Is The Sun Causing Global Warming?

[mhaze]

If I say some polar bears are dying, and the evidence shows that 2 polar bear populations out of 19 are dying that supports my point, and how is that cherry picking again?

Who cares if the pictures are real polar bears, or grizzly bears painted white, or computer animations even.Ok, here is your logic.

Ireland has been losing population for over a hundred years. Ireland is one country out of many.

Therefore, the human race is dying out.

Come on Bob, you don't really think this argument is very good....

[BenBurch]

A slightly tighter view, since IGY;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/normalise

[mhaze]

If you did not notice it is a 2000-year long reconstruction that stops in the year 2000. It is a recent paper (2007). It is not recent data.
We know from the recent data that global temperatures have increased since the year 2000.What? Gee....

Slow down a moment. Realize that some of us have thought about this stuff quite a bit, and have reasoned conclusions. Does not mean you agree with them, just means that they are not shallow or silly (which Gore's stuff IS).

Regarding temperatures increasing since 2000 - no they have not.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Regarding the paper's data through 2000 published in 2007.

Proxy data studies usually do terminate a few years before the publish date for technical reasons. One simple example is ice cores. They are taken on a drilling expedition. Later, papers are published. There is simply no way to organize the two to be neatly coexistent. In fact, Loehle did pretty good to run the series to the year 2000 - way better than many others.

And in case you ask, why not just splice the modern thermometer series onto the proxy data in the Loehle series, there are problems with that. So he did it correctly.

I guess what I have to say is that the exact reverse of your arguments is true. If Durkin did a movie #3, it would present a far stronger case than #2 or #1, because much more and stronger scientific findings are available today than a few years ago. Got it? Not a weaker case, but far stronger.

Similarly, when Gore started doing his slideshows (which the movie is from) he had a stronger case, which as additional scientific findings came in became weaker. The hockey stick was found to be bogus, there was in fact a quite warm medievel warming period, Kilamajaro was not as he represented, no islands were sinking, Katrina was not due to global warming, etc.

This graph just shows the Energy & Environment journal has bad peer-review (if any).
...

You can read the article and the correction to it here.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

And after getting some actual knowledge, please comment again about what you think about the cut of year 2000 and the publishing date of 2007.

[daenku32]

Ok, here is your logic.

Ireland has been losing population for over a hundred years. Ireland is one country out of many.

Therefore, the human race is dying out.

Come on Bob, you don't really think this argument is very good....

So since Human Population is not nearing extinction, the Irish shouldn't worry about their diminishing population?

[Poptech]

To mask the fact that HE HASN'T READ IT.
Wrong again Ben! I wanted to see if anyone would notice the PDF link in my post, I guess I was expecting more.

[bobdroege7]

Ok, here is your logic.

Ireland has been losing population for over a hundred years. Ireland is one country out of many.

Therefore, the human race is dying out.

Come on Bob, you don't really think this argument is very good....

No, that is not even remotely close to my argument, not in the same courtroom, courthouse, country or universe even. The Irish are emigrating, not dying.

I didn't make a judgement on how good the argument is, just whether or not the evidence supports it or not and if the argument is a strawman or not.

And basically, what does the evidence say about who is lying.

The evidence shows that Al Gore is not lying about these two particular points.

[Trakar]

He doesn't ignore it, recent science supports Durkin's argument,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/F0020007/art00011) (PDF (http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif


You did notice in the corrected data analysis provided in the PDF that the temp. averages end in 1935, didn't you? and that at their peak they average less than 0.6 degrees C above 0. Current land temps, which would be comparable to those this chart purports, are (on 5 year average) approaching1 degree Celsius, or nearly twice as warm as this chart indicates as a peak for the so-called MWP or Climate optimum back in 800AD.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif

I'm not comfortable with the methodology applied, but it is interesting that even in the revised and corrected edition of the paper, their adjusted graph excludes all warming since 1935, and yet still ends up demonstrating that the current warming is substantially more than anything else experienced in the 2 millenia covered by their graph.

...With the corrected dating, the number of series for which data is available
drops from 11 to 8 in 1935, so that subsequent values of the reconstruction would be
based on less than half the total number of series, and hence would have greatly
decreased accuracy. Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935
AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007)....

...The peak value of the MWP is 0.526 Deg C above the mean over the period...

[Reality Check]

Regarding temperatures increasing since 2000 - no they have not.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

According to the CRU - yes they have (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) in their HadCRUT3 dataset:
The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.
The news article was correct that temperature change stagnated between 2001 and 2007 - it was stuck at ~0.3 Celsius above the baseline.


Regarding the paper's data through 2000 published in 2007.

Proxy data studies usually do terminate a few years before the publish date for technical reasons. One simple example is ice cores. They are taken on a drilling expedition. Later, papers are published. There is simply no way to organize the two to be neatly coexistent. In fact, Loehle did pretty good to run the series to the year 2000 - way better than many others.

I know that. I am surprised that the "few years" is actually 7 years.


And in case you ask, why not just splice the modern thermometer series onto the proxy data in the Loehle series, there are problems with that. So he did it correctly.

What are the problems?
Are they the same as the problems with combining temperature series from coral reefs in the tropics with temperature series from ice cores at the poles?


You can read the article and the correction to it here.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/

And after getting some actual knowledge, please comment again about what you think about the cut of year 2000 and the publishing date of 2007.
I did read the paper. The fact that it does not go beyond the year 2000 makes it irrelevant to Durkin.

In fact you, me and Poptech have all got it wrong. The cutoff date is not 2000. That is just the last number on the graph axis. The actual data (http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/climate/LoehleE&E2007.csv) (as mentioned in the caption to the graph in the paper that Poptech left off) in the graph ends in 1980 :eek: !

Even the paper's abstract is clear about the "the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites". This is the 21st century not the 20th century.

The logic is quite easy to follow:

Durkin's argurment is that global average temperature today is not as high as it was during other times in recent history, such as the Medieval Warm Period, indicating that the recent warming trend is a natural phenomenon.
His propaganda film (or a polemic (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Polemic) as described by both its original broadcaster Channel 4 and the British regulator Ofcom) was released in 2007.
The film ignored data from 2000 onward.
The DVD continued to ignore data from 2000 onward.
The paper has no data from 1980 onward. IOW: the paper has no global average temperature for the film's today.
Thus the paper does not support Durkin's argument.

[Reality Check]

Wrong again Ben! I wanted to see if anyone would notice the PDF link in my post, I guess I was expecting more.
I can tell you Poptech that I did notice the PDF link in my post and read the paper. I even read it twice and picked up on my, yours and mhaze's incorrect reading of the graph.

You did not look at the raw data for the graph. If you had then you would have noticed that the graph data ends in 1980.

[BadBoy]

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/skeptics-circle/

Haze, this argument has been sorted already. You missed the bus, you need to get onto the same song sheet.

[BenBurch]

I can tell you Poptech that I did notice the PDF link in my post and read the paper. I even read it twice and picked up on my, yours and mhaze's incorrect reading of the graph.

You did not look at the raw data for the graph. If you had then you would have noticed that the graph data ends in 1980.

I only looked at one of his posts because I was ASKED to. I decided finally that there is no point trying to address stupidity and dishonesty that extreme and that moreover I could not do so within the rules of this forum.

[mhaze]

I can tell you Poptech that I did notice the PDF link in my post and read the paper. I even read it twice and picked up on my, yours and mhaze's incorrect reading of the graph.

You did not look at the raw data for the graph. If you had then you would have noticed that the graph data ends in 1980.Not just wrong, but idiotic. I'm the guy that provided the link to the correction and the underlying data sets. If you cannot understand the method or the implications (and limitations) of the work, it is your problem, not mine.

If you care to understand this issue, it is well discussed at www.climateaudit.org. However, that site and several others are now saturated and essentually cannot be accessed, due to a curious and interesting new development. Try in a few days. If you want to put the discussion off until then, I have no problem with that.

You yourself note that thermometer and other temperature records exist for the last century. If a scientist does a proxy study, it may not be proper to "extend it" with a set of temperature readings achieved either with (1) substantially different proxies (2) direct readings of temperature.

You can do that. You can take the study that ends in 1980 and attach the subsequent temperatures yourself. Whether that is proper to do within the design goals and experimental format of the work is a totally different question. Typically the answer is no. This is a somewhat technical area in statistics, but there isn't a lot of debate about it.

So your argument is nonsense. Now I will grant you that you will have different results if you "splice" to the end of the Loehle reconstruction (1) GISS (2) lower troposphere temperatures (3) photos of hot babes.

The actual subject is the relative temperatures between the Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century, how this was grossly misrepresented by Gore, and how it was correctly represented by Durkin; further, how were Durkin to remake his documentary, the use of materials such as Loehle's reconstruction would cause Durkin III to be much stronger than II or I.

So keep going, but keep in mind that these articles we discuss are not the friends of your ignorance on the subject of proxy temperature reconstructions. Here is the extent of the lie in Gore's presentation of the "Medieval Warm Period".

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244740de7844279.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9293)


Here is his use of the scientifically flawed, disproven "Hockey stick". If you look to 2/3 to the left, you will see his alleged "Medieval Warm Period" in context.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_142244739ac8177fa7.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9183)

However, I agree with your that your tactic of diverting attention and pursuing irregardless of scientific issues, arguments against Durkin's documentary is a sound debating tactic when the subject is the flaws, lies and propaganda in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". In pursuit of this objection, it's laudable to use any argument, even something as silly as Bobroeges' argument that declines in population in 2 of 19 bear groups makes the statement "bear populations are decreasing" truth.

Cheers!

[lomiller]

Me?
The opinion I have on Mr Gore's inaccuracies come from a judge's ruling; they are not political, they are sceptical.

Liar. You care clearly and deliberately ignoring what the judge in the case actually ruled. He explicitly stated in his decision that the science in the film is “it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion”. Where he thought it may be inaccurate or misleading Gore has either clarified his position or backed up his position with peer reviewed literature. These facts have been presented in this thread, you have read them, and ignored them in favor of forming a political opinion.

Conversely when people have claimed accurate details in the film were inaccurate you accept those claims with no evidence whatsoever. This, even when the claims are grievously at odds with scientific opinion.

[mhaze]

No, that is not even remotely close to my argument, not in the same courtroom, courthouse, country or universe even. The Irish are emigrating, not dying.

I didn't make a judgement on how good the argument is, just whether or not the evidence supports it or not and if the argument is a strawman or not.

And basically, what does the evidence say about who is lying.

The evidence shows that Al Gore is not lying about these two particular points.Oh, I understood your drift.

Wait....are you sure the bears are not emigrating but are dying?

Wait...don't most things die?

Wait....should in any aggregate of groups, all uniformly grow? I don't think I could get that result with a row of petri dishes and test cultures. Maybe Gore can, with his majiK from Gaia?

Just curious...

POSTSCRIPT: The lie is to say that "The bears are dying" when the facts are that 2 of 19 groups are declining. The right thing to say (otherwise known as the TRUTH) is...

2 of 19 groups are declining.

But the phrase "the bears are dying" as supported by you, is simply a tactic of propaganda, thus this side discussion supports that primary point. I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with the calling of AIT propaganda at this point, rather it is just that it is "propaganda for a good and worthy cause" or some such rotten rationalization.

[Megalodon]

So, mhaze, are you going to continue to lie about this, in your desperation to run from reality, and from discussing the science?...

That's why you're the only one who brings up Gore as a matter of discussion in the first place, right.

[mhaze]

Liar. You care clearly and deliberately ignoring what the judge in the case actually ruled. He explicitly stated in his decision that the science in the film is “it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion”..... Nobody has said that it was not so based, as all good propaganda starts with a substantial base of reality, and from there, starts generating the propaganda...

Example from US school textbooks in WWII: "yellow slit eyed JAP"

Perjurative, negative, emotional, based on factual characteristics.

Propaganda. Now who's the liar?

[Belz...]

No, no I said Animated polar bears are dying because Gore does not actually show any real polar bear footage in his film except for a computer animation of a polar swimming in the tropics (I mean arctic).

It's amazing how sarcasm takes the place of evidence, sometimes.

[Belz...]

Ok, here is your logic.

Ireland has been losing population for over a hundred years. Ireland is one country out of many.

Therefore, the human race is dying out.

Yes, that's how scientists go about testing their theories. Mhaze, you're a genius. You've just single-handedly defeated all those evil climatologists!!

[A.A. Alfie]

Liar. You care clearly and deliberately ignoring what the judge in the case actually ruled. He explicitly stated in his decision that the science in the film is “it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion”. Where he thought it may be inaccurate or misleading Gore has either clarified his position or backed up his position with peer reviewed literature. These facts have been presented in this thread, you have read them, and ignored them in favor of forming a political opinion.

I could accuse you of the same thing, however the fact remains that the judge did deem them inaccurate, incorrect etc. When that judgement is overruled or amended or when Mr Gore uses the extra proof to have it changed then I might believe they are accurate.
In the meantime, the film remains inaccurate.
I responded to your question as to why and that's where it sits.

See also Mhaze post #516 for clarification.


Conversely when people have claimed accurate details in the film were inaccurate you accept those claims with no evidence whatsoever. This, even when the claims are grievously at odds with scientific opinion.

Now whose lying?

[A.A. Alfie]

It's amazing how sarcasm takes the place of evidence, sometimes.

Yes, that's how scientists go about testing their theories. Mhaze, you're a genius. You've just single-handedly defeated all those evil climatologists!!

The hypocricy is palpable.

A thinking person would have put a little bit more space between this two posts methinks.

[Reality Check]

Not just wrong, but idiotic. I'm the guy that provided the link to the correction and the underlying data sets. If you cannot understand the method or the implications (and limitations) of the work, it is your problem, not mine.

Poptech was the person who supplied the ink to the paper and thus to the data displayed in the graph. That data stops in 1980.
You supplied a link to the author's we page and updated data that also stops in 1980.
I understand the limitations of the work - the data stops in 1980 and so has no relevance for a comparison of the temperatures in the MWP and the temperatures of the year 2007.

If you cannot understand the method or the implications (and limitations) of the work and its relevance (none) to the 21st century, it is your problem, not mine.


...snipped.. irrelevant stuff...
However, I agree with your that your tactic of diverting attention and pursuing irregardless of scientific issues, arguments against Durkin's documentary is a sound debating tactic when the subject is the flaws, lies and propaganda in Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". In pursuit of this objection, it's laudable to use any argument, even something as silly as Bobroeges' argument that declines in population in 2 of 19 bear groups makes the statement "bear populations are decreasing" truth.

Cheers!

Get your facts straight:
I did not bring up Durkin's film. macdoc did as an example of the propaganda that exists on the AGW deniist side.

The subject is not Al Gore's film. The OP is "Is the Sun Causing Global Warming". But like most of thess AGW threads it has been derailed into other areas. Once Al Gore's filkm was mentioned bringing up Matrin Durkin's film as a counter example was valid.
So the flaws, lies and propaganda in Durkin's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is sound.


I am the guy who knows that

Both films are propaganda.
Both films have flaws.
Both films have lies.
Cheers!

[macdoc]

and one producer won the Nobel and the other earned a sanction from the BBC.

Just sayin' :garfield:

[mhaze]

Poptech was the person who supplied the ink to the paper and thus to the data displayed in the graph. That data stops in 1980.
You supplied a link to the author's we page and updated data that also stops in 1980.
I understand the limitations of the work - the data stops in 1980 and so has no relevance for a comparison of the temperatures in the MWP and the temperatures of the year 2007.

If you cannot understand the method or the implications (and limitations) of the work and its relevance (none) to the 21st century, it is your problem, not mine......

But if you insist on a single study of millenia, then it will have proxies. Now assume that one such study is the glory of the most religious Warmer, and another is coveted by the Denier sect. Both proxy studies will end some decades earlier than the present.

To extend to the current, one must patch or splice on, instrumental temperature records. If one scientist will not do so, asserting that this is not statistically valid method, I see no reason to disallow his evidence for the period of some 1900 years from being brought in. The instrumental temperature records exist in any case.

Therefore, Loehle's study, covering the greatest part of the last two millenia, plus known last several decade temperature records, do in fact provide the data set you are asking about. In regard to whether Loehle's data in and of itself provides that, of course not, due to the cut off dates.

[Reality Check]

But if you insist on a single study of millenia, then it will have proxies. Now assume that one such study is the glory of the most religious Warmer, and another is coveted by the Denier sect. Both proxy studies will end some decades earlier than the present.

To extend to the current, one must patch or splice on, instrumental temperature records. If one scientist will not do so, asserting that this is not statistically valid method, I see no reason to disallow his evidence for the period of some 1900 years from being brought in. The instrumental temperature records exist in any case.

Therefore, Loehle's study, covering the greatest part of the last two millenia, plus known last several decade temperature records, do in fact provide the data set you are asking about. In regard to whether Loehle's data in and of itself provides that, of course not, due to the cut off dates.
I am not sure what you mean by this.

I know that Loehle's study covers the data set that I asked about. That is in his paper. That is in his correction paper.

This is what Poptech posted:
He doesn't ignore it, recent science supports Durkin's argument,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/F0020007/art00011) (PDF (http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif)

Durkin's argument in his propaganda film is that the MWP was warmer than "today", i.e. the year 2007.
Poptech is wrong. The cited "recent science" by Craig Loehle does not include data from the 21st century. The data in the paper and his correction paper stops in 1980. Even the abstracts conclude that the MWP was warmer than the 20th century - not the 21st century.

So far we have seen no source that suports Durkin's argument.
Do you have one?

[mhaze]

What I've been saying is that it is staring right at you.

Now go check the first several pages of discussion regarding truncation of proxy series data here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810#comments

[Reality Check]

What I've been saying is that it is staring right at you.

Now go check the first several pages of discussion regarding truncation of proxy series data here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810#comments
What is staring me right in the face is quite clear. It does not matter why proxie series are truncated. They are (according to you). Thus this proxy review in particular is not support for Durkin's argument.
Durkin's argument in his propaganda film is that the MWP was warmer than "today", i.e. the year 2007.
Poptech is wrong. The cited "recent science" by Craig Loehle does not include data from the 21st century. The data in the paper and his correction paper stops in 1980. Even the abstracts conclude that the MWP was warmer than the 20th century - not the 21st century.

So far we have seen no source that suports Durkin's argument.
Do you have one?

[macdoc]

I've found the deniers tend to dwell in the 90s, when the body of science and evidence for AGW had not yet accumulated...one only has to peruse PTs list for "evidence" of that.

Yet the potential risk was identified as far back as the 1950s with an article in Scientific American.

snip

Another scientist the media noticed was the physicist Gilbert Plass, whose own work had convinced him that CO2 would warm the planet. In a 1959 Scientific American article he boldly predicted that global temperatures would rise something like 3°F (1.7°C) by the end of the century. Plass, thinking as a scientist, only remarked that this would allow a conclusive test of the CO2 theory of climate change. But the magazine's editorial staff connected his ideas with the public's growing concern about pollution, printing a photograph of coal smoke belching from factories. The caption read, "Man upsets the balance of natural processes by adding billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year."(28*) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm#N_28_) The lesson was clinched by news in mid 1961 that meticulous measurements by C.D. Keeling had detected an annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.(29) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm#N_29_) <=CO2 greenhouse (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_0383)





<=CO2 greenhouse (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_0245)
Most people did not see anything ominous. "There would seem to be every reason for producing as much carbon dioxide as we can manage," one popularization had concluded back in 1957. "It is helping us towards a warmer and drier world."(30) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm#N_30_)

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Public.htm

sounds familiar.... :rolleyes:

seems there was indeed sufficient time to wake up

seems some have not moved beyond the "glorious benefits of C02 to the planet" :garfield:

[mhaze]

What is staring me right in the face is quite clear. It does not matter why proxie series are truncated. They are (according to you). Thus this proxy review in particular is not support for Durkin's argument....Yes, it does matter. And scientists don't have the ability to just do as they might want with proxies. You see, proxy studies tend to be one of a kind samples of the planet. So they have to work with the collected group of proxies done over the last several decades. These have various starting and ending points. Obviously, a proxy study done in 1964 will not have data past 1964.

As an example, at incredible difficulty, a drilling rig is set up in Antartica and cores retrieved from hundreds of thousands of years. Other scientists then use that data. It is a huge undertaking to replicate that work.

It isn't possible to simply go and do it again - it is necessary to use the data that was previously gathered by others. Then you have the issue as to whether to selectively truncate series with the goal of showing the most recent warming (Mann, Briffa) - or truncate series to have the best scientific accuracy (Loehle).

Please address directly my criticism of your argument. I've made it twice now. Third time (and final).

It is simply that Loehle is evidence for the major part of the 2000 year period in question, and instrumental temperature records form the record for the last several decades. This renders your argument that "Loehle doesn't prove what Poptech said" a moot point.

You've said that I've brought no additional evidence in. This is certainly true, but it isn't because I can't easily cite a dozen. It's because it seems that you don't understand the issues already presented. More evidence does not fix that, it is irrelevant.

[Reality Check]

Yes, it does matter. And scientists don't have the ability to just do as they might want with proxies. You see, proxy studies tend to be one of a kind samples of the planet. So they have to work with the collected group of proxies done over the last several decades. These have various starting and ending points. Obviously, a proxy study done in 1964 will not have data past 1964.

As an example, at incredible difficulty, a drilling rig is set up in Antartica and cores retrieved from hundreds of thousands of years. Other scientists then use that data. It is a huge undertaking to replicate that work.

It isn't possible to simply go and do it again - it is necessary to use the data that was previously gathered by others. Then you have the issue as to whether to selectively truncate series with the goal of showing the most recent warming (Mann, Briffa) - or truncate series to have the best scientific accuracy (Loehle).

Please address directly my criticism of your argument. I've made it twice now. Third time (and final).

It is simply that Loehle is evidence for the major part of the 2000 year period in question, and instrumental temperature records form the record for the last several decades. This renders your argument that "Loehle doesn't prove what Poptech said" a moot point.

You've said that I've brought no additional evidence in. This is certainly true, but it isn't because I can't easily cite a dozen. It's because it seems that you don't understand the issues already presented. More evidence does not fix that, it is irrelevant.
That is correct and I knew that
.
All you are doing is supporting that Poptech was wrong to quote the paper. And that in fact according to you that no paper concerning any kind of proxy data will be relevant.

My poiint is that"Loehle doesn't prove what Poptech said" is correct. He cited the paper in support of Durkin's argument in his propaganda film. That is that the MWP was warmer than "today", i.e. the year 2007.
The cited "recent science" by Craig Loehle does not include data from the 21st century. The data in the paper and his correction paper stops in 1980. Even the abstracts conclude that the MWP was warmer than the 20th century - not the 21st century.

So far we have seen no source that suports Durkin's argument.
Do you have a paper that shows that the MWP was warmer than the temperature in 2007?

[macdoc]

In reality we have ample evidence for current warming causes ( understatement ) and recently reasonable evidence for MWP causes and area of interest.

Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered

19:00 02 April 2009 by Nora Schultz

Europe basked in unusually warm weather in medieval times, but why has been open to debate. Now the natural climate mechanism that caused the mild spell seems to have been pinpointed.

The finding is significant today because, according to Valerie Trouet at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research in Birmensdorf, the mechanism that caused the warm spell in Europe – and meant wine could be produced in England as it is now – cannot explain current warming. It means the medieval warm period was mainly a regional phenomenon caused by altered heat distribution rather than a global phenomenon.


continues...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html

Science moves on.....too bad the deniers don't :garfield:

[mhaze]

That is correct and I knew that
.
All you are doing is supporting that Poptech was wrong to quote the paper. And that in fact according to you that no paper concerning any kind of proxy data will be relevant.

My poiint is that"Loehle doesn't prove what Poptech said" is correct. He cited the paper in support of Durkin's argument in his propaganda film. That is that the MWP was warmer than "today", i.e. the year 2007.
The cited "recent science" by Craig Loehle does not include data from the 21st century. The data in the paper and his correction paper stops in 1980. Even the abstracts conclude that the MWP was warmer than the 20th century - not the 21st century.

So far we have seen no source that suports Durkin's argument.
Do you have a paper that shows that the MWP was warmer than the temperature in 2007?

I don't have any particular interest (due to thinking it is a meaningless argument) in trying to assert that a several centuries long event, the MWP, was warmer than the year 2007. I don't even know how to compute that, or what relevance it would have. This is kind of like someone saying...

"Yeah, well prove that 1097 was warmer than 2007? Let's see you do that, okay"....

It has no meaning. Similarly to take an average over several centuries and compare to to one year is peculiar.

You keep trying to make some distinction between the 20th and the 21st century, but this is quite moot. The last decade has shown, depending on what measurements you use, cooler or stagnant temperatures.

If you want to see another reconstruction, look at Moberg as illustrated about three pages down in motl's blog. You have to page down to the double graph.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/climate-reconstructions-loehle-vs.html

And the discussion here (currently site overloaded and saturated due to Climategate)

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2389

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2391




according to you that no paper concerning any kind of proxy data will be relevant.

Shows misunderstanding. Proxy data is basically inferior to instrumental. If you have instrumental, proxy is not to be used except to calibrate the instrumental to the proxy. A proxy is the taking of some measure, isotope ratio or tree ring width or ocean sediment, and inferring from it temperature. It is a second hand guess.

[Reality Check]

I don't have any particular interest (due to thinking it is a meaningless argument) in trying to assert that a several centuries long event, the MWP, was warmer than the year 2007.
It is only meaningful for Poptech's pitiful attempt to defend Durkin's argument (the MWP was warmer than the temperature of the year 2007).

It looks like you have given up on defiending that argument in the film.
Can I take it that this part of Durkin's propaganda film is a lie? Or just a mistake (like the lies and mistakes in Al Gore's propaganda film)?


It has no meaning. Similarly to take an average over several centuries and compare to to one year is peculiar.

I agree. For some peculiar reason that is what Durkin does.

He possibly makes the same mistake as Al Gore made with his sea rise comment. Al Gore did not state explicitly when the sea rise could happen but his mention of 9/11 implies in years. Durkin says "today" when the common usage of today is now (the date the film was made or even shown), i.e. not over the last several decades.


Shows misunderstanding. Proxy data is basically inferior to instrumental. If you have instrumental, proxy is not to be used except to calibrate the instrumental to the proxy. A proxy is the taking of some measure, isotope ratio or tree ring width or ocean sediment, and inferring from it temperature. It is a second hand guess.

Shows misunderstanding. I was referring to the common practice of cutting off proxy data (according to you) at 1980 as in Loehle' paper.
I know that proxy data is secondhand data and not as reliable as instrumental. That is why tree ring data is not used after 1980.

[mhaze]

It is only meaningful for Poptech's pitiful attempt to defend Durkin's argument (the MWP was warmer than the temperature of the year 2007)....
In looking back over posts 486 - 500, I don't even see where Poptech has said what you claim he did.

Please point to the:


pitiful attempt
the specific use of the "year 2007" as per your assertion
the specific Durkin argument that you refer to

...It looks like you have given up on defiending that argument in the film.
Can I take it that this part of Durkin's propaganda film is a lie? Or just a mistake (like the lies and mistakes in Al Gore's propaganda film)? I agree. For some peculiar reason that is what Durkin does.
....If you have misrepresented the argument as above described, then proceed to put words in other peoples mouths based on said misrepresentations, then you are intellectually dishonest and not really worth talking to.

[Reality Check]

In looking back over posts 486 - 500, I don't even see where Poptech has said what you claim he did.
You should have found this qute easily since they were posts 486 and 487.

I posted:
Five major misrepresentations of the scientific evidence in the DVD version of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' (http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7)
Misrepresentation 1: Global average temperature today is not as high as it was during other times in recent history, such as the Medieval Warm Period, indicating that the recent warming trend is a natural phenomenon.
...
In summary, the DVD version misrepresents an out-of-date figure, published originally in 1966, to make it appear as if it records global average temperature up to the present day. The claim made in the DVD version of the programme that the recent warming of the Earth is a natural trend that has been seen before in the last 1000 years is not supported by the scientific evidence.
In other words, in this diagram, Durkin ignores 40 years of research.

In your words, mhaze, scientific criticism has been ignored by Durkin, but acknowledged by Gore. It's pretty clear who's got the junk science here, and it's Durkin.
(and Gore IMO).

Poptech posted:
He doesn't ignore it, recent science supports Durkin's argument,

A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/F0020007/art00011) (PDF (http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N5/Loehle2007small.gif)





And as we both agree recent science does not support Durkin's argument since

Craig Loehle's paper data stops in 1980 while Durkin's argument was made about "now" (2007).
There are no papers that you or I know of that show that the MVP was warmer than "now" (2007).
The snipped part of my citation is:
As Martin Durkin, the programme’s producer, admitted in an exchange of e-mail messages in April (the text of which are accessible at www.climateofdenial.net (http://www.climateofdenial.net/)), the graph appearing in the DVD version of the programme is based on a figure that was originally published by Hubert Lamb in 1966, and which was subsequently reproduced in a 1975 report by the United States National Research Council (NRC), and in the First Assessment Report of the IPCC in 1990.

It is obvious that a schematic diagram that was originally published in 1966 cannot possibly show global average temperature over the last 40 years, and so the label “now” appearing on the graph in the DVD version of the programme is a false and inaccurate modification.

The figure produced by Lamb also pre-dates all of the research on the global temperature record that has taken place since 1966. It has been superseded by a number of more up-to-date temperature reconstructions for the last millennium, which were reviewed in a report published last year by the NRC for the United States Congress, in response to the so-called ‘hockey stick’ controversy. The report concluded that “none of the large-scale surface temperature reconstructions show medieval temperatures as warm as the last few decades of the 20th century”. It acknowledged that parts of the Earth may have been warmer at points over the past 1000 years, but that these regional trends were not global in extent. The report also included a reproduction of Lamb’s 1966 figure as it appears in the IPCC First Assessment Report, and noted that “[t]he pronounced warming trend that began around 1975 was not indicated in the graphic”.

The NRC report also pointed out: “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence”.

[mhaze]

You refer to the specific use of the word today here:

(1)Misrepresentation 1: Global average temperature today is not as high as it was during other times in recent history, such as the Medieval Warm Period, indicating that the recent warming trend is a natural phenomenon.

And Poptech said:

(2) He doesn't ignore it, recent science supports Durkin's argument.

(3) Which I have also informed you it does, but you didn't listen, instead...

You said:

(4) And as we both agree recent science does not support Durkin's argument since

Craig Loehle's paper data stops in 1980 while Durkin's argument was made about "now" (2007).
There are no papers that you or I know of that show that the MVP was warmer than "now" (2007).

(5) I've said that I do know of some, but haven't presented them because there was no need, because you do not understand what has been presented so far.

After being advised of (5), repeating (4) is lying. Do that all you want but not by misrepresenting me.

(1) is Bob Ward's argument and words, not Poptech. Poptech simply notes that recent science supports Durkins argument. Poptech does not reference the word "today" in the fashion you said he did.

Nowhere in (1) or (2) is 2007 referenced as you said it was or used in that manner.

In addition your argument is unscientific on several grounds as I have indicated.

[DogB]

In reality we have ample evidence for current warming causes ( understatement ) and recently reasonable evidence for MWP causes and area of interest.

continues...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html

Science moves on.....too bad the deniers don't :garfield:

That's an odd article. The claim that the southern hemisphere was La Nina dominated during the MWP doesn't match previously published data.

This (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/qr/2002/00000058/00000003/art02371) is the only paper I have on hand but I can dig up some others if you want.

[Reality Check]

You refer to the specific use of the word today here:

(1)Misrepresentation 1: Global average temperature today is not as high as it was during other times in recent history, such as the Medieval Warm Period, indicating that the recent warming trend is a natural phenomenon.
Read the entire post.
The "today" you highlight comes from "now" label in the graph shown in the DVD.
My use of "today" and "2007" comes from "now" label in the graph shown in the DVD.
The DVD was published in 2007. Thus "now" = 2007. I hope that is simple enough to understand.


And Poptech said:

(2) He doesn't ignore it, recent science supports Durkin's argument.

(3) Which I have also informed you it does, but you didn't listen, instead...


No you have not. You have stated that several times without evidence. I have asked for the evidence. I will ask you again:
So far we have seen no source that suports Durkin's argument that the MVP was warmer than the "now" on his graph.
Do you have a paper that shows that the MWP was warmer than the temperature than the "now" on his graph?
N.B. His DVD was released in 2007 so "now" = 2007.


(5) I've said that I do know of some, but haven't presented them because there was no need, because you do not understand what has been presented so far.

According to you. I guess that I did my postgraduate work for nothing :rolleyes:
Present the papers and see if I understand them. It should be quite easy. There should be at least one of them in English.


(1) is Bob Ward's argument and words, not Poptech. Poptech simply notes that recent science supports Durkins argument. Poptech does not reference the word "today" in the fashion you said he did.

(1) is Bob Ward's argument and words, not Poptech. Poptech simply notes that recent science supports Durkins argument and cites a paper that has cannot support Durkins argument.


Nowhere in (1) or (2) is 2007 referenced as you said it was or used in that manner.

See above about Dunkin's obvioulsy false and inaccurate modification of the graph by adding "now" when the graph did not include "now".


In addition your argument is unscientific on several grounds as I have indicated.
No you have not. You have provided some interesting information on proxies.


That information had nothing to do with Durkin's lie which was:
Falsify a graph by adding a "now" label to a "figure that was originally published by Hubert Lamb in 1966, and which was subsequently reproduced in a 1975 report by the United States National Research Council (NRC), and in the First Assessment Report of the IPCC in 1990".
Claim that graph shows that the MWP was warmer than "now", i.e. 2007 when the DVD was released.

[mhaze]

Read the entire post.
I did, and what you are using is a typical Warmer tactic referred to as "argument from minutae". Here you are focusing on and wanting to argue on the meaning of the word (in other peoples' context) "today".

Ain't gonna play that silly game. And when you play it, you've conceded the primary arguments, those with actual substance.

[Reality Check]

I did, and what you are using is a typical Warmer tactic referred to as "argument from minutae". Here you are focusing on and wanting to argue on the meaning of the word (in other peoples' context) "today".

Ain't gonna play that silly game. And when you play it, you've conceded the primary arguments, those with actual substance.
The meaning of the word "now" in Durkin's DVD is quite clear. It means now. The lie that he propagated by this was that a graph published in 1966 had data going up to "now" and so the MWP was warmer than "now". That is the primary argument. It has not been conceded.

I agree that I made a mistake in using "today" and "2007". I should have stuck with Durkin's original lie and used "now".

Now (:D):
Can you cite any papers that show that the MWP was warmer than the temperature than the "now" on his graph?
N.B. His DVD was released in 2007 so his "now" is 2007.

[Belz...]

Huh. It seems everybody's been suspended, now...

[Hindmost]

Well, just as a bit of a exercise, I thought I would find a few images and line them all up on a big picture. Included are population growth, energy use in the US, glacier retreat, CO2, solar irradiance..etc.

15902

I know that correlation doesn't equal causation, but it was interesting.

glenn

[BenBurch]

Huh. It seems everybody's been suspended, now...

I guess I don't count? LOL

[BenBurch]

Well, just as a bit of a exercise, I thought I would find a few images and line them all up on a big picture. Included are population growth, energy use in the US, glacier retreat, CO2, solar irradiance..etc.

15902

I know that correlation doesn't equal causation, but it was interesting.

glenn

I wish the image hosting here did not toss so much resolution.

[Hindmost]

I wish the image hosting here did not toss so much resolution.

I was afraid of that when I was working on it...I uploaded the max pixel size I could. If you want a bigger JPEG, PM me your email and I will send it to you.

glenn