The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

If you linked to it because you felt that it wasn't an authority, then well done.

Here's what he cites from 1997: "Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements.”

Here's an updated paper (from 2008) which includes more data and isn't just heat flow, from the same authors: "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record."

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf

They conclude that the MWP was slightly cooler than the reference level.

Considering how badly he mucked up the first portion of his "paper" the fact that he only flounders this badly is sort of a bonus. Do you want me to keep reading this mess?

 

Guess what, you're right! Even though Europe warmed and the Northern Hemisphere cooled, that doesn't mean anything about the planet.

Here's a corrected citation for you, which is global, which shows that you're absolutely, 100% wrong and also concurs with the Huang paper:

http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf

Please refer to page 13.

 

It's not relevant to me because I'm not arguing that the solar cycle is responsible for the increased temperature since the industrial revolution.

If you are, then you'd better be able to address it.

No contradictions at all. My positions are not your positions. If you want to argue that the solar cycle is responsible for the increase in temperature since the industrial revolution, then you'd better be able to explain why the temperature isn't dropping every 11 years.

 

This Huang?

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

a group led by Shaopeng Huang of the University of Michigan completed a major analysis of over 6,000 borehole records from every continent around the world. Their study went back 20,000 years. The portion covering the last millennium is shown in Figure 4. The similarity to the IPCC’s 1990 graph is obvious. The world experienced a “warm” interval in the medieval era that dwarfs 20th century changes. The present-day climate appears to be simply a recovery from the cold years of the “Little Ice Age.”

 

I, among others, already have.

Very dishonest Dave.

Look, it even shows your 11 year cycles.

http://www.americanthinker.com/X.jpg

NASA data indicate that the climate on Mars is the warmest in decades, (NOT FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS DAVE) the planet's polar ice cap is shrinking, the ice in lower latitudes has disappeared, and a Martian ice age may be terminating.

Urban Renaissance Inst., http://www. Urban-renaissance.org; Eva Bauer, Martin Clausen, V. Broukin, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 6 (2003) pp127

A 100,000-year cycle results from the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun. A 41,000-year (obliquity) cycle results from the tilt of the earth on its axis. A 23,000-year (precession) cycle results from changes in direction of the earth's axis relative to the sun. Also, 95,000, 125 000 and 400,000 (obliquity) year cycles are operative, as is an 11-year sunspot cycle. All of these appear now to have peaked or are in decline. Over the last 300 years, following the Maunder "little ice age" there have been other dips in radiation, but on average, radiation has increased.

J. Howard Maccabee, http://www.nuc.berkely.edu, (colloquium)

 

Thought I'd add this part, where the IPCC cherry picks borehole info from 1500 on. Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, avoids the MWP yet again.


Huang and coauthors published their findings in Geophysical Research Letters6 in 1997. The next year, Nature published the first Mann hockey stick paper, commonly called “MBH98.”7 Mann et al. followed up in 1999 with a paper in GRL (“MBH99”) extending their results from AD1400 back to AD1000.8 In early 2000 the IPCC released the first draft of the TAR. The hockey stick was the only paleoclimate reconstruction shown in the Summary, and was the only one in the whole report to be singled out for repeated presentation. The borehole data received a brief mention in Chapter 2 but the Huang et al. graph was not shown. A small graph of borehole data was, taken from another study and based on a smaller sample, was shown in a post-1500 segment, which, conveniently, trended upwards.

 

Since you're dodging, I'll quote the parts I want you to address.

Mann et al. called their method a “multiproxy” technique, since it combined a variety of proxies. The most numerous, and influential, proxies in their data set are tree ring chronologies.

Mann arranged provision of a file which was represented as the one used for MBH98.

discovered a quite a few errors concerning location labels, use of obsolete editions, unexplained truncations of available series, etc.

We showed that when these errors were corrected the famous hockey stick disappeared.

Mann argued that we had studied the wrong data setset—in other words that the one he provided had mistakes in it and we ought instead to have used one in a newly-identified FTP archive at his university. Over the next month we examined his FTP archive and discovered that, in fact, it corresponded almost exactly to the file we had originally been working with.However it differed in important ways from the description of the data set in the original Nature paper. We supplied a list of these discrepancies to Nature and after their own investigation they ordered a Corrigendum from Mann et al.

PC algorithms choose weights to maximize the explained variance of a group of data series. If one series in the group has a relatively high variance, its weight in the PC1 gets inflated. The Mann algorithm did just this. It would, in effect, look through a data set and identify series with a 20th century trend, then load all the weight on them. In effect it ‘data-mines’ for hockey sticks.

In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.

The Mann algorithm efficiently looks for those kinds of series and flags them for maximum weighting. It concludes that a hockey stick is the dominant pattern even in pure noise.

The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without thesehockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.

Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts.


There's the meat of the argument. He data mined FOR the hockey stick.

Very dishonest.......

 

Do you even read my posts? Yes, that Huang, who updated this information in 2008 from the very specific 1999 paper that was quoted by your economist's article.

 

American "thinker?" Oh for christmas sakes. What's the source for that unreadable third copy Xerox?

We don't actually live on Mars. Also, Mars does not have an atmosphere. How are things on Saturn, by comparison?

From when? From 1950? No, it has not. From 1900? It has. From 1970? It has. Meanwhile, the global average temperatures have been increasing despite this.

Your theory doesn't just fail, it collapses in spasms.

 

Okay, so you want us to believe in your economist, who cites Huang from 1999.

At the same time you want us not to believe Huang in 2008, with more data, who states that the MWP was slightly cooler versus the reference temperature.

Meanwhile, your response is that the IPCC "cherry picked" 500 years of data (!!), even though the graphs that I just linked you to have at least 1000 years of data each that you can easily read yourself.

Right-o. Let's go drinking.

Since you've been proven wrong in 2008, by Huang himself, I hardly think it's worth reconstructing your errors.