The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

[mamooth]

Leaving out the LIA and MWP.

You've tried that crazy line before. It never made a bit of sense. The LIA is clearly there, and the MWP was local, so of course it doesn't show on a global plot.

Data molester.

Why not just admit you let yourself get played, and join the side of light? With reality piling up against you higher and deeper, it's not going to get any easier for the denier side. The quicker you switch, the easier it will be. As it is, only the craziest people are remaining with the deniers. Do you really want to be associated with them?

 

[westwall]

The net result of this thread is to show that the denialists simply cannot face reality. The Mann Graph stands, has been reproduced many times by many research teams using different proxies from different areas in the world. Between that graph, and what we are seeing in the Arctic and Antarctic, reality is closing in on the very stupid and the venal in this debate on climate.

Pure unadulterated bull poo. The graph was proven to be a fraud way back in 2004. Even the IPCC dropped it from their reports.

 

[westwall]

Leaving out the LIA and MWP.

You've tried that crazy line before. It never made a bit of sense. The LIA is clearly there, and the MWP was local, so of course it doesn't show on a global plot.

Data molester.

Why not just admit you let yourself get played, and join the side of light? With reality piling up against you higher and deeper, it's not going to get any easier for the denier side. The quicker you switch, the easier it will be. As it is, only the craziest people are remaining with the deniers. Do you really want to be associated with them?

The MWP has well over 100 peer reviewed papers that show it was GLOBAL, and warmer. You are lying yet again silly furball.

 

[RollingThunder]

Denier cult gibberish! Lots of fraudulent claims without any supporting evidence. FAIL!

Thank you for finally admitting that you're nothing more than a religious fruitcake! Now that you have admitted you have a problem you can get help. I suggest you do so. In the real world we have figured out that the hockey stick is a fraud. Now you can come to that realization too! Congrats!

What planet are you living on, walleyed? Or are you just hallucinating again? You certainly don't live in the real world of science and facts, as you have proven many times now. Your version of "the real world" resembles that BizarroWorld from the superman comics, where everything is the opposite from Earth.

Contrary to your delusions, the hockey stick graph is sound science, many times reproduced by other scientists, and obviously very reflective of the unprecedented modern abrupt and rapid temperature rise.

 

[mamooth]

The MWP has well over 100 peer reviewed papers that show it was GLOBAL, and warmer.

This is how Westwall and other deniers pull their fraud on the topic of the MWP.

They go to one of their favorite cult websites, maybe "CO2 Science", maybe a different one, and take a couple studies from their pre-cherrypicked list.

Study A at location A shows a warm temp spike at 1000AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study B at location B shows a warm temp spike at 1100AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study C at location C shows a warm temp spike at 1200AD, and cool temps at all other times.

The papers with no warm spikes at all, which would be most of them, are not mentioned. As those didn't support the denier cult agenda, they were not put on the cherrypicked list.

Now, honest and intelligent people would look at those studies as obvious evidence there was no global MWP. A global MWP would have to show warm temps over the whole period over the whole globe, yet those studies directly showed that wasn't the case. The studies the deniers pick actually contradict their claim of a global MWP.

Westwall, if you'd like, you can cut and paste that list of papers that disprove the claim that the MWP was global, and then pretend the opposite. Then I can go down the list, paper by paper, shredding your lies one by one. That would be fun. Why don't you do that? I only require that you post an actual link to each paper, because I shouldn't have to search the internet for every single paper. No actual link, it doesn't count.

 

[RollingThunder]

The net result of this thread is to show that the denialists simply cannot face reality. The Mann Graph stands, has been reproduced many times by many research teams using different proxies from different areas in the world. Between that graph, and what we are seeing in the Arctic and Antarctic, reality is closing in on the very stupid and the venal in this debate on climate.

Pure unadulterated bull poo. The graph was proven to be a fraud way back in 2004. Even the IPCC dropped it from their reports.

Ol' walleyed is always right on top of the latest denier cult propaganda memes. I think he must have a direct line to the Koch brothers. This latest one about the IPCC supposedly "dropping" the hockey stick graph is particularly fallacious and insane. The IPCC actually strengthened its conclusions about the rapid modern temperature rise that is well reflected in the many times reproduced and extended graph. Dr. Mann responded to these lies here. An excerpt....

"As some readers may know, the conclusion that modern warming is unique in a long-term context came to prominence with the temperature reconstruction that my co-authors and I published in the late 1990s. The resulting "Hockey Stick" curve, which demonstrates that the modern warming spike is without precedent for at least the past 1,000 years, took on iconic significance when it was prominently displayed in the "Summary for Policy Makers" of the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report. Thus, the "Hockey Stick" curve, as I describe in my recent book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars," became a focal point of the attacks by industry-funded climate-change deniers.

So, it might not come as a surprise that one of the most egregious misrepresentations of the IPCC's latest report involves the Hockey Stick and conclusions about the uniqueness of modern warming. [4 Things to Know About the IPCC's Climate Change Report]

An urban legend seems to be circulating around the echo chamber of climate-change denial, including contrarian blogs and fringe right-wing news sites. The claim is that the IPCC has "dropped" or "trashed" the Hockey Stick conclusion regarding the unprecedented nature of recent warmth.

A good rule of thumb is that the more insistent climate-change deniers are about any particular talking point, the greater the likelihood is that the opposite of what they are claiming actually holds. The IPCC has, in fact, actually strengthened its conclusions regarding the exceptional nature of modern warmth in the new report. A highlighted box in the "Summary for Policy Makers" states the following (emphasis mine):

"In the northern Hemisphere, the period 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence)."

The original 1999 Hockey Stick study (and the 2001 Third IPCC Assessment report) concluded that recent Northern Hemisphere average warmth was likely unprecedented for only the past 1,000 years. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment extended that conclusion back further, over the past 1,300 years (and it raised the confidence to "very likely" for the past 400 years). The new, Fifth IPCC Assessment has now extended the conclusion back over the past 1,400 years. By any honest reading, the IPCC has thus now substantially strengthened and extended the original 1999 Hockey Stick conclusions.

Only in the "up is down, black is white" bizarro world of climate-change denial could one pretend that the IPCC has failed to confirm the original Hockey Stick conclusions, let alone contradict them. [How Words Affect Climate Change Perception]

The stronger conclusions in the new IPCC report result from the fact that there is now a veritable hockey league of reconstructions that not only confirm, but extend, the original Hockey Stick conclusions. This recent RealClimate piece summarizes some of the relevant recent work in this area, including a study published by the international PAGES 2k team in the journal Nature Geoscience just months ago. This team of 78 regional experts from more than 60 institutions representing 24 countries, working with the most extensive paleoclimate data set yet, produced the most comprehensive Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction to date. One would be hard-pressed, however, to distinguish their new series from the decade-and-a-half-old Hockey Stick reconstruction of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onward. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999), with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman. - Credit: Klaus Bitterman, Stefan Rahmstorf

Conclusions about unprecedented recent warmth apply to the average temperature over the Northern Hemisphere. Individual regions typically depart substantially from the average. Thus, while most regions were cooler than present during the medieval era, some were as warm, or potentially even warmer, than the late-20th-century average. These regional anomalies result from changes in atmospheric wind patterns associated with phenomena such as El Niño and the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation. [U.S. Will Warm Dramatically By 2084, NASA Model Shows (Video)]

Colleagues and I, quoting from the abstract of our own article in the journal Science a few years ago (emphasis mine), stated:

"Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1,500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface-temperature patterns over this interval. The medieval period [A.D. 950-1250] is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally."

These conclusions from our own recent work are accurately represented by the associated discussion in the "Summary for Policy Makers" of the new IPCC report (emphasis mine):

"Continental-scale surface-temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950-1250) that were, in some regions, as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century(high confidence)."

However, never underestimate the inventiveness of climate-change deniers. Where there's a will, there is, indeed, a way: A meme now circulating throughout the denialosphere is that the IPCC's conclusions about regional warmth contradict our findings, despite the fact that those conclusions are substantially based on our findings.

One could be excused for wondering if climate-change deniers have lost all sense of irony.

The most egregious example of this latest contortion of logic found its way into the purportedly "mainstream" Daily Mail, courtesy of columnist David Rose, who admittedly has a bit of a reputation for misrepresenting climate scientists and climate science. Rose wrote in his column on Sep. 14, "As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the 'Medieval Warm Period' — long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil-fuel burning — is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable."

The most charitable interpretation is that Rose simply didn't actually read or even skim the final draft of the report, despite writing about it at length. For, if he had, he would be aware that the final draft of the report comes to the strongest conclusion yet about the unprecedented nature of recent warmth, extending the original Hockey Stick conclusion farther back than ever before — to the last 1,400 years.

Moreover, he would be aware that the existence of regional medieval warmth rivaling that of the late 20th century does not contradict that conclusion — indeed, it is the regional heterogeneity of that warmth, as established in ours and other studies, that leads the IPCC report to conclude that current levels of hemispheric average warmth are unprecedented for at least 1,400 years.

The lesson here, perhaps, is that no misrepresentation or smear is too egregious for professional climate-change deniers. No doubt, we will continue to see misdirection, cherry-picking, half truths and outright falsehoods from them in the months ahead as the various IPCC working groups report their conclusions.

Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors and the Rube Goldberg contraptions. The true take-home message of the latest IPCC report is crystal clear: Climate change is real and caused by humans, and it continues unabated. We will see far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts in the decades ahead if we do not choose to reduce global carbon emissions. There has never been a greater urgency to act than there is now.

The latest IPCC report is simply an exclamation mark on that already-clear conclusion."

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

Nope. And it's not relevant. We can't absolutely prove fairies don't radically change the climate of the earth on a yearly basis, but nobody decides climate science is pointless because of that. Your logic says we should, but your logic is awful.

Can you do it?? Can we discuss this like adults? Or are you just gonna continue to blubber and rant

Clearly you can't, because you refused to address the content of my post, and tried to deflect with insults. That's your usual thing. The key is to just go back to what you were trying to run from. I know you'll just hurl more insults and run again, but it's fun to make your intellectual vacuity clear.

Your train of logic is:

We can't absolutely prove sudden climate fluctuations aren't common and natural.

Hence, that has to be what's happening now.

That's shit science. You're the one making the positive assertion, that sudden climate fluctuations are common and natural. Hence, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, and everyone will ignore you until you do.

And quit misquoting me --- it's annoying and unethical.

Everything in quotes is not meant to be taken as a direct quote of someone. Even you know that. You knew I wasn't quoting you. You're feigning being stupid so you can take a dig at me.

You fail... Did the Fandango real well -- but avoided the very topic of this thread. Because YOU KNOW the answer or you're AVOIDING the answer. Everything else is just drivel as usual. A lot of ad homs and near lunatic rantings. .

 

[flacaltenn]

It would be immoral to patch on a chart of Brit Pound to yen ratio as determined in the 21st century to a 500 year "meta data" or proxy study of those values. Especially IMMORAL to than talk about yearly volatility of the index or the Local Maximums of the data per year.

Wouldn't it?

Not particularly, no. The problem would be with gradually changing economic systems making it an apples and oranges thing, not with data splicing. However, temperature is always temperature. That doesn't change.

So WhyTF would you ever tack on temperature data that we now measure HOURLY to data from 8,000 years ago that was essentially measured in 200 or 400 YEAR increments?

Because temperature is temperature. It's attaching like to like. Exactly how it was determined is not important.

That system I used as an analogy is NOT a gradually changing system. The exchange rate on currency is subject to SUDDEN and WILD fluctuations on a historical scale. And the PROXIES are NOT temperature. They are by definition SUBSTITUTES for temperature that have multivariant response to everything from precipt to CO2 levels to population density and to sediment and soil conditions.

You are NOT attaching "like to like".. You are tacking on data that has DAILY OR HOURLY accuracy to processed and extracted data that has resolutions of CENTURIES.. That's why...

 

[flacaltenn]

One down --- Two to go.. Hey Tinkerbelle, GoldiRocks --- you want to be more honest than Squidward was and take a whack at the 2 VERY SIMPLE questions that will make this an actual discussion???

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

 

[flacaltenn]

Denier cult gibberish! Lots of fraudulent claims without any supporting evidence. FAIL!

Thank you for finally admitting that you're nothing more than a religious fruitcake! Now that you have admitted you have a problem you can get help. I suggest you do so. In the real world we have figured out that the hockey stick is a fraud. Now you can come to that realization too! Congrats!

What planet are you living on, walleyed? Or are you just hallucinating again? You certainly don't live in the real world of science and facts, as you have proven many times now. Your version of "the real world" resembles that BizarroWorld from the superman comics, where everything is the opposite from Earth.

Contrary to your delusions, the hockey stick graph is sound science, many times reproduced by other scientists, and obviously very reflective of the unprecedented modern abrupt and rapid temperature rise.

I'll even come over to your dark demented world a bit --- just need you to answer the 2 simple questions that I asked..

YES --- The proxy studies are sound.. For what they are. Which is a very broad estimate of mean temperature over CENTURY scale sampling. They are NOT as informative as INDIVIDUAL and localized proxies for determining Peaks and rates. And they also do not have the temporal resolution of SHORTER TIME PERIOD High Resolution studies.

My issue is -- the HYPE and pronouncements that have been leaked to the public do NOT FIT the power of the data to make those huge leaps to conclusions.

Now answer the questions. Yes or No on #1. If NO -- answer the 2nd second question.

 

[RollingThunder]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

Nope. And it's not relevant. We can't absolutely prove fairies don't radically change the climate of the earth on a yearly basis, but nobody decides climate science is pointless because of that. Your logic says we should, but your logic is awful.

Can you do it?? Can we discuss this like adults? Or are you just gonna continue to blubber and rant

Clearly you can't, because you refused to address the content of my post, and tried to deflect with insults. That's your usual thing. The key is to just go back to what you were trying to run from. I know you'll just hurl more insults and run again, but it's fun to make your intellectual vacuity clear.

Your train of logic is:

We can't absolutely prove sudden climate fluctuations aren't common and natural.

Hence, that has to be what's happening now.

That's shit science. You're the one making the positive assertion, that sudden climate fluctuations are common and natural. Hence, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, and everyone will ignore you until you do.

And quit misquoting me --- it's annoying and unethical.

Everything in quotes is not meant to be taken as a direct quote of someone. Even you know that. You knew I wasn't quoting you. You're feigning being stupid so you can take a dig at me.

You fail... Did the Fandango real well -- but avoided the very topic of this thread. Because YOU KNOW the answer or you're AVOIDING the answer. Everything else is just drivel as usual. A lot of ad homs and near lunatic rantings. .

You seem to be talking to yourself, fecalhead.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your train of logic is:

We can't absolutely prove sudden climate fluctuations aren't common and natural.

Hence, that has to be what's happening now.

Aren't you the least embarrassed to butcher science and my words this badly? I need not prove ANYTHING that isn't supported by data or mathematics... I especially would not FAKE and HYPE weak data results to make outrageous claims NOT SUPPORTED by the information bandwidth of the data set.

However --- if you put down the Hockey Sticks and ALSO consider those shorter time period HI RES proxy studies --- you can get GLIMPSES of the variability of ancient data.

Problem is -- a 200 year study from a New Zealand forest 10,000 years ago is not as SEXY for public propaganda reasons as a FULL GLOBAL study over 10,000 years....

 

[flacaltenn]

1) Do you expect to see and accurately measure temperature dynamics in the Marcott study that have features SHORTER than 500 years in duration?

2) If NOT --- how would you EVER discuss rates of change or RELATIVE HIGH temperatures being higher NOW in a 100 year period compared to the data processing result in the Marcott Hockey Stick?

Nope. And it's not relevant. We can't absolutely prove fairies don't radically change the climate of the earth on a yearly basis, but nobody decides climate science is pointless because of that. Your logic says we should, but your logic is awful.

Can you do it?? Can we discuss this like adults? Or are you just gonna continue to blubber and rant

Clearly you can't, because you refused to address the content of my post, and tried to deflect with insults. That's your usual thing. The key is to just go back to what you were trying to run from. I know you'll just hurl more insults and run again, but it's fun to make your intellectual vacuity clear.

Your train of logic is:

We can't absolutely prove sudden climate fluctuations aren't common and natural.

Hence, that has to be what's happening now.

That's shit science. You're the one making the positive assertion, that sudden climate fluctuations are common and natural. Hence, the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim, and everyone will ignore you until you do.

And quit misquoting me --- it's annoying and unethical.

Everything in quotes is not meant to be taken as a direct quote of someone. Even you know that. You knew I wasn't quoting you. You're feigning being stupid so you can take a dig at me.

You fail... Did the Fandango real well -- but avoided the very topic of this thread. Because YOU KNOW the answer or you're AVOIDING the answer. Everything else is just drivel as usual. A lot of ad homs and near lunatic rantings. .

You seem to be talking to yourself, fecalhead.

So I count you out of the discussion then? You're just here to march and protest.. Good..

One LEFT --- C'mon OldRocks -- I know you're not afraid to answer those simple ass questions. You're the best of this bunch..

 

[mamooth]

Aren't you the least embarrassed to butcher science and my words this badly?

You constantly butchered the science. I just point it out. Don't shoot the messenger.

I need not prove ANYTHING that isn't supported by data or mathematics...

In your world, you clearly need not prove anything, period. You consider your pronouncements to be divine, not to be questioned by mere mortals. Then we question them, and you get so upset at our heresy.

I especially would not FAKE and HYPE weak data results to make outrageous claims NOT SUPPORTED by the information bandwidth of the data set.

That would another of your divine pronouncements, where you demand everybody BELIEVE.

However --- if you put down the Hockey Sticks and ALSO consider those shorter time period HI RES proxy studies --- you can get GLIMPSES of the variability of ancient data.

Problem is -- a 200 year study from a New Zealand forest 10,000 years ago is not as SEXY for public propaganda reasons as a FULL GLOBAL study over 10,000 years....

And we're back to you evading the topic again. You know, your awful logic where you declare that you have to be right because the other guys can't prove their case with absolute 100.000% certainty.

You're not capable of holding an adult conversation, so you're not worth my time or any honest person's time. Have fun making your divine pronouncements about your shit science, God-man. Try not to get too upset when the mortals won't worship you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Aren't you the least embarrassed to butcher science and my words this badly?

You constantly butchered the science. I just point it out. Don't shoot the messenger.

I need not prove ANYTHING that isn't supported by data or mathematics...

In your world, you clearly need not prove anything, period. You consider your pronouncements to be divine, not to be questioned by mere mortals. Then we question them, and you get so upset at our heresy.

I especially would not FAKE and HYPE weak data results to make outrageous claims NOT SUPPORTED by the information bandwidth of the data set.

That would another of your divine pronouncements, where you demand everybody BELIEVE.

However --- if you put down the Hockey Sticks and ALSO consider those shorter time period HI RES proxy studies --- you can get GLIMPSES of the variability of ancient data.

Problem is -- a 200 year study from a New Zealand forest 10,000 years ago is not as SEXY for public propaganda reasons as a FULL GLOBAL study over 10,000 years....

And we're back to you evading the topic again. You know, your awful logic where you declare that you have to be right because the other guys can't prove their case with absolute 100.000% certainty.

You're not capable of holding an adult conversation, so you're not worth my time or any honest person's time. Have fun making your divine pronouncements about your shit science, God-man. Try not to get too upset when the mortals won't worship you.

I take it the answer is "No -- I WON'T answer the simple ass questions" and "YES -- I'm proud of butchering science and misquoting people if it advances my beliefs"..

 

[westwall]

The MWP has well over 100 peer reviewed papers that show it was GLOBAL, and warmer.

This is how Westwall and other deniers pull their fraud on the topic of the MWP.

They go to one of their favorite cult websites, maybe "CO2 Science", maybe a different one, and take a couple studies from their pre-cherrypicked list.

Study A at location A shows a warm temp spike at 1000AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study B at location B shows a warm temp spike at 1100AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study C at location C shows a warm temp spike at 1200AD, and cool temps at all other times.

The papers with no warm spikes at all, which would be most of them, are not mentioned. As those didn't support the denier cult agenda, they were not put on the cherrypicked list.

Now, honest and intelligent people would look at those studies as obvious evidence there was no global MWP. A global MWP would have to show warm temps over the whole period over the whole globe, yet those studies directly showed that wasn't the case. The studies the deniers pick actually contradict their claim of a global MWP.

Westwall, if you'd like, you can cut and paste that list of papers that disprove the claim that the MWP was global, and then pretend the opposite. Then I can go down the list, paper by paper, shredding your lies one by one. That would be fun. Why don't you do that? I only require that you post an actual link to each paper, because I shouldn't have to search the internet for every single paper. No actual link, it doesn't count.

What I find amusing is how you claim the MWP was regional, but then can't present a

The MWP has well over 100 peer reviewed papers that show it was GLOBAL, and warmer.

This is how Westwall and other deniers pull their fraud on the topic of the MWP.

They go to one of their favorite cult websites, maybe "CO2 Science", maybe a different one, and take a couple studies from their pre-cherrypicked list.

Study A at location A shows a warm temp spike at 1000AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study B at location B shows a warm temp spike at 1100AD, and cool temps at all other times.

Study C at location C shows a warm temp spike at 1200AD, and cool temps at all other times.

The papers with no warm spikes at all, which would be most of them, are not mentioned. As those didn't support the denier cult agenda, they were not put on the cherrypicked list.

Now, honest and intelligent people would look at those studies as obvious evidence there was no global MWP. A global MWP would have to show warm temps over the whole period over the whole globe, yet those studies directly showed that wasn't the case. The studies the deniers pick actually contradict their claim of a global MWP.

Westwall, if you'd like, you can cut and paste that list of papers that disprove the claim that the MWP was global, and then pretend the opposite. Then I can go down the list, paper by paper, shredding your lies one by one. That would be fun. Why don't you do that? I only require that you post an actual link to each paper, because I shouldn't have to search the internet for every single paper. No actual link, it doesn't count.

Maybe you can explain to the class the physics of how a temperature spike would be confined to a single geographic point on the globe. This should be interesting...

 

[mamooth]

What I find amusing is how you claim the MWP was regional, but then can't present a

Sure I can. Any global temperature reconstruction will not show the MWP, being that it wasn't global.

Maybe you can explain to the class the physics of how a temperature spike would be confined to a single geographic point on the globe. This should be interesting...

So, Westwall is now claiming that all spots on the planet must vary in temperature at exactly the same rate, and there can be no localized warm or cool spots. It's not the dumbest theory he's put forth ... or maybe it is. It's hard to recall, given just how many insanely stupid theories he's put forth.

 

[RollingThunder]

Aren't you the least embarrassed to butcher science and my words this badly?

You constantly butchered the science. I just point it out. Don't shoot the messenger.

I need not prove ANYTHING that isn't supported by data or mathematics...

In your world, you clearly need not prove anything, period. You consider your pronouncements to be divine, not to be questioned by mere mortals. Then we question them, and you get so upset at our heresy.

I especially would not FAKE and HYPE weak data results to make outrageous claims NOT SUPPORTED by the information bandwidth of the data set.

That would another of your divine pronouncements, where you demand everybody BELIEVE.

However --- if you put down the Hockey Sticks and ALSO consider those shorter time period HI RES proxy studies --- you can get GLIMPSES of the variability of ancient data.

Problem is -- a 200 year study from a New Zealand forest 10,000 years ago is not as SEXY for public propaganda reasons as a FULL GLOBAL study over 10,000 years....

And we're back to you evading the topic again. You know, your awful logic where you declare that you have to be right because the other guys can't prove their case with absolute 100.000% certainty.

You're not capable of holding an adult conversation, so you're not worth my time or any honest person's time. Have fun making your divine pronouncements about your shit science, God-man. Try not to get too upset when the mortals won't worship you.

I take it the answer is "No -- I WON'T answer the simple ass questions" and "YES -- I'm proud of butchering science and misquoting people if it advances my beliefs"..

"Take" whatever you want and hallucinate over it all you want and twist it into a pretzel and shove where the sun don't shine......nobody cares!!!......since, as Mamooth just pointed out, you bring nothing to the debate but your unsupported, alternative-reality 'pronouncements'....and, I might add, massive ignorance and very delusional behavior. You are not any kind of scientist and you seem to know very little about it....so pretty much every "question" that you stupidly imagine is significant, is, in reality, not just "simple ass questions", but 'SIMPLE-MINDED questions' that have no relevance to whatever bit of science that you seem to somehow imagine you're qualified to refute.

I would ignore your anti-science nonsense completely....except that it is sometimes fun to debunk it with the real science from the actual working, publishing, climate scientists of the world, and rub your nose in it.

 

[westwall]

What I find amusing is how you claim the MWP was regional, but then can't present a

Sure I can. Any global temperature reconstruction will not show the MWP, being that it wasn't global.

Maybe you can explain to the class the physics of how a temperature spike would be confined to a single geographic point on the globe. This should be interesting...

So, Westwall is now claiming that all spots on the planet must vary in temperature at exactly the same rate, and there can be no localized warm or cool spots. It's not the dumbest theory he's put forth ... or maybe it is. It's hard to recall, given just how many insanely stupid theories he's put forth.

No, you have presented a fictional graph. How does physics explain the "bubble" of heat over an area? How is that possible? Here is one paper that deals with my neck of the woods. Significantly warmer during the MWP. But you claim that that is impossible. Looks like it is you who are the fool.

The Medieval Warm Period in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA

Millar, C.I., King, J.C., Westfall, R.D., Alden, H.A. and Delany, D.L. 2006. Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Quaternary Research 66: 273-287.


Working with dead tree trunks located above the current treeline on tephra-covered slopes of Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge south of Mono Lake just east of the Inyo Craters in the eastern Sierra Nevada range of California (USA), the authors identified the species to which the tree remains belonged, dated them, and (using contemporary distributions of the species in relation to contemporary temperature and precipitation) reconstructed paleoclimate during the time they grew there.


Millar et al. report that "the range of dates for the deadwood samples, AD 815-1350, coincides with the period identified from multiple [our italics] proxies in the Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin as the Medieval Climate Anomaly," among which are tree-ring reconstructions indicating "increased temperature relative to present (Graumlich, 1993; Scuderi, 1993) and higher treelines (Graumlich and Lloyd, 1996; Lloyd and Graumlich, 1997), and pollen reconstructions [that] show greater abundance of fir in high-elevation communities than at present (Anderson, 1990)."

Focusing on other of their findings, the five researchers say "the Medieval forest on Whitewing was growing under mild, favorable conditions (warm with adequate moisture)," as indicated by "extremely low mean sensitivities [to stress] and large average ring widths." More specifically, they conclude, as reported in their abstract, that annual minimum temperatures during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly in the region they studied were "significantly warmer" (+3.2°C) "than present," while in their final paragraph they say their results "closely compare to climate projections for California in AD 2070-2099 (Hayhoe et al., 2004)," in which "average temperature increases of 2.3-5.8°C were projected and slight increases or decreases in precipitation."

 

[mamooth]

No, you have presented a fictional graph.

That's right, every bit of data that goes against your cult dogma has to have been faked.

That's a cult trait, the manufacturing reality to match cult dogma. And you've also got the messiah worship, the paranoia, the demonization of others as enemies of the cult, the condemnation of critical thinking. Conclusion? Cultist.

How does physics explain the "bubble" of heat over an area? How is that possible?

The westwall "no bubbles" theory apparently says it can't get hot over the southwestern USA, because areas around it aren't hot. It just keeps getting more bizarre.

Here is one paper that deals with my neck of the woods. Significantly warmer during the MWP. But you claim that that is impossible. Looks like it is you who are the fool.

I claimed no such thing. I never said localized warmups could not exist. You're really just awful at this.