Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand

Another evidence-light rant. 'Caspar and the Jesus Paper' is one of the most unintentionally hilarious articles on the internet. I mean r2, really?

I was referring to the W&A paper accepted by 'Climate Change' in 2006, which shows that the M&M criticisms have some merit but do not significantly alter the conclusions of MBH.

Michael, you need to apply your 'scepticism' a little more evenly. There have been many more paleo-reconstructions since MBH98/99. They all show that,with or without PCA, with or without tree rings, modern temperatures are anomalously warm.

You seem to be fact-averse, but perhaps you could help me by naming a published paleo-reconstruction that does NOT lie within the error bars of MBH99?

Good luck with that.

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

… modern temperatures are anomalously warm.
Well, yes… they will be, if you compare them with the Little Ice Age. However, if you compare them with the Mediæval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, or the Holocene Optimum? ALL (unless they have now been “homogenised” flat, of course) of which were warmer than we are, at present.

Ho hum…

Hopefully, Trump will oust the many, many charlatans, and defund most of those preaching this cult. Then, and only then, will science start to take (or re-take) dominance, and this madness will end.

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:28 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

However, if you compare them with the Mediæval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, or the Holocene Optimum? ALL (unless they have now been “homogenised” flat, of course) of which were warmer than we are, at present.

Sorry to be a stickler, but may I ask how you know this to be the case?

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Heh, the dog ate Michael 'Piltdown' Mann's little crooked offering.
================

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

This interglacial's temperature, as most, peaked near its middle.
============

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Sorry to be a stickler, but may I ask how you know this to be the case?
Dec 9, 2016 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Talk to an archaeologist specialising in those eras.

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Phil Clarke, sorry to be a stickler, but what evidence do you have that there were no Medieval, Minoan, or Roman Warm Periods?

Has Gergis 2016 been retracted yet?

Dec 9, 2016 at 11:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

… may I ask how you know this to be the case?
Hmmmm… Funny you should say that. Up until quite recently, it was commonly accepted that these periods were each slightly higher than each other, as you go back in time, with the MWP being warm enough for Greenland to be colonised (with the deceased inhabitants buried – something that still cannot be done), to the Holocene Optimum being about 5°C higher than the present (random choice): http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

However, are they being “homogenised” significantly downwards? How very odd.

Dec 10, 2016 at 12:27 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Dec 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM | Phil Clarke

More false claims from an internet liar.

Do remind us why you thought Gergis 2016 was so good, an opinion shared by the Peer Reviewers and 97% of Climate Scientists.

Obviously if you had read and understood the original Gergis failure, and the rehashed Gergis failure, you would have understood that those who claimed to have read them both, could not have written the glowing reviews of Gergis 2016, including the ludicrous excuses with any level of honesty. So who was not lying about Gergis 2016? You obviously were.

Dec 10, 2016 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As a dishonest Captain of the Hockey Teamsters, I don't expect Mann to go down with his Stick.

Dec 10, 2016 at 12:42 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Scott Pruitt will be wanting to set Climate Science alight when he takes over the EPA.

Skeptical Science will be a handy reference guide for identifying fabricated science, and the fabricators. This could then undermine some of the "Settled Science" of the IPCC.

2017 is going to be the best year for Climate Science. It will be unprecedented. Some of it will never be seen again.

Dec 10, 2016 at 2:20 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

RR - You link to some online lecture notes from the University of Arizona dated from 2012. I am not sure what level the course is at, there are actually some factual errors, however these do indeed show the early Holocene was warmer than today, but not by 5C. The notes say

By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.

Fairly large uncertainty there, not surprisingly.

Marcott et al found a similar result. NH temperatures warmer than today, explained by the pattern of the Earth's orbit - perihelion back than was during boreal summer. 

However elsewhere the same notes do not mention temperatures in relation to today, instead noting the Roman and Medieval Warm periods relative to a 1900 baseline. EG

During the Medieval warm period (1100-1300 AD), global average temperatures were only 1°C (or less) warmer than in 1900,

Recent temperatures are discussed in another page , which features prominently a graph ending in 2004 showing temperatures warmer than the MWP. In other words your own source contradicts the claim. It supports the view that the MWP was largely a European phenomenon and global temperatures were cooler than today.

Recent global average surface temperatures surpassed >1C warmer than in 1900, with most of the increase occurring since the 1970s. Warmer temperatures 5K years ago are uncontentious, but modern warming and the rate of change are unprecedented for the last 2000 years.

Dec 10, 2016 at 6:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil C:

"Recent global average surface temperatures surpassed >1C warmer than in 1900, with most of the increase occurring since the 1970s. Warmer temperatures 5K years ago are uncontentious, but modern warming and the rate of change are unprecedented for the last 2000 years."

Well, this is getting better. I wish I could find the discussion thread, but you've certainly made much more extreme claims than this in the past, Phil. Good to see a little more realism entering the debate (though you're not quite there yet).

Dec 10, 2016 at 8:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Shame you can't find an example. I try to stick to what's in the literature, with due account for uncertainties.

I look forward to you admonishing my interlocuter for posting claims with nothing to back them up.

Dec 10, 2016 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

What is in the literature is what this discussion has basically become about – what is in the literature now seems to be very different from what was in the literature, as so many of these records have been “homogenised” so as to be completely different from what they were not too long ago: e.g. 1936 was long held to be the warmest year of the 20th century. Now, that has been “homogenised” such that it is little different from any other year in the 1930s, all have which have also been “homogenised” (generally downward) to show the warming was “unprecedented” (quite how that can be verified is never discussed, despite acknowledgement that proxy records can only give long-term trends). Similarly, records of this century have been suitably “homogenised” such that the much-discussed “pause” (which warranted 60+ papers to explain it) has been more or less disappeared. The more recent the record, the more likely it will be “homogenised” upwards; the more historic, the greater its chances that it will be “homogenised” downwards; hence, the MWP has been disappeared to create the infamous “hockey stick”.

Despite so many contemporaneous records indicating that the MWP was real, and was significantly warmer than today, we are now being assured that the proxies (but only certain, selected proxies – any which disagree are discarded) give more accurate reports, and – hey, quelle surprise – there was no MWP! And you wonder why people are getting suspicious… sheesh!

Dec 10, 2016 at 11:25 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, I think Phil Clarke is referring to Unethically Funded Climate Science literature such as Skeptical Science.

Ever since it was decided that the Medieval Warm Period did not fit in with modern day climate science, they managed to get rid of integrity and honesty aswell.,

Dec 10, 2016 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Despite so many contemporaneous records indicating that the MWP was real, and was significantly warmer than today

But your source - the University of Arizona, says different. Why do you trust them on one fact but not another?

You seem unaware that the net effect of all adjustments is to reduce the trend.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

Dec 10, 2016 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Mr Clarke, the reason I gave the University of Arizona link is that it was about the first that came up when I Googled; I just clicked on one of those on the first page. It was a random selection – which, if you bothered actually reading my comments, is exactly what I said it was. Perhaps that is a concept that you are unable to consider, I don’t know.

Anyhoo…

What will you say, should the temperature downturn that so many are saying is real becomes irrefutable?

Dec 10, 2016 at 6:51 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

"Warmer temperatures 5K years ago are uncontentious, but modern warming and the rate of change are unprecedented for the last 2000 years."

If the life of the planet is compared to a day, the last 5,000 years represents about 1/10 of a second and the last 2,000 years represents about 1/25 of a second. If I were looking back on my day and asking myself if anything unusual had happened, I don't think I'd take much notice of something that happened in the last 1/10 or 1/25 of a second, note that the same things had happened a second or two before, and then say to myself "Gosh, what just happened in the last 1/10 or 1/25 of a second was so unusual that I need to re-think the way I live my life."

Dec 10, 2016 at 7:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mr Hodgson: now that is putting things in perspective!

Let’s put into another perspective: comparing the life of Earth with the life of a 70-year-old person, 5,000 years is equivalent to just over 4 minutes; 2,000 years is 1 minute, 38 seconds. For a 35-year-old, merely divide those two figures by 2. Is there anyone who frets over 2 minutes of their life? Is there anyone who would get into high dudgeon when they go inside from a freezing walk, and toast themselves in front of the fire, to raise their average temperature by a degree or more in a few minutes? (That is effectively what is happening – the fingers and toes are warming up; the core temperature is more or less constant. The cause, of course, is a bit more contentious, but the effect is not really worth worrying about.)

Dec 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-ugly-reality/

Global Warming Alarmists have banned/slandered/libelled their opponents for years. Now they expect sympathy.

I am not sure they can expect too much.

Dec 10, 2016 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mark Hodgson & Radical Rodent

The "evidence" that Phil Clarke relies on is Computer Generated, from the same Teamsters that cheered and congratulated Gergis, twice.

I don't think they are cheering and congratulating Trump.

Dec 11, 2016 at 12:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dec 10, 2016 at 5:43 PM | Phil Clarke. You refer to the VariableVariability blog run by Victor Venema. He made himself look like a not very reliable statistician in the blog post below

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/07/13/gergis/

Was this a one-off, or a fair reflection of his reliability? He seemed very keen to attack anyone who suggested Gergis had made statistical errors, so I think we can assume that your judgements about Steve McIntyre are wrong, yet again.

Gergis really has demonstrated the level of incompetence that you praise so highly. Victor Venema even lists his credentials on his own blog. Interesting reading.

Gergis has really helped to define Climate Science, in terms of dodgy statistics, certified by dodgy statisticians, and all approved and highlighted by Phil Clarke.

Dec 11, 2016 at 2:13 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, remember this? from Dec 10, 2016 at 5:43 PM | Phil Clarke

"Another evidence-light rant. 'Caspar and the Jesus Paper' is one of the most unintentionally hilarious articles on the internet. I mean r2, really?" PHIL CLARKE, it is deadly serious. Do tell us more about r2, is it one of your specialist subjects?

"I was referring to the W&A paper accepted by 'Climate Change' in 2006, which shows that the M&M criticisms have some merit but do not significantly alter the conclusions of MBH." PHIL CLARKE, MBH is rubbish, that is THE conclusion.

"Michael, you need to apply your 'scepticism' a little more evenly. There have been many more paleo-reconstructions since MBH98/99. They all show that,with or without PCA, with or without tree rings, modern temperatures are anomalously warm." PHIL CLARKE, they are all rubbish, that is what Gergis has proved.

"You seem to be fact-averse, but perhaps you could help me by naming a published paleo-reconstruction that does NOT lie within the error bars of MBH99?" PHIL CLARKE, you are fact and truth averse, that is why you praised Gergis. Could you name a published paleo-reconstruction that has not been damaged by climate sciences' flawed peer reviews?

"Good luck with that. Dec 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM | Phil Clarke" PHIL CLARKE, good luck with Climate Science retaining much US funding, or Worldwide credibility.

Dec 11, 2016 at 2:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/what-is-next-for-weather-and-climate/ Dr Tim Ball

The Trump administration is well aware of the political use and scientific abuse of climate for a political agenda. I learned how aware while attending the Heritage Foundation Climate Conference on Thursday December 8 in Washington D.C.

(...)

Many were unsure if the people in authority were finally right. Trump’s meetings with carbon footprint hypocrites Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, seemed to signal something different. All this was put to rest with the appointment of Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Conversations and information gleaned at the Heritage Climate Conference on Thursday assures me accurate climate science is in charge. The challenge is to deprogram the people, remove the exploitive agencies and rules they created, and set up a system that is as free of politics as possible. ...

Dec 11, 2016 at 8:31 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A