New Improved Hockey Stick?

[SSDD]

Mann's hockey stick served to wipe out the Medieval warm period even though dozens and dozens of studies world wide indicate that it was both warmer than the present and global in nature.

In the end though, mann failed to scare any but the most hopelessly duped. Now there is a new hockey stick that is being billed as even scarier than manns. Not only does this new hockey stick wipe out the Medieveal warm period, it takes out the Roman warm period and mostly erases the Holocene Maximum....and if that wasn't enough, they elimate the ice age which started coming to an end somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago and resulted in over 40 meters of sea level rise due to melting ice. Half of Canada was still covered in ice 10,000 years ago but the new and improved hockey stick indicates that temperatures were only 0.2 degrees cooler than they were in 1970.

Here is the new and improved hockey stick

How does this sort of claptrap make it through peer review? Here is the new and improved hockey stick overlaid with the 1990 IPCC historical temperature record. Do you warmers really take this stuff seriously? How do you maintain your faith in the face of such blatant bullshit?

 

[polarbear]

Mann's hockey stick served to wipe out the Medieval warm period even though dozens and dozens of studies world wide indicate that it was both warmer than the present and global in nature.

In the end though, mann failed to scare any but the most hopelessly duped. Now there is a new hockey stick that is being billed as even scarier than manns. Not only does this new hockey stick wipe out the Medieveal warm period, it takes out the Roman warm period and mostly erases the Holocene Maximum....and if that wasn't enough, they elimate the ice age which started coming to an end somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago and resulted in over 40 meters of sea level rise due to melting ice. Half of Canada was still covered in ice 10,000 years ago but the new and improved hockey stick indicates that temperatures were only 0.2 degrees cooler than they were in 1970.

Here is the new and improved hockey stick

How does this sort of claptrap make it through peer review? Here is the new and improved hockey stick overlaid with the 1990 IPCC historical temperature record. Do you warmers really take this stuff seriously? How do you maintain your faith in the face of such blatant bullshit?

Forget it SSD you are wasting your time debating with fruitcakes like Saigon and the other psycho. You might as well try confront MSNBC`s Chris Mathews with Obama`s lies. They get an Obama-asmus every time that liar opens his mouth....or in this case every time the IPCC or another quack publishes some more crap "science". Let them believe whatever the hell they want to...meanwhile the winters start earlier, are colder and last longer..no matter how much over-sized fat-print samo-samo-garbage they post, or what names they call you when you point it out....No matter what kind of "revised" hockey sticks are published none can change what`s in the history books about Admiral Nares, Lieutenant Greely and what these earlier arctic explorers found when they navigated with wooden vessels all the way up to where CFS Alert is today.
Maybe it`s better to move these debates over to the Clean Forum section, because they can`t debate clean.
But you are doing a good job not letting them shout you down and you are exposing them how intransigent and ridiculous they are, loosing more and more face with the usual cooky cutter responses they use.
When you succeed, all they will do is register under a different sock-puppet user name and keep on trolling same as before.
I would not worry about what they keep posting, because nobody reasonable reads their over and over again-samo-samo crap anyway.
That`s all they do...full time...they don`t read the news or study science...they post all day long every day from morning till late night the same crap over and over again...Just take a look at their user stats...that should tell you something.
Their entire useless activity is posting quotes from idiot blogs like "skeptical science"...that only alarmists and doomsday-preppers read. They want you to click on the links they keep posting and quoting because these blogs are becoming totally irrelevant as the public is getting better informed.
Go there and type in "Global warming" or something along these lines and you`ll see what I mean:

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Gloabl%20warming
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#cat=13&q=david irving&cmpt=q

 

[editec]

No offense but I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

 

[skookerasbil]

THE "GREEN MOVEMENT" HAS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE FRINGE.


The evidence is overwhelming........which at the end of the day is the only thing that matters isnt it??


I always loved those connect the dots games!!!!

 

[SSDD]

No offense but I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

I am not following you. Which part of my OP do you think is faith based? I didn't make up the new hockey stick, nor did I make up the historical graph which, incidentally, jibes with the known climate history. All I have done is point out, once again, how terribly wrong those you seem to be putting your faith in are.

Do you believe that 10,000 years ago when the polar ice cap covered half of canada that the temperatures were really only 0.2 degrees cooler than they were in 1970 as the new hockey stick claims? Do you believe that the holocene maximum which is documented in literally hundreds of studies suddenly never happened?

You either believe the new improved hockey stick is correct or you don't. If you do, then on what basis do you accept its claim that when half of canada was covered with ice that the temperatures were only 0.2 degrees cooler than the temps in the 70's and that the holocene maximum never happened? If you don't believe the new improved graph is accurate, then how do you continue to put your faith in people producing such shoddy work?

 

[editec]

Which part of my OP do you think is faith based?

That's a fair complaint in your case, SSDD.

I apologize for including you in the lot of the know-nothings who are, let's face it, anti-science.

I applaud your attempt to engage this board in discussing Climatology using science, too.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Which part of my OP do you think is faith based?

That's a fair complaint in your case, SSDD.

I apologize for including you in the lot of the know-nothings who are, let's face it, anti-science.

I applaud your attempt to engage this board in discussing Climatology using science, too.

A gentlemanly reply. Kudos. Some tiny little rep is forthcoming.

But your post still ducks the questions just posed to you by SSDD.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global temperatures are close to 11,000-year peak : Nature News & Comment

Dozens of studies, using many differant proxies have shown the MWP to be less warm than we are right now. One the Westwall posted derived from sediments in the oceans near the equator estimated the worldwide temperature rise from the MWP to be 0.2 C. We are at 0.7 C at present.

There was a very rapid melt of the continental ice sheets between 14,000 and 10,000 years ago. A temperature similiar to 1970 would go a long ways toward explaining the rapidity of that melt.

 

[TheOldSchool]

THE "GREEN MOVEMENT" HAS BEEN AND WILL ALWAYS BE FRINGE.


The evidence is overwhelming........which at the end of the day is the only thing that matters isnt it??


I always loved those connect the dots games!!!!

Evidence? Scooter ass Bill you know you don't believe in evidence

 

[SSDD]

Dozens of studies, using many differant proxies have shown the MWP to be less warm than we are right now. One the Westwall posted derived from sediments in the oceans near the equator estimated the worldwide temperature rise from the MWP to be 0.2 C. We are at 0.7 C at present.

There was a very rapid melt of the continental ice sheets between 14,000 and 10,000 years ago. A temperature similiar to 1970 would go a long ways toward explaining the rapidity of that melt.

Dozens eh? Here are a couple of dozen published papers that say you are wrong and if you want a few dozen or more saying the same thing, I will be glad to provide them. These only cover Africa, Antarctica, and a little bit of Asia. If you want more there are still dozens covering Australia, NewZealand, Europe, North America, The Rest of the Northern Hemisphere, the oceans, and South America.....lets see some of the dozens you claim support your position.

And the idea that half of Canada was covered under an ice pack with temperatures just 2 degrees cooler than the 70's is patently rediculous. You should be embarassed to even try and support such a claim considering the overwhelming volume of studies saying that it just never happened that way.

Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.

Tyson, P.D., Karlen, W., Holmgren, K. and Heiss, G.A. 2000. The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126.

Kuhnert, H. and Mulitza, S. 2011. Multidecadal variability and late medieval cooling of near-coastal sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical North Atlantic. Paleoceanography 26: 10.1029/2011PA002130.

Tierney, J.E., Mayes, M.T., Meyer, N., Johnson, C., Swarzenski, P.W., Cohen, A.S. and Russell, J.M. 2010. Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500. Nature Geoscience 3: 422-425.

Esper, J., Frank, D., Buntgen, U., Verstege, A., Luterbacher, J. and Xoplaki, E. 2007. Long-term drought severity variations in Morocco. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2007GL030844.

deMenocal, P., Ortiz, J., Guilderson, T. and Sarnthein, M. 2000. Coherent high- and low-latitude climate variability during the Holocene warm period. Science 288: 2198-2202.

Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.

Lamb, H., Darbyshire, I. and Verschuren, D. 2003. Vegetation response to rainfall variation and human impact in central Kenya during the past 1100 years. The Holocene 13: 285-292.

Russell, J.M. and Johnson, T.C. 2005. A high-resolution geochemical record from Lake Edward, Uganda Congo and the timing and causes of tropical African drought during the late Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 24: 1375-1389.

Ngomanda, A., Chepstow-Lusty, A., Makaya, M., Schevin, P., Maley, J., Fontugne, M., Oslisly, R., Rabenkogo, N. and Jolly, D. 2005. Vegetation changes during the past 1300 years in western equatorial Africa: a high-resolution pollen record from Lake Kamalété, Lopé Reserve, Central Gabon. The Holocene 15: 1021-1031.

Ngomanda, A., Jolly, D., Bentaleb, I., Chepstow-Lusty, A., Makaya, M., Maley, J., Fontugne, M., Oslisly, R. and Rabenkogo, N. 2007. Lowland rainforest response to hydrological changes during the last 1500 years in Gabon, Western Equatorial Africa. Quaternary Research 67: 411-425.

Karlén, W., Fastook, J.L., Holmgren, K., Malmström, M., Matthews, J.A., Odada, E., Risberg, J., Rosqvist, G., Sandgren, P., Shemesh, A. and Westerberg, L.-O. 1999. Glacier fluctuations on Mount Kenya since ~ 6000 cal. years BP: Implications for Holocene climatic change in Africa. Ambio 28: 409-418.

Kondrashov, D., Feliks, Y. and Ghil, M. 2005. Oscillatory modes of extended Nile River records (A.D. 622-1922). Geophysical Research Letters 32, L10702, doi:10.1029/2004GL022156, 2005.

Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.

Hall, B.L., Koffman, T. and Denton, G.H. 2010. Reduced ice extent on the western Antarctic Peninsula at 700-970 cal. yr B.P. Geology 38: 635-638.

Hall, B.L. 2007. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. The Holocene 17: 1253-1258.

Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.

Lu, Z., Rickaby, R.E.M., Kennedy, H., Kennedy, P., Pancost, R.D., Shaw, S., Lennie, A., Wellner, J. and Anderson, J.B. 2012. An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 325-326: 108-115.

Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J. 2003. Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Holocene 13: 251-263.

Hall, B.L., Hoelzel, A.R., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., Le Boeuf, B.J., Overturf, B. and Topf, A.L. 2006. Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 10,213-10,217.

Zicheng, P., Xuexian, H., Xiaozhong, L., Jianfeng, H., Guijian, L. and Baofu, N. 2003. Thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS)-U-series ages of corals from the South China Sea and Holocene high sea level. Chinese Journal of Geochemistry 22: 133-139.

Treydte, K.S., Frank, D.C., Saurer, M., Helle, G., Schleser, G.H. and Esper, J. 2009. Impact of climate and CO2 on a millennium-long tree-ring carbon isotope record. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73: 4635-4647.

Esper, J., Frank, D.C., Wilson, R.J.S., Buntgen, U. and Treydte, K. 2007. Uniform growth trends among central Asian low- and high-elevation juniper tree sites. Trees 21: 141-150.

Kalugin, I., Daryin, A., Smolyaninova, L., Andreev, A., Diekmann, B. and Khlystov, O. 2007. 800-yr-long records of annual air temperature and precipitation over southern Siberia inferred from Teletskoye Lake sediments. Quaternary Research 67: 400-410.

Isono, D., Yamamoto, M., Irino, T., Oba, T., Murayama, M., Nakamura, T. and Kawahata, H. 2009. The 1500-year climate oscillation in the midlatitude North Pacific during the Holocene. Geology 37: 591-594.

Honghan, Z. and Baolin, H. 1996. Geological records of Antarctic ice retreat and sea-level changes on the northern bank of the Shenzhen Bay. Tropical Sea 4: 1-7.

Zicheng, P., Xuexian, H., Xiaozhong, L., Jianfeng, H., Guijian, L. and Baofu, N. 2003. Thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS)-U-series ages of corals from the South China Sea and Holocene high sea level. Chinese Journal of Geochemistry 22: 133-139.

 

[polarbear]

No offense but I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

Fair enough !
But that`s not the way to prove a hypothesis:

I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

If, and so far it`s only an if climatology found a correlation between actually measured CO2 ppm and ACCURATE temperature trends that`s only the first step.
So far the first step does not pass the scrutiny of scientists that are better qualified than climatologists to do the statistical analysis and the other scientific disciplines that it takes for this hybrid science, which exists chiefly for political purposes,...once that is done then we have a consensus.
After this (TRUE!) consensus is reached it`s still a far cry from a proven hypothesis.
Next comes accurate and fact relevant experimentation first on a small scale to show that the proportional relation ship between ppm and observable temperature increase is the same as observed in the data set of the original hypothesis.
Putting a capped bottle filled with CO2 in front of a heat lamp is not what real scientists were waiting for.
Neither is a sealed off glass hut with a lethal CO2 concentration baking in the sun.
And a "thought experiment" like Spencer`s were nothing is quantified is about as far off the mark as it could be.
Once you have shown the exact temperature increase per x ppm CO2 while not dis-allowing expansion and convection and the relationship is the same as in the hypothesis then you are half way there, but only half !
Last not least you have to show that there were no other factors involved during the time frame of the original data set.


Sorry mate, but that`s the standard set for physics, chemistry, math and every field of engineering.
So far demo-stats for political purposes and clever sales projections for questionable stocks were the areas that refused to conform to this standard.
Now we can add "climatology" to this list.

As long as we have a body of "climatologists" who have arrived at the consensus that their own consensus makes all the other steps obsolete you can`t expect that all the other skeptics which are engineers, physicists, chemists, geologists and mathematicians accept the AGW hypothesis.

So far climatology has thwarted all efforts to audit their raw data, their data selection methods criteria (a.k.a. Cherry picking) and labelled all such skeptics as some sort of "Oil lobby" activists while most of the IPCC peer review is in fact done by non-scientists...many don`t even have an academic background but edit final reports removing all traces of skepticism in the published version of such sorry "peer reviews" that produced the consensus that you are using to make up your mind.
Please do read some of the other posts where the links to these audits and their findings have been posted.
If you want them I`ll post all that stuff here again.
As food for thought I`ll leave you to ponder how a non-linear (log) function as the CO2 IR absorption could possibly result in a picture perfect linear relationship with temperature as in every graph that "climatology" has published to date.
Common folk heed the warning "if it`s too good to be true it probably is not true".
If you are not a scientist, that does not prevent you from applying some common sense and caution before you buy into this hypothesis and expect all others to put their tax dollars where you believed so easily they should go.

It won`t be long and the usual trolls will be here to bury everything they don`t like with several pages of over sized fat-print.
Before they do and if you got a good broadband connection click on this link and pick one that has the entire ORIGINAL CBC documentary:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

 

[RollingThunder]

Mann's hockey stick served to wipe out the Medieval warm period even though dozens and dozens of studies world wide indicate that it was both warmer than the present and global in nature.

In the end though, mann failed to scare any but the most hopelessly duped. Now there is a new hockey stick that is being billed as even scarier than manns. Not only does this new hockey stick wipe out the Medieveal warm period, it takes out the Roman warm period and mostly erases the Holocene Maximum....and if that wasn't enough, they elimate the ice age which started coming to an end somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 years ago and resulted in over 40 meters of sea level rise due to melting ice. Half of Canada was still covered in ice 10,000 years ago but the new and improved hockey stick indicates that temperatures were only 0.2 degrees cooler than they were in 1970.

Here is the new and improved hockey stick

How does this sort of claptrap make it through peer review? Here is the new and improved hockey stick overlaid with the 1990 IPCC historical temperature record. Do you warmers really take this stuff seriously? How do you maintain your faith in the face of such blatant bullshit?

And here's another idiotic rant from SSoooDDuuumb that is once again based solely on his own ignorance. Plus a huge helping of stupidity and denier cult insanity.

The ice sheets covering North America started to melt off about 14,000 years ago. There was a brief resurgence of glaciation in the norther hemisphere called the Younger Dryas, which ended about 11,500 years ago. 10,000 years ago, temperatures were similar to temperatures about a half century ago.

The Younger Dryas
The Younger Dryas is one of the most well-known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, the Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state. Partway through this transition, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere suddenly returned to near-glacial conditions (Figure 6). This near-glacial period is called the Younger Dryas, named after a flower (Dryas octopetala) that grows in cold conditions and became common in Europe during this time. The end of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago, was particularly abrupt. In Greenland, temperatures rose 10° C (18° F) in a decade.

The Last Glaciation
The world's most recent glacial period began about 110,000 years ago and ended around 12,500 years ago. The maximum extent of this glacial period was the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and it occurred around 20,000 years ago.

Holocene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holocene is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (around 12,000 to 11,500 14C years ago) and continues to the present. The Holocene is part of the Quaternary period. Its name comes from the Greek words ὅλος (holos, whole or entire) and καινός (kainos, new), meaning "entirely recent". It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1 and based on that past evidence, can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age.

The Holocene also encompasses within it the growth and impacts of the human species world-wide, including all its written history and overall significant transition toward urban living in the present. Human impacts of the modern era on the Earth and its ecosystems may be considered of global significance for future evolution of living species, including approximately synchronous lithospheric evidence, or more recently atmospheric evidence of human impacts. Given these, a new term Anthropocene, is specifically proposed and used informally only for the very latest part of modern history and of significant human impact since the epoch of the Neolithic Revolution (around 12,000 years BP).

 

[skookerasbil]

Voters list of concerns.............from Pew Research...........


From 2010...........

Global Warming? Dead last s0ns!!!!






And from 2012..............

Ooooooops......didnt even make the cut!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The Green Agenda and the Political Tipping Point - Energy TribuneEnergy Tribune

 

[polarbear]

No offense but I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

I logged out and when I was redirected to the page with the ignore list deactivated I could see that the usual over sized fat print samo-samo trolling is already in full swing again.
They just can`t stand it if there is something posted that they hate.
These trolls sit all day long 24/7 at their PC and wait till somebody posted something against their religion and it does not take them even a minute to plaster several screen pages full of advertising sized copy&paste print over it.
I responded to you ~ 10 minutes ago, but now you already have to scroll back till your mouse wheel smokes to find it.
Like I said to SSDD,...take a look at their user stats...at least 20 pages full of LOLOLOL and placard sized fat print garbage every day ever since they registered here.

 

[SSDD]

And here's another idiotic rant from SSoooDDuuumb that is once again based solely on his own ignorance. Plus a huge helping of stupidity and denier cult insanity.

Clueless as usual, but thanks for coming round to demonstrate your abnormal psychological reaction to having your faith questioned. Interesting that you would deny the standard historical temperature as stated by the IPCC.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And here's another idiotic rant from SSoooDDuuumb that is once again based solely on his own ignorance. Plus a huge helping of stupidity and denier cult insanity.

Clueless as usual, but thanks for coming round to demonstrate your abnormal psychological reaction to having your faith questioned. Interesting that you would deny the standard historical temperature as stated by the IPCC.

You challenged his FAITH!

What else COULD he DO other than to deny FACTS?

 

[RollingThunder]

And here's another idiotic rant from SSoooDDuuumb that is once again based solely on his own ignorance. Plus a huge helping of stupidity and denier cult insanity.

Clueless as usual, but thanks for coming round to demonstrate your abnormal psychological reaction to having your faith questioned. Interesting that you would deny the standard historical temperature as stated by the IPCC.

You got your moronic nonsense debunked, as usual. Period.

 

[IanC]

it will be interesting to see what sort of proxies were chosen for this study. and the method for choosing them. and how they were combined.

 

[Old Rocks]

it will be interesting to see what sort of proxies were chosen for this study. and the method for choosing them. and how they were combined.

It is in the journal Science.