I enjoyed reading the first half of this so far. Most of the arguments are weak and I will easily show why... when I have the time. Lovejoy actually made a nice argument. I will address his arguments in depth when i have the time in the next few days. But, here is a hint... he is making assumptions that proxy the proxy data part of the chart... that can not be justified. Proxy data does not have the resolution to support the arguments he makes about change in temperature over the the centuries. I hope I can find the articles I have read in the past that explain this.
Just under the continent of Antarctica and above the hot mantle plume is an area ripe for future river currents.
Wow yep, the armies of scientists who are faking conclusions and consensus to protect their research grants (for the life's work they know is meaningless?) are trembling. Ever stop to think why the volcano research got started? Nothing to do with scientific inquiry & honesty of course I read back a little yesterday on the great position trader. Sell1&Stop would be a better name for you but I guess a blind squirrel finds an acorn a few times a year? Of course I skimmed through and formed a superficial conclusion about you and first impressions are hard to change.. Same as you do with this new/all? research. Talking mostly to yourself online for 14 years... some golf & trips to explain away lightly leveraged position trading poorly executed. No wonder you seem to be stagnant as a trader. Maybe if I dug deeper I might for a different more nuanced conclusion but why would I want to do that when what I believe to be true is good enough?
I reread this article. so I will go through the first few sections of the dellingpole article to see if the critics and authors make legit arguments... 1. so the first graph is buntgen chart sure shows that northern temps were warming. i did a search your article and no one referenced buntgen. I note we don't have a lot of proxies from that time so its quite normal to see studies of the ice at the poles or trees in the northern hemisphere. That is where the science has been done. 2. abrantes chart... I find abrantes critique to be more political than informative. He should have said while that chart was in my paper it was not my chart... and although the chart does show the MWP to be warmer than todays temps my paper was about the fact that Ocean temps in my area have warmed recently to Medieval Warm period levels. 3. Li's chart - this segues or dovetails with Lovejoy's critque. Lovejoy wants to us to understand that he sees temperature change happening faster today than it did a long time ago. Fine. It was misleading of him to act like dellingpole committed "fundamental but common errors". The charts in the dellingpole article were fine. They were not even Dellingpoles charts. Lovejoy has apparently done some statistical work and believes temps are rising faster now than in the past. Maybe he is right. But, I think he makes too big a deal of this because at least some proxy records are not going to show quick changes. They don't have that kind of resolution. 4 chart... Guillet starts off saying his paper never said global warming was a myth. Dellingpole actually wrote... “Global warming” is a myth — so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017. I pretty much concur with the authors point. Extreme caution must be taken when using proxy records. They should not be used to show agw is a massive lie and they really can be graphed onto instrument data to show we are warming. "GHD records are now recognized as an important regional proxy for spring-summer temperature (Chuine et al., 2004; Meier et Pfister, 2007; Maurer et al., 2009; Garnier et al., 2011). Yet, as with any other proxy, the use of this archive for climate reconstructions comes with limitations and uncertainties. Several researchers have indeed shown that spring-summer temperatures are not the only factor influencing and/or determining grape harvest (Guerreau 1995, Rutishauser et al., 2007, García de Cortázar-Atauri et al., 2010). Changes in agricultural practices, the use of different grape varieties in the same region over time, as well as the political background (e.g. military conflicts, see Garnier et al., 2011) can influence harvest dates and bias the climate signal and therefore the climatic trends contained within the GHD series (García de Cortázar-Atauri et al., 2010). In summary, and given the limitations listed above, extreme caution must be taken before using the French GHD records to claim that global warming is a “massive lie”. We feel that additional studies addressing the limitations of this proxy and filling the numerous gaps existing in the available French GHD series must be carried out before drawing any definitive conclusion." I could go on... as I read it I don't really see anything standing out. If you have any points here worth making... let me know.
by the way here is the source article. http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/...modern-warming/#sthash.ktF0tSb7.MgvME77s.dpbs if you click... the graphs do seem to show a lack of warming... I realize the authors all want to warn us local data is not world wide data... but... that is problem with entire climate record... Even now we don't have great coverage in many parts of the globe. In short they are just reminding us... that we don't really see warming until the data gets messaged and manipulated. tomi loutos critique may be legit if their graph is not show temps but the temp vs precipitation difference. so that chart should just be removed.