegEM stack shows that they differ during this youngest 60-year interval, suggesting the reconstruction for the last 60 years is dependent on this methodology, whereas the agreement between the methods for the remainder of the reconstruction shows it is not dependent on this methodology. (2) Figure 1G shows the number of datasets going into the reconstruction in each time interval. In the online supplement, we evaluated in some detail the fidelity of global reconstructions based on the number of datasets included (for example, Fig. S13); that analysis notes a considerable reduction in the correlation of Monte Carlo reconstructions with an input global signal when the number of temperature time series becomes small. (3) In manuscript paragraph 5 (and in an extensive discussion in online supplement section 9), we evaluated effective smoothing of centennial to millennial scale variability, and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions. For these reasons, we do not use the reconstruction of the last 60 years shown in Figure 1 as the basis for any of our conclusions.

Regarding the NH reconstructions, using the same reasoning as above, we do not think this increase in temperature in our Monte-Carlo analysis of the paleo proxies between 1920 − 1940 is robust given the resolution and number of datasets. In this particular case, the Agassiz-Renland reconstruction does in fact contribute the majority of the apparent increase. The reason is that the small age uncertainties for the layer-counted ice core chronology relative to larger uncertainties for the other lake/ocean records. The Monte Carlo analysis lets the chronology and analytical precision of each data series vary randomly based on their stated uncertainties in 1000 realizations. In this analysis method, the chronologically well constrained Agassiz-Renland dataset remains in the 1920 − 1940 interval in all the realizations, while the lake/ocean datasets do not (and thus receive less weight in the ensemble). Again, this is why we were careful to include the analysis of sensitivity to number of datasets included.

Regarding the SH reconstruction: It is the same situation, and again we do not think the last 60 years of our Monte Carlo reconstruction are robust given the small number and resolution of the data in that interval.

Regards,
Shaun"

 

[Crick]

Perhaps the thesis title would be useful in determining the significance of the non-robust final 60 years of 11,000 years of temperature reconstruction:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

in which he clearly identifies the difference between his proxy reconstruction and the 0.51% of that graph sourced from the instrument record.

Marcott's study is entirely valid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Perhaps the thesis title would be useful in determining the significance of the non-robust final 60 years of 11,000 years of temperature reconstruction:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

in which he clearly identifies the difference between his proxy reconstruction and the 0.51% of that graph sourced from the instrument record.

Marcott's study is entirely valid.

Thank you for acknowledging that he never posted a hockey stick paper, as it was an add on without the corresponding data of credible resolution. Grafting instrumental data onto a much lower Proxy resolution level is science malpractice.

HIs paper is not even close to DR. Mann's paper since his is GLOBAL, while Mann's paper is Northern Hemisphere and only on land, a really small area of the planets surface. It still contradicts decades of research in history, Archeology and Geology. They all show a much deeper MWP and LIA than those proxy filled papers. Theirs are based on real data and first hand accounts of the times.

You learned how warmist scientists lies about their claims as I showed here. You were being mislead by the chart you posted, I gave you the true chart Marcott published along with his paper, which you still have not read since you show that you are STILL being mislead to what he really stated.

 

[miketx]

I just realized there are no hockey sticks in any of those graphing's..

I know of a lot of papers that have ZERO hockey sticks in them, they cover regions of the planet. Many show little to no warming in them.

Warmists in this forum show strong allergic reactions to published papers I post, it seems they can't handle it.

OK, post them if they are from peer reviewed scientific journals. If the are from shit sites like WUWT, forget it.

Peers usually all have the same viewpoint if they are lib stooges like most of them.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I just realized there are no hockey sticks in any of those graphing's..

I know of a lot of papers that have ZERO hockey sticks in them, they cover regions of the planet. Many show little to no warming in them.

Warmists in this forum show strong allergic reactions to published papers I post, it seems they can't handle it.

OK, post them if they are from peer reviewed scientific journals. If the are from shit sites like WUWT, forget it.

Peers usually all have the same viewpoint if they are lib stooges like most of them.

Agreed as the Wegman Report showed this pal review relationship very well.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps the thesis title would be useful in determining the significance of the non-robust final 60 years of 11,000 years of temperature reconstruction:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

in which he clearly identifies the difference between his proxy reconstruction and the 0.51% of that graph sourced from the instrument record.

Marcott's study is entirely valid.

Thank you for acknowledging that he never posted a hockey stick paper, as it was an add on without the corresponding data of credible resolution.

Your fixation on hockey stick graphs and your apparent belief that a graphic not displaying a hockeys stick refutes AGW is a good indication of the weakness of your grasp on climate science and science in general. Marcott's data don't display a hockey stick because his data lack the chronological resolution to do so. He tacked Mann's data to the right end of his chart solely for continuity's sake and, to be honest, came to regret his decision to do so. Marcott was not attempting to create another reconstruction of contemporary temperatures. He was working, along with Jeremy Shakun, to produce an accurate dataset of temperatures during the Holocene..

Grafting instrumental data onto a much lower Proxy resolution level is science malpractice.

It is no such thing. The two datasets were clearly delineated from each other. Your accusation is a common malpractice among deniers.

HIs paper is not even close to DR. Mann's paper since his is GLOBAL, while Mann's paper is Northern Hemisphere and only on land, a really small area of the planets surface.

More importantly, Mann, Bradley and Hughes were only interested in the past 1,000 years, while Marcott was going back over 11,000 and Shakun another 11,000 beyond that.

Marcott's conclusion makes no reference to MBH 98 or 99:

"Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5x5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P. Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3). Strategies to better resolve the full range of global temperature variability during the Holocene, particularly with regard to decadal to centennial time scales, will require better chronologic constraints through increased dating control. Higher resolution sampling and improvements in proxy calibration also play an important role, but our analysis (fig. S18) suggests that improvements in chronology are most important. Better constraints on regional patterns will require more data sets from terrestrial archives and both marine and terrestrial records representing the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere and central Pacific.

34. P. Brohan, J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. F. B. Tett, P. D. Jones, J. Geophys. Res. 111, D12106 (2006)."

It still contradicts decades of research in history, Archeology and Geology. They all show a much deeper MWP and LIA than those proxy filled papers. Theirs are based on real data and first hand accounts of the times.

Which, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, are all local reports. There is strong evidence that neither were fully global.

You learned how warmist scientists lies about their claims as I showed here.

No, I have not. I have, however, learned how you lie about what you have shown.

You were being mislead by the chart you posted, I gave you the true chart Marcott published along with his paper, which you still have not read since you show that you are STILL being mislead to what he really stated.

I read all of Marcott and all of Shakun several years ago. No one (save perhaps you) was misled by Marcott's graphic or the one I posted. The multiple data sources are clearly identified. If you're unable to comprehend data of that complexity, perhaps you should consider a different field of study.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Sunsettommy said: ↑
Grafting instrumental data onto a much lower Proxy resolution level is science malpractice."

Your irrational comment in reply,

"It is no such thing. The two datasets were clearly delineated from each other. Your accusation is a common malpractice among deniers."

It is still affixed on the end of the proxy data, which as a very different resolution than the instrumental data. It was put there for propaganda purposes which backfired spectacularly as YOU admitted.

You are that blind to your absurd lies?

The PURPLE line in the Marcott chart you posted carries the lie since his own original chart never had it. It was added AFTER he published his thesis, for the purpose of promoting a lie.

Please don't continue to be this stupid and dishonest again.

Crick writes,

"I read all of Marcott and all of Shakun several years ago. No one (save perhaps you) was misled by Marcott's graphic or the one I posted. The multiple data sources are clearly identified. If you're unable to comprehend data of that complexity, perhaps you should consider a different field of study."

You are lying like hell! since the ORIGINAL Marcott paper didn't have the uptick to it. There were NO such data for it either I gave YOU the LINK to his original research showing no such uptick in it, and no such data for it.

Stop LYING Crick!

I have exposed Shakun's dishonest omission that destroyed his claim, right here in this forum.

You go on and on with your dishonest replies, which as easy to expose.

Stop the lying.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Sunsettommy said: ↑
It still contradicts decades of research in history, Archeology and Geology. They all show a much deeper MWP and LIA than those proxy filled papers. Theirs are based on real data and first hand accounts of the times."

Which Crick replies with a lie, since it has been well shown for years that MWP and LIA were indeed global and supported by published science papers.

"Which, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, are all local reports. There is strong evidence that neither were fully global."

Here is a link to many published science papers showing evidence of the MWP in southern Hemisphere:

Medieval Warm Period Project

Now watch for the warmist lies on this link.

Snicker....................

 

[Crick]

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China[1] and other areas,[2][3] lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.[4] Other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Averaged global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming. Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.[5]

The period was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic and elsewhere termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that climatic effects other than temperature were important.[6][7]

It is thought that between c. 950 and c. 1100 was the Northern Hemisphere's warmest period since the Roman Warm Period. It was only in the 20th and 21st centuries that the Northern Hemisphere experienced warmer temperatures. Climatic Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a globally uniform event.[8]

Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia

References:

1. Li, H.; Ku, T. (2002). "Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Periods in Eastern China as Read from the Speleothem Records". American Geophysical Union. 71: 09. Bibcode:2002AGUFMPP71C..09L.
2. Grove, Jean M.; Switsur, Roy (1994). "Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period" (PDF). Climatic Change. 26 (2–3): 143. doi:10.1007/BF01092411.
3. Diaz, Henry F.; Hughes, M. (1994). The Medieval warm period. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 134. ISBN 0-7923-2842-6. 6.2 Evidence for a Medieval Warm Epoch
4. Mann, M. E.; Zhang, Z.; Rutherford, S.; et al. (2009). "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly" (PDF). Science. 326 (5957): 1256–60. Bibcode:2009Sci...326.1256M. doi:10.1126/science.1177303. PMID 19965474.
5. "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?". SkepticalScience. Retrieved October 12, 2017.
6. Bradley, Raymond S. (2003). "Climate of the Last Millennium" (PDF). Climate System Research Center.
7. Ladurie, Emmanuel Le Roy (1971). Times of Feast, Times of Famine: a History of Climate Since the Year 1000. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0-374-52122-0.[page needed]
8. Solomon, Susan Snell; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). "6.6 The Last 2,000 Years". Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ISBN 0-521-70596-7. Box 6.4

It would be far more productive to look for Denier lies, like yours, on this link.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Just as I expected, you didn't bother to read the link I gave you, where it has a number of papers from the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE that also show the fingerprint of the MWP there too

In fact if you just CLICKED on the link I posted, the first thing you see is this:

Study Description and Results
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia/New Zealand
Europe
North America
Northern Hemisphere
Oceans
South America

You are thus exposed.

You are terminally close minded.

You are exposed as a fool.

 

[Old Rocks]

Abstract
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years(Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

I'll go with PNAS material.

 

[Old Rocks]

[11] In Figure 3, the 2650‐year WTR is spliced into the instrumental MJJA records of 1930–2000 (overlap of 1930–1985). Because the LTC can better record a low‐frequency temperature signal than a high‐frequency one, the WTR is smoothed with a 101‐year low‐pass filter to emphasize multidecadal‐to‐centennial variations against the average of the overall sequence. It appears that warm and cool periods alternated cyclically on a centennial‐scale throughout the past millennia. Power spectral analysis indicates that cycles of about 206 and 325 years are significant. We further test the WTR with the historical climate chronology (HCC) [Shi and Zhang, 1996], which has been studied in great detail by Chinese historical climate scientists since Chu K'o‐chen first put forward his 5000‐year rough temperature profile [Chu, 1973]. The WTR agrees well with the HCC (Table 1), including the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) [Lamb, 1965] and the Little Ice Age (LIA) [Matthes, 1939]. An exception is the period centered on C‐7, which is described as the “Chunqiu warm period” in the HCC. This discrepancy may be due to sparse documentary evidence in the ancient historical writings (the first author has discussed this with the some authors of the HCC).


Figure 3
Open in figure viewerPowerPoint
2650‐year (BC665‐AD1985) WTR (see text) spliced with Beijing instrumental data from 1930‐2000. Solid red line is reconstructed MJJA temperature. Dark blue dashed line is errors. Pink dashed line is observed MJJA data. The 101‐year low‐pass filter (green solid line) shows centennial‐scale variation. The zero line (light blue dashed) corresponds to the overall mean of the reconstructed series. Thick and long arrows with capital letters W and C point out the “absolute” warm peaks (upward) and cool troughs (downward), respectively, at which temperature exceeds the average. Thin and short arrows with small letter w and c point out the “relative” warm peaks and cool troughs, respectively, at which temperature doesn't exceed the average.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL017352

The American Geophysical Union has a superb reputation for accurate papers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Abstract
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years(Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

I'll go with PNAS material.

Do you have any idea how many China papers you just ignored? There are at least 34 papers listed.

China is a very big country, Not surprising you can find an area that doesn't have a visible MWP in it, but those 34 papers you ignored DOES show clear signs of the MWP in them.

You are exposed as being a close minded fool.

Drop it as it is boring and destroys your argument when you acct this way.