Shubee says:

I agree with #1.

Uncle Patso says:

Them collidge boyz think ther so smart! Ther awl a-lyin to yez… Why, fer awl yew know, we maht not even be speakin English! They maht have secretly bin teachin us Chinese our entire lives! ‘At’d be jist lahk ‘em!

YER ALL SPEAKIN CHINESE, I TELLS YA!!!

Buzz says:

There is an area of harshly elevated temperatures above an appliance in my kitchen that empirically demonstrate how global warming is simply a temporary local phenomenon.

MikeN says:

Bobbo, that was the impression I had of Bjorn’s writings. If you’ve read up on him ad seen differently, then I stand corrected.

I do link occasionally, but you’re right, not that often.

Misanthropic Scott says:

MikeN,

The fact that you refuse to link should give you pause. Here’s what it means to the rest of us:

* MikeN spews a bunch of garbage everywhere he goes without ever backing up a claim.

* MikeN expects to win a debate by having his debate opponents do his own work for him.

If you can back up what you say, people may start to take you seriously. Until you can though, We’ll go with one or both of the bullet points above.

As for ruling out reading a very well thought out and well documented summary of around 300-400 recent peer reviewed papers on a wide variety of subjects under the heading of climatology because the summary was written by 26 people including two you don’t trust is really rather childish, in my opinion.

Did you get past the authors page at all to even look at the wide array of topics covered by the paper, including:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of summertime sea-ice during 2007-2009 was about 40% less than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Did you note that there are 7 pages of references to peer reviewed articles in the full document?

As for Michael Mann in particular, as I have shown you on previous threads, the hockey stick paper has been repeatedly vindicated. So, you have no reason to distrust his work.

http://tinyurl.com/278taf9

Note the last paragraph on the wikipedia page below.

http://tinyurl.com/32z9tr

In a paper on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia. This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. In this work, they again claimed that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset. In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick point out a number of perceived problems, including that Mann et al. used some data with the axes upside down. Mann et al. in reply assert that McIntyre and McKitrick “raise no valid issues regarding our paper” and the “claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre”.

Vindicated.

MikeN says:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/

The 2008 Mann paper is arguably worse than the original hockey stick paper, mathematically. He took 1200 proxies, then filtered out the ones that look somewhat like hockey sticks, about 400 out of 1200, averaged them together, and said look here, these 1200 average out to a hockey stick!

Then there are problems on top of that, some of the proxies aren’t real proxies, but rather actual temperature records. On top of that, Mann actually used some proxies upside down so they looked like a hockey stick. The original Tiljander proxies showed ‘cooling’ in modern times because of farming activities, so Mann flipped it to make it look like warming. This had the effect of taking the warmest period on record from 1000-1200 look like the coldest.
At least Dr. Kaufman corrected this is his Arctic warming paper when it was pointed out to him by Steve McIntyre. Mann is too arrogant to correct these things. The Arctic warming paper also didn’t try to use the modern cooling as warming, only using the proxy until Tiljander said they were valid.

MikeN says:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/

You’ve previously said you are not interested in the bad math produced by some of these climate scientists, but since you’ve requested some links, see for yourself. Feel free to ask questions at RealClimate if you like. I did so, and their responses, when they didn’t just delete the inconvenient questions, just made me more skeptical.

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The trick is to hide the decline from the audience who isn’t likely to read the papers in detail to see the discussion of divergence. You claim evolution is the answer, but perhaps the answer is that the trees are not good proxies to begin with, it used to be warmer, and the same effect that is causing divergence now caused divergence then as well.

Misanthropic Scott says:

#52 – MikeN,

>well) an admitted thief.

Really, when did he do this?

Um … when he said … oooh look at all these pretty emails I stole when I broke into the CCU computer. Where did you think that the admitted thief got the email?

Here’s an article about the divergence problem that is being accounted for by “the trick”. Note that it is not a global issue, but is instead circumpolar. So this is not a planetary phenomenon. The tree ring data for northern latitudes agrees for a century or so then begins to diverge in the 1960s.

So, there are a few questions to be asked:

1) Do you have a problem with using actual temperatures when available?

2) Do you really think that the trees in this region invalidate the wealth of data from around the world?

3) Did you note that as the data set increases, any one piece of data, such as localized tree ring data, becomes far less central to the issue?

Misanthropic Scott says:

It’s funny, the graph on McIntyre’s blog page makes it appear that the hockey stick graph consists of a mere 3 data sets. Why is it that, in the actual published paper by Mann, et. al., there are eight data sets.

Is this because McIntyre was unable to dispute the majority of the data and thinks that by cherry picking just a few data points he can make a better lie to the general public?

I guess this is the result of looking at non-peer reviewed data on the blog of someone with a financial interest in producing disinformation about climate change, perhaps someone in the minerals industry.

Here’s the real graph from Mann, et. al.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.large.jpg