In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:40:47 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
And that's without even getting into their other 'tricks', like their
cute little 'secret software' that automagically creates hockey stick
trends from trendless data sets.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...if-the-hockey-
stick-were-wrong/
In the first place, you are quoting from a site specifically created
by the same cabal creating the hockey stick graphs and designed for
the purpose of AGW propaganda. I would be much more impressed if you
were familiar with all sides.
Yes, that's Michael Mann.
Btw, if you hadn't noticed, everything in my original post came from
Jones' own mouth (and his data), not a 'skeptic'.
You contributed a substantial and misleading gloss while not providing a
cite to the original source.
So let's try some more exciting "what ifs". In mid-20th Century,
medieval temperatures are exceeded in all the reconstructions,
That is a flim flam as 'all the reconstructions' come from the same
cabal members who share the same data sets, use the same 'techniques'
(like Mike's 'nature trick' and 'hide the decline'), and compare,
coordinate, and 'correct' their results to conform each other.
They then, laughably, call them 'independent studies'.
There's a term for people who believe others are secretly allied.
hence
recent (last 10-15 years, say) temperatures appear to be unprecedented
for at least a millennium (that even holds for the alternative histories
presented by the "hockey stick" critics).
The claim about 'critics' is simply a flat out falsehood.
The MWP is more than a millenium past.
Now what if that were wrong -
if all proxy reconstructions as well as model simulations of the past
millennium were fundamentally in error?
Deceptive 'let's pretend to be generous' word game to suggest it's
'highly unlikely' the models (and reconstructions) could possibly be
in error. The fact of the matter is the models have to be constantly
pushed, nudged, and 'corrected' all along the way to get anything
resembling the record which, as we've seen, if iffy to begin with. You
can just as easily, by the same methods and degree of 'confidence',
nudge them to a completely contradictory result.
Btw, if the reconstructions are in error then what does that tell you
about a model that supposedly 'matches' it?
And btbtw, the reason the models appear to be 'in agreement' with each
other is because they are all 'nudged' to the same expectation.
That seems a circular argument.
Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than
the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate
change.
Strawman argument.
No one claims it does. The 'dispute is about AGW proponents
perpetually using it to make unsubstantiated claims about
'unprecedented'.
The famous conclusion of the IPCC, "The balance of evidence
suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate",
does not depend on any reconstruction for the past millennium.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Not only that but an appeal to a supposed
'authority' dominated by the same cabal and another case (like the
faux 'independent studies) of the cabal essentially quoting itself to
supposedly 'support' itself.
Ad hominem.
It
depends on a detailed analysis of 20th Century data.
I've seen the 'analysis' and it's a pile of selective data culling
where they, without any justification, summarily toss out anything
(such as 100 years worth of meticulous CO2 measurements) that does not
'fit' the pre arrived at assumptions and conclusion (I.E. most the 100
years CO2 measurements were summarily discarded because they
contradicted the IPCC's original whole cloth assumption that CO2 was
'stable' and 'low'.)
In fact, this
conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence
of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the "hockey stick".
Back to the strawman. The issue is the unsubstantiated claim of
current temperatures being 'unprecedented' (warmer than the MWP, which
begs the even warmer Roman Warm period) and not whether 20'th century
temperatures rose after the Little Ice age.
Climate changes can have several different reasons, and the cause of any
particular climate change needs to be investigated on a case by case
basis. It cannot be found by looking at one temperature curve.
Fair enough, at least on the surface, and no one ever claimed
otherwise.
It's a slight of hand, though, because the whole *point* of the hockey
stick was specifically to 'show' current temperatures 'highest of the
last 2,000 years' (banner headline, story at 10) and to 'erase' the
MWP. Looking at 'one temperature record' is precisely what AGW
propagandists were trying to accomplish.
Had
medieval climate been warmer than the present, this would probably have
been due to some natural cause - perhaps a peak in solar output.
Maybe. But it would mean the unsubstantiated claim of 'unprecedented'
was false.
That
would only tell us that in principle, natural causes can cause warming
larger than what we've seen in the past decades. But we know that
already - one need only go back far enough in time (e.g., fifty million
years) to find examples of unquestionably warmer climates than today.
Quite right. Which makes the claim of 'unprecedented' a 'propaganda
tool.
However, it would be naive to conclude that the observed strong 20th
Century warming therefore also must have a natural cause.
False choice argument. No one claims it "must have a natural cause"
but since it's happened before it's certainly a 'possibility' that AGW
worshippers will simply not even investigate.
It is the AGW worship camp that declares 'must be' based on a CO2
conjecture that has no better correlation than sun spots. Which, btw,
some claim also has a 'divergence problem' in recent years but since
throwing away 'divergence problems' is an honored AGW practice I
suppose the 'natural causes' folks can do the same and declare the
'science is settled'.
Take away the hockey stick and the word unprecedented and you're left
with substantial warming and increased CO2 levels over the last century.
Some of the statistical methods you question are likely valid: I don't
have the time enough to learn enough about it to second guess
peer-reviewed studies. (Mann's hockey stick has had its share of peer
correction.)
Those looking for conspiracies would do better to look at the funding
behind certain of the AWG detractors.
Stephen