"Michael E. Mann It is hard to take Delingpole seriously. The man is a clown, and that's being charitable...

Love you too, Mikey babes. Stay classy!"

Jim, my dear boy, you are being far too charitable.
You should have called him a Tw@t of the highest order mate.

If you're unfamiliar with the Mann-made fiction, read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford where he exposes the shoddy cut-and-paste data splicing. If you just want to refresh your memory of the comic behavior of this climate alchemist high priest, read....

"Hockey Stickery Doc" and "Penn Panel Limbos Under the Hockey Stick"

Both articles are in archive at Canada Free Press and under Satire at FSS.

Every "proxy" has multiple error modes which only compound with longer durations. These extrapolations are offered with no real world limitations. Also see....

"Amazing ! New ! Wrongco Proxy Crock !"

posted at CFP archive and FSS Satire tab....

The Fahrenheit thermometer was invented in 1724 and did not get wide distribution for decades. Variations in manufacture, in recorded observations and limited distribution limit this "data" in any world wide reconstruction.

So....there is NO reliable data or proxy capable of the "accuracy" projected by the climate alchemists. To assume otherwise is NOT wise.

What is it about elitist directed FAUX SCIENCE that you refuse to comprehend ? ? ?

Carbon climate forcing, 'sustainable' energy, 'peak' oil and big bang are all CRAP false paradigm narratives.

We have been systematically LIED to about everything, but your too simpleminded to notice.

You keep asking the same pointless question, Which no doubt you will dismiss ANY answer he gives You. Let me give you a hint, Look back on the Slayer's previous points and you might save yourself some further embarrassment, But I doubt it. In this battle of wits you appear to be unarmed.

Um, chumplett, the history of the thermometer isn't a red herring. It's reality. It may be hard for you in the School of Government to comprehend, but the thermometer has been the primary means of measuring temperature over the years.

No, and I'm not going to spend my life continually responding to a cultist, armed with the same talking points as the last cultist kook, fresh out of Al Gore's Training Camp.

As it always has been regarding science, it's the fraud, stupid.

Error makes scientific understanding approximate, not invalid. And when talking about global warming being "unprecedented" by only TENTHS of a degree C, approximate simply doesn't cut it for rational people.

Unprecedented? Your graph...Mann and Jones with uncertainties, shows an error band of +- 0.3C. And, it is roughly agreed that there has been 0.8C (+/- 0.3C) of warming since 1880. (So somewhere between 0.5 and 1.1C)

On the chart, between 800 and 900 AD, Esper shows 0.5 C warming. Could be 0.8...or 0.2C correct? And between 900 and 1000 AD, there's a 0.6 C increase. Both of those "preceed" recent warming, meaning recent warming is not unprecedented.

NOAA and NCDC data show the rate of warming from 1914- 1964 to be 0.49C, and from 1964-2014 to be 0.47 C. So the warming rate has not increased but the CO2 rate has. You can believe the data or not. It's odd that some scientists don't seem to believe the data that disagrees with them isn't it?

No. The numbers I gave you are for a per century trend taken from a 50 year periods.

I took the Esper numbers directly from YOUR chart, so if they only apply to the Northern Hemisphere, then your chart only applies to the Northern Hemisphere...which is not global.

A blog post is not a peer reviewed study.

But there was a report done by the NAS in 2002 you might enjoy (or not).

"The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most
authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available."

(Above quote taken from- http://www.wunderground.com...

From the report itself-
"The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic--and often extreme--shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes."

Periodic. Extreme shifts. Sometimes in as little as a decade or less. Triggered by multiple, natural processes.

MODELS estimate that the recent warming is primarily due to anthropogenic forcings.

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers that conclude that natural forcings are dominant. Here's a few to get you started. When you're done with these, I'll give you more.

http://link.springer.com/ar...

http://multi-science.metapr...

http://link.springer.com/ar...

http://multi-science.metapr...

http://multi-science.metapr...

http://www.scientificexplor...

http://link.springer.com/ar...

http://www.sciencedirect.co...

http://www.bioone.org/doi/a...

http://www.tandfonline.com/...

http://multi-science.metapr...

ROFL. You haven't heard of S.V. Avakyan? The paper is titled "The role of solar activity in global warming". Yes, I read it. That's how I know you selectively chose a paragraph that COULD be construed either way, but it pretty much says that the suns influence hasn't been completely solved/determined. But later in the paper it states:

"The results given in this article contradict the fashion of exaggerating the role of human interference within short-several decades-periods" followed by a reminder of the "ozone problem" in which Freon was linked to causing a hole in the ozone layer and protocols enforced before there were any measurements taken to prove that human activity and not nature caused the ozone destruction (because there are natural things that DO cause ozone destruction all by themselves.)

Even James Powell views Avakyan as a dissenter from the global warming "consensus" for crying out loud.

Stop stalling and start debunking skippy. I've got all the time in the world.

http://www.altmetric.com/de...

"More generally, Altmetric has tracked 2,320,906 articles across all journals so far. Compared to these this article has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all articles ever tracked by Altmetric."

Your approval or agreement with his work means absolutely zilch to me. Every single scientist in the world could agree with it and it could still be wrong, just as every single scientist in the world could disagree with it, and it could still be right.

ROFL! If the numbers I gave you were for the temperature change OVER those 2, 50 year periods-then I would be saying that NOAA and NCDC have data proving that temps have risen 0.96C since 1914! Which would be contrary to my point. See how that works?

Yes, the Esper numbers from YOUR CHART are NH temps...one that you linked to as evidence of "unprecedented warming" for the past 1-2K years....but ONLY in the Northern Hemisphere...not the globe.

If YOU are familiar with the research in the field of paleoclimate reconstructions, then you know that reason that there IS still debate about the MWP is because there is more and more evidence accumulating that the MWP was global AND warmer than today. Do you read ALL of the research with an open mind or do you prefer to only read the stuff that supports your personal view/agenda?

Is English your native language? Do you not understand that I used the phrase "then you know that the reason that there IS still debate about the MWP" indicates that I'm referencing your statement about the debate prior to stating why I believe that debate still exists?

If you cannot even comprehend basic English and basic conversational emphasis, or represent what I say with any degree of accuracy, then we are probably never going to agree upon what a scientific paper says, much less what it concludes.

1. The paper's lead author is Christiansen, not Ljungqvist.

2. The paper demonstrates that previous reconstructions underestimated the COLDNESS of the LIA, which means that there is a LARGER temperature increase, and RATE of increase between it and returning warm temps than previously demonstrated.

3. Page 779, Figure 11, show a temperature increase of 0.6C between 350 AD and 450 AD (100 years)... 0.75 C between the year 800 AD and the year 850 AD... and 0.6C between 1400 AD and 1475 (75 years).

4. The NOAA data for the NH for the most recent century, 1913-2013, is 1.13 FAHRENHEIT...not Celsius! 1.13F= 0.63 C.

So the paper YOU linked to above, PROVES to a "95% confidence level" that THREE times in the past 2K years, the NH has warmed JUST as fast, if not faster, in 100 years or less than it has in the most recent century.

Case closed.

2. "So what? The rate of warming in the past century was not superseded by any other century shown in the paper. "

Wrong. Maybe nights aren't your strong suit.

"0.75 C between the year 800 AD and the year 850 AD..."

Warmer AND faster (50 years). NOTHING in Lundqvists paper says or demonstrates that the most recent century warming is unprecedented. Not to mention that Lundqvist establishes with a 95% confidence level that there is a 0.6C +/- margin of error in the temperatures. Which means there is no way to PROVE what you are claiming.

The website link: "Please note, Annual time series are not available for Northern/Southern Hemisphere (only Global). Anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average."

So what exactly were the parameters you input to get 1.13 C of warming for the NH's most recent century?

Yes, I see the heading for the data. Do you NOT understand the difference between two year's temperatures anomalies and how to plot a century TREND from them?

You HAVE to take the standard deviation into consideration. You HAVE to accept the error margins. The ANOMALIES all come with an UNCERTAINTY range. The numbers are the BEST ESTIMATES within that uncertain range, and no scientist will tell you that the stated numbers are exact or proven to be certain. And the fact is that the uncertainty range is roughly HALF that of the estimated warming.

It is because of that uncertainty range that you cannot PROVE that the recent warming is without precedent. You can believe that it is, you can state that it is, but you cannot PROVE that it is.

Sounds like you are parroting Climate Audit. If their criticisms haven't overturned all of climate science by now, why bother resurrecting this zombie now?

Best,

D

What it sounds like to you is irrelevant to thediscussion. Climate science is a field in which there are so many interrelated variables that exactness is not possible even today. It's even less exact the further back in time we go. That is simply fact.

Your wish for the "hockey stick" to be debunked 8 years ago.

Don't have a sads.

Best,

D

Your apology is accepted. If you would be more careful to articulate your points properly and exactly, when people respond to what they THINK your point was, there won't be any reason to accuse them of Gish gallops or other logical fallacies because their responses will likely make more sense to you.

Gish gallop: " is the debating technique of drowning the
opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot
possibly answer or address each one in real time".

That YOU cannot focus upon, or interpret correctly, more than one facet of the same topic at a time, does not make me guilty of a Gish gallop. Your willingness to continue applying it to me does remind me of Strawman/Poisoning the Well tactics, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Clearly you don't understand how to trends are produced.

Go here-and NOAA will do it for you.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ca...

In put: Average temperature, Annual, 1914-1964, contiguous US, all 48 states, Display trend per century and input 1914-1964.

The results will show- 0.88F per century trend. 0.88F = 0.49 C

Now, when you input the 1964-2014 information, the chart goes wonky for some reason (most likely because 2014 isn't over yet) and spews a warming rate of 4.58F per century...which of course is obviously wrong. Using the anomaly temperatures from each year beneath the chart, we see a 0.75F difference between the temp in 1964 and the temp in 2014. The difference in temps between these two years produces a per century trend of 0.75F=0.47 C

truly the posts of a troll.

Using the word "science" ad nauseum in posts isnt science.
Denying the history of the measurement of temperature isnt science.
Carping over the regional nature of time series when the ones you cite depend on, at times, 6 trees in yamal isnt science.
Complaining about error estimates only when it suits you isnt science.
Misusing, misrepresenting and distorting Marcott's peer reviewed paper to claim that 20th century warming is unnprecedented (a position that Marcott himself refused to endorse) isnt science...its trolling
so yeah, youre a troll.

you are beneath contempt.

Unprecedented? Hide the decline - remember that? Clearly these fiddled figures show MANN made Global Warming only.

Here is some science for you evenminded.

http://unsettledclimate.org...

This is indicative of the "science" you say you believe in. This isn't science, it is fraud. If you can't see that then line up for the bullet train to the green gulag.

Found this interesting: LA Times, West Coast Change Linked to “Naturally” Occurring Changes: http://www.breitbart.com/Br...

"Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the study, said its conclusions about long-term trends were probably overstated because the quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable."

That "quality of data from the early 20th century was poor and unreliable" struck me because I doubt it got better going back to the 19th, 18th 17th, and so on, centuries data when the measurements must have been even less reliable?

THIS IS EXTREME? Correlates to the PDO flip to cooler in 2007 nicely, with enso spikes during periods of warmer mei. The warming correlates nicely until adaptation to it to the flip in the PDO to warmer in the late 1970s ( 2cnd graphic) What is so hard to understand, that in the satellite era we now have objective measuring techniques. Since that era started at the end of the last cold PDO, why dont we just wait to see what happens when the atlantic flips to colder for good around 2020. Afterall you got your warm PDO and AMO and the rise as a response against how cool it was, and then the leveling off.

Its quite simple The sun, the oceans, ( with 1000x heat capacity of air) and stochastic events render co2 almost nil given its .04% of the atmosphere. AS far as the hidden ocean warming, Gray wrote about the cyclical nature of the oceans, centuries in the making. You will be well advised, since you want to talk "science" to read this:

http://tropical.atmos.colos...

He was the guy that forecasted the warming back in the 1970s

In any case, the forecast is obvious. A return to where we were at the start of the satellite era, where objective unadjusted temps can be watched, is likely by 2030. I made that forecast in 2005. and the ncep data ( NCEP is National centers for environmental prediction, hardly a right wing think tank.. a part of NOAA) is showing it.

Sorry to say for the warming believers ( btw MY SIDE OWNS CLIMATE CHANGE, WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THE CLIMATE CHANGES, BUT NATURALLY FROM THE GET GO) you will come to realize like I have, it never was about the science, and weather and climate were just being used as a means to an end