[Newsbot]

Title: Past decade warmer than any in past 1,300 years
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2008-09-01 22:36:15
Canadian

[bootlegga]

Despite the fact that the Earth was warmer in the past decade than it "has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years."...but this isn't global warming

[N_Fiddledog]

That article is about Michael Mann. Michael Mann is this guy who along with a small group of buddies has been trying to sell this cock and bull story for years on how the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age didn't exist. The problem is both those periods did exist. Reams of current data, scientist studies, and even historical fact shows it did. Mann's the guy responsible for the now discredited Hockey Stick Graph.

Here's a graph based on a recent study which used non-tree ring proxies. (Tree rings are pretty much, currently distrusted to read past temperatures.) It shows a warmer Medieval warm period than today, and a Little Age from which we are naturally warming.



That article represents nothing more than another desperate attempt by Mann to regain some sort of credibility.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Despite the fact that the Earth was warmer in the past decade than it "has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years."...but this isn't global warming

It's not a fact.

[C.M. Burns]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Despite the fact that the Earth was warmer in the past decade than it "has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years."...but this isn't global warming

It's not a fact.

And you have the non-facts to prove it!

[BartSimpson]

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Despite the fact that the Earth was warmer in the past decade than it "has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years."...but this isn't global warming

It's not a fact.

And you have the non-facts to prove it!

Chuck you, farley.

[Zipperfish]

The Mann piece is in the current [i]Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA[i]. This is a peer-reviewed, fairly respected journal, so I don't think it's fair to say that this is just about Mann (since the paper was appproved for publication in the journal).

Source Paper

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The Mann piece is in the current [i]Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA[i]. This is a peer-reviewed, fairly respected journal, so I don't think it's fair to say that this is just about Mann (since the paper was appproved for publication in the journal).

Source Paper

Approved by whom, those who are willing to publish anything that supports their views.

Fiddledogs graph shows the fallacy.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The Mann piece is in the current [i]Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA[i]. This is a peer-reviewed, fairly respected journal, so I don't think it's fair to say that this is just about Mann (since the paper was appproved for publication in the journal).

Source Paper

Approved by whom, those who are willing to publish anything that supports their views.

Fiddledogs graph shows the fallacy.

You haven't really proveded any evidence that the NAS Proceedings are "willing to support anyting that supports their view."

You are correct though, Fiddler's graph does indeed show the fallacy. It shows the fallacy of trying to convince people using an uncited graph with no uncertainty bars.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You are correct though, Fiddler's graph does indeed show the fallacy. It shows the fallacy of trying to convince people using an uncited graph with no uncertainty bars.

Get off the smug Doug. The name Dr. Craig Loehle is on the graph. If you're really as wise and all knowing as you seem to be suggesting you know that study. It's well known, as is that particular graph. If you're not familiar with it, I can tell you it really pissed off the RealClimate.org crowd. Go check out the oracle there. Feel free to post the rebuttal of the study. Whataya wanna bet I can find a rebuttal of the rebuttal?

Also that's not the only study out there showing the existence of a warmer MWP. Grab your RealClimate stuff together, come back, and I'll show you some of those.

BTW McIntyre has an open thread on Mann's new study. He hasn't had a chance to look over all the math yet, but he promises to do so any day, and he already has some stuff up. How bad do you really wanna defend the Hockey-Stick Mann? I mean, really?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Get off the smug Doug. The name Dr. Craig Loehle is on the graph. If you're really as wise and all knowing as you seem to be suggesting you know that study. It's well known, as is that particular graph. If you're not familiar with it, I can tell you it really pissed off the RealClimate.org crowd. Go check out the oracle there. Feel free to post the rebuttal of the study. Whataya wanna bet I can find a rebuttal of the rebuttal?

Wow. A tad defensive there, buddy. You can't just post an uncited graph and claim it's "well known" as justification for its accuracy. The Mann hockey stick is much more well-known. Does that make it more accurate?

All I said was that it was uncited and showed no error bars.

$1:

Also that's not the only study out there showing the existence of a warmer MWP. Grab your RealClimate stuff together, come back, and I'll show you some of those.

If you insist. I can't keep up with the voluminous material on,climate change anymore. I doubt that many people can, except for people who do it all day, every day. If you insist on showing a graph, you should source it and it should show error bars. So should Mann, for that matter.

$1:

BTW McIntyre has an open thread on Mann's new study. He hasn't had a chance to look over all the math yet, but he promises to do so any day, and he already has some stuff up. How bad do you really wanna defend the Hockey-Stick Mann? I mean, really?

I checked McIntyre and was disappointed. His ideology is showing. He was trashing the study before it was even posted. Bad form, McIntyre, bad form.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a graph from the Wikipedia page on the Hockey Stick controversy. They, of course, being Wikipedia, are pro-hockey stick. Show me the error bars.

Calling the Loehle study uncited when the guy's name is clearly written on the graph is a little silly. Writing Loehle Multi-proxy study into Google is no great feat.

Speaking of which, I'll show you a trick. There's a program called Page One which allows you to collect links on an HTML page in a searchable format. Every time you see one of these global warming threads, you'll see links. Open up Page One, and collect the links. You'll be surprised how quickly you have a links page with all the relevant information at your fingertips. I can find most stuff pretty quick.

I'm with you on not wanting to bring McIntyre into this, but I'll be honest. It's because I don't pretend to understand that upper level Math. It gives me a migraine trying. Nevertheless, as I recall his page on this new study from Mann said something like "Here's an open thread on this new study, so you guys can discuss it. I haven't had time to study it closely yet, but I will. At a glance though it appears like he grabbed the proxies that supported his claim, and ignored the ones that didn't". It isn't surprising he'd open a thread like that in view of his history with Mann.

You know what really bugs me about that article on Mann this thread is based on? It presents that study as some sort of automatic maxim of climate science without doing basic fact checking. If he did fact check he'd know why a study like that would not be openly accepted as a result of Hockey stick critique. That demands at least a paragraph explaining the controversy. He'd also know there are many current studies contradicting Mann's claim. That's worth mentioning.

There's so many of these articles turning up where no fact checking is done. The claim of whoever is then presented as scientific fact rather than what is, an as yet unsupported theory. Did you see that one lately from, I think it was NBC, and possibly the AP, stating global warming was going to cause catastrophic earthquakes? It turned out the quote unquote scientist was some whack-a-doodle psychic, and the university he was supposed to represent was run souly by himself. Or how about the one about the baby penquins who were drowning because they had to swim a thousand miles to escape the rain?

[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There's so many of these articles turning up where no fact checking is done. The claim of whoever is then presented as scientific fact rather than what is, an as yet unsupported theory. Did you see that one lately from, I think it was NBC, and possibly the AP, stating global warming was going to cause catastrophic earthquakes. It turned out the quote unquote scientist was some whack-a-doodle psychic, and the university he was supposed to represent was run souly by himself. Or how about the one about the baby penquins who were drowning because they had to swim a thousand miles to escape the rain?

I remember that thing with AGW causing earthquakes!

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... uakes.html

While some of what he says about rebounding is based on solid science he takes it all the nth degree to make it sound like global catastrophes are going to happen because of localized ice melts. That's where his proposal gets a little loony.

[Chumley]

The wet 20th century, the wettest of the past millennium, the century when Americans built an incredible civilization in the desert, is over.

[N_Fiddledog]

Actually Bart that's not the one I was thinking of.

It's this one.

Hansen has also made the earthquakes caused by global warming claim. Chalko's theory however concerning disrupted energy fields, and whatnot is just plain nuts. And that's not surprising, because as it turns out when you look for the information, Chalko is most likely nuts.