Mann’s hockey stick disappears – and CRU’s Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data

Shock, awe. Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick. Here’s figure 5 that tells the story:

Figure 5. Temperature reconstructions created using the 650-tree (‘alltrw’ data) TRW chronology (a) and the 130 tree (‘S88G1112’ data) MXD chronology (b). Chronologies were created using two RCS curves and were regressed against the Bottenviken mean May–August monthly temperature over the period 1860 to 2006. The shaded areas show two standard errors (see SI15, available online, for details) plotted either side of the mean where standard errors were scaled to fit the temperature reconstruction. The TRW and MXD temperature reconstructions of (a) and (b) are compared in (c) after they were normalised over the common period 600 to 2008 and smoothed with a 10 year spline. The lower two panels compare the reconstructions using the TRW chronology (d) and MXD chronology (e) with the mean of May to August monthly temperature from Bottenviken over the period 1860 to 2006.

Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000, and that for the TRW chronology 20th century warmth is less than the spike around 1750. This puts 20th century (up to 2006 actually) warmth in the category of just another blip. There’s no obvious hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.

Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann). What is most curious here is that it was Briffa (in the Climategate emails) who was arguing that some claims about his post 1960 MXD series data as used in other papers might not be valid. It set the stage for “Mikes Nature trick” and “hide the decline“. Steve McIntyre wrote about it all the way back in 2005:

Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series are deleted from the IPCC TAR multiproxy spaghetti graph. These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000], see Figure 5), where post-1960 values are shown. The effect of deleting the post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series is to make the reconstructions more “similar”. The truncation is not documented in IPCC TAR.

I have to wonder if this is some sort of attempt to “come clean” on the issue. Mann must be furious at the timing. There’s no hint of a hockey stick, and no need to splice on the instrumental surface temperature record or play “hide the decline” tricks with this data.

Bishop Hill writes:

Well, well, well.

In its previous incarnation, without a MWP, the series was used in:

  • MBH98
  • MBH99
  • Rutherford et al 05
  • Jones 98
  • Crowley 00
  • Briffa 00
  • Esper 02
  • Mann, Jones 03
  • Moberg
  • Osborn, Briffa 06
  • D’Arrigo et al 06

It rather puts all that previous work in perspective, since this new paper has identified and corrected the biases. It should be noted though that tree ring paleoclimatology is an inexact science, and as we’ve seen, even a single tree can go a long way to distorting the output. On the plus side, it is good to see that this paper defines and corrects biases present in the MXD and TRW series of the Tornetraesk tree ring chronology dataset. This is a positive step forward. I suspect there will be a flurry of papers trying to counter this to save Mann’s Hockey Stick.

From the journal Holocene:

Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

Thomas M Melvin University of East Anglia, UK
Håkan Grudd Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Keith R Briffa University of East Anglia, UK

Abstract

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.

Here’s the money quote from the paper:

If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century.

Conclusions

• The RCS method generates long-timescale variance from
the absolute values of measurements but it is important to
test that data from different sources are compatible in
order to avoid systematic bias in chronologies.

• It was found in the Torneträsk region of Sweden that there were systematic differences in the density measurements from different analytical procedures and laboratory conditions and that an RCS chronology created from a simple combination of these MXD data contained systematic bias.

• Both the known systematic variation of measurement values (both TRW and MXD) by ring age and the varying effect of common forcing on tree growth over time must
be taken into account when assessing the need to adjust subpopulations of tree-growth measurements for use with RCS.

• It was necessary to rescale the ‘update’ density measurements from Torneträsk to match the earlier measurements over their common period, after accounting for ring-age decay, in order to remove this systematic bias.

• The use of two RCS curves, separately processing fastand slow-growing trees, has reduced the effect of modern sample bias which appears to have produced some artificial inflation of chronology values in the late 20th century in previously published Torneträsk TRW chronologies.

• A ‘signal-free’ implementation of a multiple RCS approach to remove the tree age-related trends, while retaining trends associated with climate, has produced
new 1500-year long MXD and TRW chronologies which show similar evidence of long-timescale changes over
their full length.

• The new chronologies presented here provide mutually consistent evidence, contradicting a previously published conclusion (Grudd, 2008), that medieval summers (between 900 and 1100 ce) were much warmer than those
in the 20th century.

• The method described here to test for and remove systematic bias from RCS chronologies is recommended for further studies where it is necessary to identify and mitigate systematic bias in RCS chronologies composed of nonhomogeneous samples.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, Michael E. Mann, Paleoclimatology and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

483 Responses to Mann’s hockey stick disappears – and CRU’s Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data

  1. Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…

  2. AlanG says:

    But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?

  3. theduke says:

    I can hear Rosanne Rosannadanna now: “Never mind.”

  4. Harold Ambler says:

    Color me happy.

  5. Crispin in Kuala-Lumpur says:

    @Leif

    Well spotted.

  6. What’s the betting that this paper will make it on to the forthcoming BBC Radio thing on Climategate?

  7. The warm is turning.

  8. Kevin Kilty says:

    Picking a nit…”throw” it out, not “through” it out.

    [Already fixed. — mod.]

  9. If you Halloween was incomplete without some Climate Science Comedy treats…

    see “Penn Pied Piper Plays Laureate” for a satirical look at current events….

    WARNING…do to the banal nature of current culture, this satire contains gratuitous
    use of double-entendre and was processed by equipment previoulsy used on NUTS.

    Trick or Treat here…. http://fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/Penn_Pied_Piper.pdf

  10. son of mulder says:

    I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

  11. Leif, Maunder started at 1645. Graph (b) has 1645 4C colder than now.

    Admittedly the cold started around 1600, warmed a bit and then made a big dip back to 8C. But it was cold. Very cold.

  12. MangoChutney says:

    Are trees good thermometers?

    I’m not so sure, so this paper could merely be another attempt to have trees accepted as a good proxy for historical temperatures – how long will it take for Mann to spot the “fatal flaw” in this paper?

    I’d be really interested to know who reviewed this paper.

    Also, this paper doesn’t make it into AR5, does it?

  13. cbltoo says:

    Think there’s a chance that the authors are irritated at the glowing attention that Mann and Hansen preen over for publishing nonsense and this is a passive aggressive way of shutting them up and getting back to reality?

  14. johnnyrvf says:

    Could it be, reading between the lines, that Dr. M. Mann may be becoming too much of an embarrassment for the ‘team’?

  15. Erik Christensen says:

    Hockey Stick, return to sender:
    Hit Me With My Hockey Stick
    Hit me, hit me, hit me
    Hit me slowly, hit me quick
    Hit me, hit me, hit me

  16. TrueNorthist says:

    One more nail in the “Treemometer” coffin. I’d say this calls for a little drinkeepoo… (Waiter!)

  17. joeldshore says:

    Ah…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area,,,Northern Sweden? I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.

    It helps to understand carefully what someone’s work actually said before jumping to the conclusion that a new piece of work contradicts it!

    REPLY: Oh, please. You really are a myopic sorts aren’t you? By your logic then we should ignore Yamal, and the infamous YAD061 sample becuase it is too local. That seemed fine for these scientists purposes before.

    The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s “embellished” it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims, and there are other papers that confirm that the MWP is as warm or warmer than today, such as

    Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/

    Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/

    But you’ll poo poo those too. because that’s what you do as a defender of the faith….a faith that is now dying a slow sure death. Go ahead spin furiously, because nobody but the faithful believes in the embellished dendro claims of the team anymore.- Anthony

  18. Pamela Gray says:

    Most major-journal papers worth their self-imposed sense of integrity would thank contributing sources used in the development and conclusion of the study. So. I would ask, is WUWT properly thanked at the end? I was just a low-life freshman researcher but had the honest integrity to include my gratitude in the area of Auditory Brainstem Response research. As you get older or well-known, does this obligation become unnecessary? I think not. Briffa owes a debt of gratitude to WUWT. I wonder if he has the honest type of integrity necessary to do the right thing. And to do it here.

    Come on Briffa, what say you?

  19. Pamela Gray says:

    By the way, my research thesis, published and archived in the Oregon State University library, includes such thanks but when my paper was published in a major journal, the citation of the debt I owed was removed by the higher-up laboratory powers-that-be I worked for before it got published. So apparently, my observation about when your lose your honest integrity appears to be valid.

  20. RobRoy says:

    Is the house of cards falling? All those papers that referenced old “data”. My MY.

  21. bee bop says:

    We are talking about Sweden, right?

  22. Bloke down the pub says:

    Now Keith, isn’t that a weight off your chest?

  23. Peter Miller says:

    Not a great day for ‘climate science’, as practiced by Mann, Hansen and others.

    But perhaps a good day for those few who practice real climate science.

    More important is this: it may be the start of a long ovedue process of ‘climate science’ becoming honest under the relentless pressure of sceptics exposing the distorted data and manipulated conclusions of the high priests of the CAGW cult.

  24. the1pag says:

    The famous Mann-ufactured AGW-promoting “Hockey Stick” is dead! Long live the King of global hoaxes!

  25. Gunga Din says:

    Hey, Mikey! Your bus is here!
    (Now all we need is a certain password.)
    PS to Briffa, Thanks for being honest about what you see. The repercussions will pass. What you see in the mirror won’t.

  26. RockyRoad says:

    son of mulder says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am

    I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

    Logical.

  27. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:51 am
    Leif, Maunder started at 1645. Graph (b) has 1645 4C colder than now.
    One should look at graph (c), not the individual years. And some people would say that now is the warmest on record in spite of solar activity being the lowest in a hundred years. But, for true believers, cheery picking always works their way. One way out is to claim that tree-ring data is nonsense, but that also makes nonsense that there was a ‘decline’ to hide.

  28. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.”

    Wrong. As we can see in this overlay of Antarctic, Greenland, and Arctic ice cores, global temperatures were synchronous — which includes the MWP.

    There is always regional variability, which makes for easy [and wrong] cherry-picking. But globally temperatures are synchronous in both hemispheres, as the ice core records make clear.

  29. RockyRoad says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    It helps to understand carefully what someone’s work actually said before jumping to the conclusion that a new piece of work contradicts it!

    You wouldn’t contradict Mann’s work if a hundred… nay, a thousand pieces of work contradicts it, joel. Some people are just stuck.

    But then, Mann has every reason to be honest, doesn’t he? Or are you missing the gist of Mann’s suit against Steyn?

    Stay stuck if you want while the rest of the world moves on.

  30. J Martin says:

    Leif Svalgaard said on October 28, 2012 at 11:21 am “Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…”

    A step in the right direction nonetheless. Just watch the solar min’s and max’s reappear when it starts to get very cold. Ten years ? Will Briffa have retired by then ? In which case someone else will do it.

    Wanted. A new H Lamb, for a post not yet on the job market, but surely will be once global warming turns out to be sustained serious cooling.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:21 am
    Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…

    Not at all Leif, everything fits nicely. My Solar derived proxy for ocean heat content is right on target:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/phil-jones-we-dont-know-what-natural-variability-is-doing/

  32. tallbloke says:

    Naturally , the paper is too late for inclusion in AR5e ,
    Where we will be treated to several hockeysticks I have no doubt.

  33. the1pag says:

    The hockey stick is dead! Long live the king of global hoaxes!

  34. Pamela Gray says:

    Leif, your logic is such ear candy. If tree-ring data is good, it shouldn’t deviate, if it is bad, it doesn’t matter. Priceless.

  35. Edim says:

    “Not only has the Hockey stick disappeared, but so have the Grand Solar Minima and Maxima correlations…”

    I see correlations.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png

  36. AlexS says:

    And the warmists and the so called “skeptics” discuss one more time an unreliable, localized temperature proxy…

  37. Alexej Buergin says:

    Et tu, Briffa.
    But that would compare the IPCC to Caesar, who was a great man.

  38. richardscourtney says:

    son of mulder

    At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:

    I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

    A compatriot with me.

    Richard

  39. Graeme M says:

    “I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.”

    Is this true, that 20th C warming is not asynchronous? I have seen the plots of global anomalies, but not the actual local records for the various continents etc. I DO know there is much controversy over local records, eg the Australian and NZ temp records for the past 100 years. I have done wolfram alpha plots o actual temp records for many countries and find very few cases of upwards trends but I have no idea how accurate those plots are.

  40. tallbloke says:

    richardscourtney says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:46 pm
    son of mulder
    At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:
    “I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?”
    A compatriot with me.
    Richard

    I think there may be a link of sorts between temperature and tree ring width, mostly mediated by changes in rainfall and the temperature dependency of co2.

    So, pretty tenuous. I trust Loehle’s non-tree-ring temperature proxy more.

  41. Edim says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    I see correlations.
    Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.

  42. Steven Mosher says:

    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm (Edit)
    Naturally , the paper is too late for inclusion in AR5e ,
    Where we will be treated to several hockeysticks I have no doubt.

    ######################

    tallbloke why do you spread this nonsense without even checking. The Melvin paper is cited in the Second Order Draft. The only deadline that really matters is the “accepted” deadline which doesnt happen until 2013. The most recent deadline merely stated that the papers had to be submitted.

    Sheesh. Does anybody here check facts.

  43. Steven Mosher says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    tallbloke why do you spread this nonsense without even checking.
    TB always spreads nonsense, to wit his comments upthread. Best thing is to just ignore it.

  44. stephen richards says:

    I seem to remember way back that Steve Mc detected a certain reticense in Briffa at some point. Sort of, like Briffa was embarrassed by Mann and was looking for a way out.

  45. Steven Mosher says:

    Leif,

    Not sure if you are a reviewer or not but the SOD has some nice work on MWP/LIA and solar forcing studies. of course for those who think their science is settled ( the sun dunnit ) the actual science may not be of interest. hehe.

  46. Dajake says:

    I thought it was decided that all warming was global and all cooling was regional.

  47. Steven Mosher says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    Not sure if you are a reviewer or not but the SOD
    I’m not. I only try to make sure that the solar data is correct [hard enough with people wanting to cherry pick old, obsolete, invalid 'data']. Actual science usually is of minor interest compared to the ’cause’, whatever that might be.

  48. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    Wrong. As we can see in this overlay of Antarctic, Greenland, and Arctic ice cores, the MWP was globally synchronous.

    Ah…As near as I can tell (because you have presented a graph with no context and even no labels on the axes), what you are showing is a graph over the last 100,000 years. If you can pick out something that happened 1000 years ago on such a graph, you have better eyes than I.

    Anthony says:

    Oh, please. You really are a myopic sorts aren’t you? By your logic then we should ignore Yamal, and the infamous YAD061 sample becuase it is too local. That seemed fine for these scientists purposes before.

    I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?

    Look, I don’t claim to know for sure whether the modern Northern hemispheric temperatures are definitely warmer than they were during the MWP or not. Most full hemispheric reconstructions have found they are; a few, such as those other two you mentioned, have apparently found the MWP temperature comparable. And, unlike many around here, I let science, rather than my own preconceptions, drive the conclusions.

    However, citing a paper regarding a temperature record at one location as if it contradicts work regarding the entire hemispheric temperature record is just wrong, pure and simple. And, defending it while claiming that some respected scientist’s work is a “fabrication” is just the pot calling the kettle…

  49. Mike says:

    The prospect of going to jail for those deliberately corrupting science is going to do a lot of good for those that have adhered to the scientific method. Unsettled science is real again.

  50. James Evans says:

    Mosher:

    “Does anybody here check facts.”

    Yes. You’re annoyingly full of yourself. Fact.

  51. Leif: “One should look at graph (c), not the individual years.”

    Ok.

    From 1550 to 1750 the vast majority of the temperatures are below 10C. From 1400 to 1550 temperature straddle 10.

    Until I see the data I would suggest a .5C drop after 1550 that lasted for 200 years. I am not a believer in tree rings, but think .5C lower sustained over 200 years is not trivial.

    That would be the modern equivalent of dropping from 1998 temperatures to 1970s temperatures (the coming ice age time).

  52. Pamela Gray says:

    Steven, you just charged yourself by your own words. Yes, there are people here who check their facts.

  53. Taphonomic says:

    Doe this mean that the National Research Council should/will revisit their conclusion: “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium”???

  54. Leif, is there a good solar UV proxy graph or data for the same period?

    Mosher (the sun dunnit ) do you have any good proxies for cloudiness/surface sunshine/aerosols for that period? There a number of recent papers talking about 2W/sq-m more sunshine reaching the earth from 1980 on because of cleaner air with some drop as China strated to burn huge amounts of coal.

  55. Darren Potter says:

    WUWT: “The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s ‘embellished’ it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims,”

    Careful Anthony, lest ye be subject to the wrath of Mann…
    ;)

  56. u.k.(us) says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    October 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    “Sheesh. Does anybody here check facts.”
    —————————–
    I know it was rhetorical, but all the same.

  57. Joe says:

    I’m still open to convincing on the value of tree-ring proxies, but don’t forget that even instrumental measurements are really proxies in the strict sense. What they actually measure is the expansion or electrical effects of temperature.

    The only difference really is in the control we have over other factors that might affect the readings as we build and calibrate the instruments and filter the output. With tree rings we have no control over other factors when they were “built”. Whether or not we can calibrate or filter for them is, to my mind, still a very open question – to simply say “we can’t” is no better than saying that “the science is settled”.

    From the abstract it appears that this is the question that Melvin and Briffa are approaching, and doing so without applying preconceptions to the results (or they would have found another stick in the locker room). Whether or not it ultimately withstands the (no doubt harsh) scrutiny it will receive from certain quarters, it may well mark a turning point back towards real scientific enquiry within the field.

    For that, at least, this work should be commended.

  58. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

  59. the1pag says:

    Svald says “…. Actual science usually is of minor interest compared to the ’cause’, whatever that might be.”

    Right on, Svald! And I support the “cause” of identifying all the-junk-science for the junk that it is!

  60. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “unlike many around here, I let science, rather than my own preconceptions, drive the conclusions.”

    BWA-A-A-A-A-HA-HA-HA-HA-A-A-A!!

    ‘Mr Contradiction’ infuses everything with leftist politics. His science is cherry-picked to conform to his far left world view.

    Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    But going by past experience, Mr Contradiction will claim that all these charts are wrong. It’s his MO.

  61. davidmhoffer says:

    joeldshore;
    I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr (Briffa et al., 2004).”

    IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch6 P471

  62. vukcevic says:

    Steven Mosher says: October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    ………..
    Hi Steven
    I wouldn’t discard the solar, not as yet (see vukcevic page 6) than take a look at
    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/22423/1/97-0910.pdf
    page 9:The total CAM (core angular momentum) results from the summation of the individual cylinders with a maximum at a 15-year lead with respect to LOD …… (note the -65-year periodicity).
    and the latitude-time data plot from the table (page 26) of the above
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OJV.htm
    then see vukcevic page 6 again.

  63. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    Until I see the data I would suggest a .5C drop after 1550 that lasted for 200 years. I am not a believer in tree rings, but think .5C lower sustained over 200 years is not trivial.
    Perhaps not, but solar activity does not follow curve (c): http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png The green curve is solar activity deduced from cosmic ray proxies of the solar magnetic field as carried out to the Earth by the solar wind.

  64. Edim says:

    “Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.”

    What doesn’t fit? Which data disagrees?
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

    Considering there must be other, non-solar factors, the correlation between colder periods and periods of weak solar activity (minima) is significant and not controversial.

  65. Laurie says:

    It’s obvious that Big Oil has gotten to Briffa!
    /sarc

  66. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    Great. Why don’t you come back when you have something relevant to the discussion to actually contribute. (Hint: You may want to re-read what I originally wrote.)

  67. Werner Brozek says:

    “Ball indicates there is a list of likely suspects, insiders, who may well have been the whistle blower and points a finger at Keith Briffa, one of the climate scientists who appeared to be a war with those running the show at the Climate Research Unit.”

    For the rest of the article, see:
    http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2009/12/23/climategate-hacker-probably-whistleblower/

  68. Tom in Worcester says:

    James Evans says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm
    Mosher:

    “Does anybody here check facts.”

    Yes. You’re annoyingly full of yourself. Fact.
    ===========================================
    LOL I always thought that you need put it in CAPS to make it true. FACT.

  69. Dan in Nevada says:

    Question for anybody that might know: Has the data necessary for replication been provided?

    Aside from the question as to whether or not trees make good thermometers, the sticking point has, to me, always been the deliberate concealment of data and methodology that appears to undergird modern ‘climate science’. Any time Steve M. has been able to actually get his hands on raw data, he conclusively shows that the published results are utter crap. Any time Anthony is able to compare raw measured temperature data against the ‘adjusted’ published results, he conclusively shows the published results are utter crap. And so on, and so on, and scoobie doobie doo……

    To rephrase my question, is this real science?

  70. davidmhoffer says:

    My usual reservations about using trees as a proxy for temps aside, I just can’t help but get the feeling that Briffa is trying to come in from the cold. The CG2 emails revealed a VERY adversarial relationship between Jones/Briffa and Mann in the late 90′s, with one email from Jones saying to Mann that Briffa had with held “d*mning” criticism of Mann’s hockey stick. As late as 2006, there was even an email from Briffa to colleagues asking them not to let Mann “bully” them.

    At some point in the timeline, that adversarial relationship stopped. Suddenly they closed ranks. Why? The CG2 emails even reveal Jones and Mann conspiring to get each other nominated for various awards. After warning Mann that he and Briffa think Mann’s work is bunk, suddenly they’re pals and Mann’s work is golden? Jones even admits that instead of disputing Mann’s work, he has instead adopted Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline”.

    One can’t help but get the impression that Briffa’s plea to others not to let themselves be bullied by Mann was not only ineffective, but that he wound up succumbing to the bullying himself. After all, Phil Jones was Briffa’s boss at the time (still is?) and given the sudden uber cozy relationship between his boss and Mann… did Briffa give in? And why this paper now? Keep in mind that it flies in the face Jones work as well given that he’s now essentially correlated his work with Mann’s.

    The ClimateGate releases were inside jobs.

    Things that make you go….hmmm.

  71. Eliza says:

    Me thinks this is partly a “way out” for Briffa, so at least in future he is considered “partly” honest at least….Mann’s case will be destroyed by Steyn and a pandoras box will open..

  72. joeldshore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    “Although ostensibly representative of northern Eurasian summer conditions, these data were later scaled using simple linear regression against a mean NH land series to provide estimates of summer temperature over the past 2 kyr (Briffa et al., 2004).”

    IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch6 P471

    Look at the sentence before that:

    Briffa (2000) produced an extended history of interannual tree ring growth incorporating records from sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia, using a statistical technique to construct the tree ring chronologies that is capable of preserving multi-centennial time scale variability.

    So no, that was not just Yamal being used to provide estimates for the Northern hemisphere…That was data from sites spread over northern Europe and Asia. And, the wording in the IPCC report (and, I might imagine in the paper if one looked it up, which I haven’t) implies that some circumspection is required in believing that even data from that larger region is really representative of NH summer temperatures.

  73. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Anthony Watts wrote:

    Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000, and that for the TRW chronology 20th century warmth is less than the spike around 1750. This puts 20th century (up to 2006 actually) warmth in the category of just another blip. There’s hockey stick, and the MWP returns, though approximately equal to 20th century warmth rather than being warmer.

    Mr. Watts, while you are presenting this new study by Melvin et al. as something that provides results which allegedly refute Mann’s hockey stick you do not tell your audience here that the temperature reconstruction shown in the graph, explicitly mentioned by you here, in the Melvin et al paper is done only for a region of Northern Scandinavia, unlike the temperature reconstruction in Mann et al., (1999), doi: 10.1029/1999GL900070, which was a reconstruction of the Northern Hemispheric temperature. You are not presenting the results of the Melvin et al. paper correctly and you are jumping to conclusions, which are not supported by the new Melvin et al. paper.

    The Hockey Stick in Mann et al., (1999) does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a Medieval Warm Period, anyway. The shape of the Hockey stick in this paper is characterized by a long-term cooling trend from warmer Medieval times up to the end of the 19th century, which is followed by a sharp upward movement in the temperature in the 20th century (see Figure 3 in Mann et al., 1999). The Hockey stick in this paper doesn’t even preclude the possibility of a Medieval Warm Period with about equal temperatures as in the 20th century, since the 20th century average temperature still lies within the upper half of the error band of Mann’s Hockey Stick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval times.

  74. vukcevic says:

    Steven Mosher says: October 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm
    ……
    re: my comment above, see also vukcevic page 7, Fig. 12 : direct Arctic atmospheric pressure response no delay and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/OJV.htm

  75. John Trigge (in Oz) says:

    Does anyone other than me also see the large number of rapid temperature rises that are similar to the late 20th century rises attributed to CO2?

  76. ColdOldMan says:

    joeldshore says: October 28, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    However, citing a paper regarding a temperature record at one location as if it contradicts work regarding the entire hemispheric temperature record is just wrong, pure and simple.

    Here are a few more from around the world. These should keep you happy for a while.

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

  77. rgbatduke says:

    I actually have always thought that Briffa, and to a substantial extent Jones as well, have felt quite uncomfortable being considered members of “the hockey team” and having a lot of pressure not to speak their doubts and to toe the party line. There are a few comments in the climategate papers (and elsewhere) that have suggested annoyance at having their “scientific opinion” co-opted by some sort of group effort to defend Mann at all costs because the hockey stick was “the” official empirical basis of CAGW. They’ve also had a lot of pressure on them not to express their own doubts in public.

    Yes, David, precisely the letters you refer to more exactly. Also wasn’t there a story about being on a talk show and having their “scientific opinion” defined by the talk show host, where any contrary evidence or guarded observations were edited out? This has been simmering for a LONG time.

    Note well that Jones and Briffa’s early climate reconstructions clearly showed the MWP and were far less “hockey stick”-like than Mann’s. Then there was the climategate 1 communication from (was it Bradley?) stating quite clearly that the goal was to “erase the MWP” and the LIA, as with them in place no rational person could be brought to the requisite state of panic — it’s getting as warm as it was 1000 years ago WITHOUT anthropogenic CO_2 — so what’s the beef?

    Good heavens. We could actually regress to where climate science is actually science again.

    rgb

  78. Edim says:
    October 28, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    Considering there must be other, non-solar factors, the correlation between colder periods and periods of weak solar activity (minima) is significant and not controversial.
    The sunspot number you show is very controversial, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf and http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
    And the correlation is contradicted by the Figure in the article of this thread:
    http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png The green curve is solar activity deduced from cosmic ray proxies of the solar magnetic field as carried out to the Earth by the solar wind.

  79. aquix says:

    My friends, I say it again. I believe briffa is FOIA.

    Been a fun week reading all the comments :D

  80. Sundance says:

    Now I’m in real catch 22 trouble because no matter which dendro reconstruction I accept I will accused of being a denier by the the authors of the other dendro reconstruction.

  81. zootcadillac says:

    My personal opinion not worth much and based upon nothing other than I have grown a few things, is that tree-ring proxies are indicative of little other than hoe felicitous the local conditions were to the welfare of that particular stand of trees.

    As for this study being local to Scandinavia all I know is that climatic, seasonal conditions, year on year are pretty similar from Siberia to the West coast of Ireland with Scandinavia & Siberia bearing the brunt of the low temperatures in winter but having pretty similar summers all over the area. It’s mild & temperate. And I’d say if that’s true of today there is no reason why it won’t be true of the past.

    Certainly you can’t accept this as being a reconstruction for the whole of the Northern hemisphere but the more studies like this that can be done honestly perhaps the alarmists will stop trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction.

    I welcome that Briffa has done this work though never thought I’d see the day.

  82. philincalifornia says:

    Taking this at face value, what’s going on around 1760-ish ??

  83. GlynnMhor says:

    Trees grow according to whichever environmental parameter is the limiting one. If there’s enough water, sunlight, and nutrients, then temperature may be the limiting factor, but if (for example) water is scarcer than normal and thus limits growth, the validity of the tree growth as a temperature proxy is going to fail.

  84. joeldshore says:

    ColdOldMan say:

    Here are a few more from around the world. These should keep you happy for a while.

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html

    And, this addresses the issue of the synchronicity of the warm events in different locations during the broadly-defined several hundred year period called the Medieval Warm Period how exactly? Let’s take two of the data points from that map: Look at this one http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Rolland-2009.html showing it warm between about 1200 and the late 1300s but cold in the 1100s and about average before that. And, then there’s this one http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Grudd-2008.html showing it warm from ~900-1100 and then on the cold side side of average from about 1100 to 1400. That rather nicely illustrates exactly the point that Mann et al. were making: that the warm events tended to be asyncronis at different locations.

    It also rather nicely illustrates how that site doesn’t bother to address the real scientific questions and hopes that people who want to believe what they are peddling won’t notice!

  85. I believe it is unfair to cast a stone to Briffa, Jones was his boss and it would have been very difficult for him to go against him and his colleagues, it would have been a social suicide, everybody cannot be Svensmark who passed through very tough time and resisted. The most important point is that he eventually wrote this paper and that the tide seems to change.

  86. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    Here is another chart showing the excellent temperature correlation between hemispheres. And another. And another. And another. And just for fun, here’s a chart showing a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    But going by past experience, Mr Contradiction will claim that all these charts are wrong. It’s his MO.

    No…I will just point out that they are irrelevant given that the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.

  87. joeldshore says:

    zootcadillac says:

    Certainly you can’t accept this as being a reconstruction for the whole of the Northern hemisphere but the more studies like this that can be done honestly perhaps the alarmists will stop trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction.

    When you talk about “alarmists [...] trying to dismiss the MWP as fiction” are you talking about, for example, when Mann et al. said in their original 1000-year reconstruction paper (1999) that

    Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the
    millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age sensu lato.

    Or are you talking about something else? I agree that there seems to be an issue with fiction here.

  88. Dan in Nevada says:

    John Trigge (in Oz) October 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm says:
    “Does anyone other than me also see the large number of rapid temperature rises that are similar to the late 20th century rises attributed to CO2?”

    To me, MXD from ~1000 to ~1100 looks a lot like ~1900 to ~2000 if you’re looking at both trends and actual temperatures. If the past can predict the future, what happens after ~1100 doesn’t bode well for humanity, other than putting CAGW to rest once and for all.

  89. John Whitman says:

    Timing of 4 paleo papers suspicious to even the non-cynical.

    In the month of October 2102 three papers published showing adverse results versus the AR3 and AR4 endorsed Hockey Stick papers by Mann.

    Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/

    Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/

    ‘Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data’ by Thomas M Melvin, Håkan Grudd and Keith R Briffa in the the journal ‘Holocene’ http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/26/0959683612460791.abstract and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

    The deadline for submission of papers for potential inclusion to AR5 was July 31 2012.

    I assume they were not in the FOD or the SOD? If so is it because they were too late? Is there anecdotal evidence by those involved in authoring the papers of any unusual delays or unusual processes imposed by the journals wrt the reviews and acceptance of those papers that caused them to miss the AR5 deadline for paper submittal?

    I contrast the above questions with the CA post on the problematic and unusual circumstances involved in the IPCC keeping the research of Gergis et al (that has results favorable to the results of Mann’s hockey stick papers which AR3 and AR4 endorsed) alive even though there is prima fascia evidence that it missed the July 31 deadline. http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/22/ipcc-check-kites-gergis/#more-17121

    John

  90. TBear says:

    Mann is suing for defamation.

    Not sure the judge will care very much that Briffa, etc (or anyone else, for that matter) arrive at a different interpretation of the ancient temperature record.

    Two scientists, two different results. So what?

    The issue in the Mann case is the allegation of scientific fraud. NRO and Mark Steyn look more like the ones who have made a mistake here, especially by challenging Mann to sue. That little add-on was an unnecessary and potentially expensive indulgence.

  91. richardscourtney says:

    GlynnMhor:

    At October 28, 2012 at 2:39 pm you say

    Trees grow according to whichever environmental parameter is the limiting one. If there’s enough water, sunlight, and nutrients, then temperature may be the limiting factor, but if (for example) water is scarcer than normal and thus limits growth, the validity of the tree growth as a temperature proxy is going to fail.

    Yes. But that assumes the limiting factor is a constant throughout the life of the tree. For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.

    And, importantly, in the cases where temperature is the limiting factor then the tree only indicates temperature in the growing season. Altered autumn and winter temperatures will not be indicated.

    Most important of all is the inability of selection to provide a valid calibration sample: Lucia gives an excellent explanation of this for non-statisticians at
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

    Richard

  92. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    Edim says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:37 pm
    I see correlations.
    Of course you do. True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.

    Is that what the proxy data says after Mann has fiddled with it, or what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?

    As I’ve told you before, so long as you don’t manage to iron the solar data completely flat, my model can cope with whatever watered down TSI changes you manage to convince the solar community with.

  93. KnR says:

    How long before Briffa has to deny his heretical ways , Mann nether forgives for forgets any member if ‘the Team ‘ crosses him they better watch out.

  94. tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    Is that what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
    It is Steinhilber’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png
    And the treemometer data must be correct as they ‘fit nicely’ with your model, right?

    my model can cope with whatever watered down TSI changes you manage to convince the solar community with.
    Reminds me of Dikpati’s remark after Hathaway told her that the data she used [supplied by Hathaway] was faulty: “it doesn’t matter, my result is robust and is correct even if based on faulty, out-of-date data”. You two would get along nicely.

  95. KnR says:

    TBear says:
    ‘Two scientists, two different results.’

    That is actual part of defence , that Manns claims are up for ligament challenged and therefore it is reasonable to suggest he was wrong given there are conflicting views from the ‘experts ‘
    Mann’s ego has never allowed that to be the case in the past, he regards himself to be a god like figure incapable of being wrong and and therefore from being fairly challenged.

  96. vukcevic says:

    Tree growing season in a large part of England (the CET area) wasn’t much ‘fun’ for the last 350 years
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET(MJJA).htm

  97. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:46 pm
    Is that what the solar data says after you’ve fiddled with it Leif?
    It is Steinhilber’s reconstruction http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa.png
    And the treemometer data must be correct as they ‘fit nicely’ with your model, right?

    Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content, as lgl demonstrated recently.

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp.png

  98. Bill Illis says:

    The difference in this study is that they just presented the data.

    They did not “mine” the data for hockey sticks as almost all the other tree-ring/proxy reconstructions do.

    As in throw data out if it does not have a hockey stick and even accentuate data if it does have a hockey stick (bristle-cone pines for example).

    As in cut the data off and append a completely different series to it (adjusted temperatures).

    This is a world of difference that has nothing to do with location but deals with methodology.

    Even in the latest FOI releases related to the withdrawn Gergis paper, (see Climate Audit today) the authors note they did not want to use Mann’s method of using undetrended temperature to proxy correlations because this tends to construct “hockey sticks”.

  99. davidmhoffer says:

    joeldshore;
    So no, that was not just Yamal being used to provide estimates for the Northern hemisphere…That was data from sites spread over northern Europe and Asia.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Joel, your orginal assertion reads as follows:

    “I didn’t say this sample can be ignored. I just said it alone does not a global or hemispheric reconstruction make. Neither does Yamal. Can you show me where anyone has claimed it does?”

    Your question as worded doesn’t refer to Yamal, it refers to “this sample”.

  100. commieBob says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Ah…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area …

    Congratulations, you’re absolutely correct. It doesn’t prove much though. According to the historical record, the MWP and LIA happened at roughly the same time in Europe and China but the dramatic, history changing, decades long, epochs of warm and cold temperature happened at different times. In Europe the 1300s brought cold and famine. In China, Japan and Korea, the really bad stuff didn’t happen until the 1600s.

    It blows my mind that so many people pay so much attention to Mann and Briffa. There is a huge number of studies that contradict Mann. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/description.php

    I was a CAGW believer until they tried to erase the MWP. So, you can credit Mann with creating at least one skeptic.

  101. raveendrannarayanan says:

    “NYC Mayor was with Soda XL & Cigarette smokes in parks http://t.co/Lcx4DDj via @Raveendrannaray S -+>> SUPER STORM SANDY

  102. tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content
    As you say, fiddle the right way and you can make anything fit.

    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
    Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.

  103. Ian Innes says:

    Better one sinner repenteth!

    I am very curious as to the timing of the release of this paper (obviously Mann wasn’t informed and this wasn’t done overnight0. I wonder what has been going on behind the scenes. As alluded to above, is Biffra trying to absolve himself or perhaps distance himself from the propaganda that has passed for scientific comment or was the poor man just led a merry dance by Mann et al?

    Although it is very personnally satisfying to see one of the “opposition” distance themselves from the “Hockey Team” I doubt we will see the politicians or the BBC suddenly say “OK thats it no more windmills, were gonna cut your taxes and green surcharges”, they have far too much invested in this scare.

    Until, ideally, one of the “opposition” stands up and publicly recants in a very noticable way it will be keep calm, wear you sunblock and buy a set of big wellie boots coz the ice caps are still metling, and carry on.

  104. Tree rings have been over hyped as a conveyor of anything more than a rough guide to age and precipitation. What does a single study from one region showing a summer only signal prove? There were many hot summers even during parts of the lia. It was the cold winters that really dragged the overall temperatures down and tree rings couldn’t show that even if they were any sort of guide to summer temperatures.

    Having said that there were around forty years at the start of the 18th century that seem broadly comparable to the modern day according to observational and crop records with very warm summers although still colder than now winters on the whole
    Tonyb

  105. Vuk

    Your tree growing season link doesn’t work. Or were you testing us? Do I get a prize?

    Tonyb

  106. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    Steinhilber’s TSI fit’s quite well with Mann08 if you treat it in the same way as I do with my solar proxy for ocean heat content
    As you say, fiddle the right way and you can make anything fit.

    Wiggle matching is such fun. The calibrations are starting to look good too.

    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    By The way Leif, have you seen Steinhilber’s latest paper?
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/

    Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.

    Well naturally, there is a status quo to defend after all. Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?

  107. Bart says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    “True believers always do. For them, everything fits nicely, no matter what the data says.”

    And, similarly for True Disbelievers.

    The amplitude modulation of temperatures is still incredibly obvious. Physician, heal thyself.

  108. climatereason says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:49 pm
    Tree rings have been over hyped as a conveyor of anything more than a rough guide to age and precipitation. What does a single study from one region showing a summer only signal prove?
    According to tallbloke the treemometer data ‘fit nicely’ with solar activity, so prove that the treemometer data are GOOD :-)

  109. tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
    Why don’t you ask them?

  110. Bart says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    The amplitude modulation of temperatures is still incredibly obvious
    So you are saying that the treemometer data are incredibly good?

  111. Leigh

    We all have our own beliefs based on the knowledge we have accumulated. The other TB has his opinion and I have mine.

    Sometime in the last twenty years tree rings were somehow elevated from a reasonable guide to dating and a less reliable guide to general precipitation and became supposedly highly accurate tree nometers. Perhaps the elevation to a precise science was done by mann and the ipcc perhaps it happended coincidentally. Whatever the background I don’t buy the supposed accuracy of the results
    Tonyb

  112. Leif

    Sorry, my kindle transposed your name to ‘Leigh’. It’s a good name though, perhaps you’d consider changing?

    Tonyb

  113. tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    “Well naturally, there is a status quo to defend after all. Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?”

    I guess it was a journal whose editor thought that Leif Svalgaard is an expert in solar physics and sent the paper to him as a referee. The paper was rejected based on Leif’s biased arguments.
    Then the authors sent the paper to another journal and the editor did not thought that Leif was an expert in the topic. And the paper was accepted without problems.

    Numerous papers are coming out on this topic. I hope that Anthony realizes that Leif mislead him, and that planetary harmonics is key to understand both solar dynamics and climate change, as my papers strongly suggested.

    By the way, a correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted in my paper:

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    And a possible physical mechanism is here

    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.

  114. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    The paper was rejected based on Leif’s biased arguments.
    A case of sour grapes?
    Regardless of who rejected the paper, there are almost always several referees, especially with high-quality journals.

  115. Terry UK says:

    I’ve sent this to all BBC environmental correspondents. No replies as yet…

  116. markx says:

    joeldshore says: October 28, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    “…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area,,,Northern Sweden? I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al….”

    If you look at Mann’s worldwide MWP reconstruction publications, you will see that it is (necessarily) based on modelling based on scattered paleoclimate proxies. In fact, in the southern hemisphere he only has about 6 proxies, and most of those were strangely warmer than the modelled surrounds. (see Fig 2, below)

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

  117. joeldshore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    Your question as worded doesn’t refer to Yamal, it refers to “this sample”.

    Well…I guess it is open to interpretation but I meant it to refer to Yamal.

    Nonetheless, I don’t think it matters. The IPCC quote refers to Briffa work covering “sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia”. The current Briffa paper seems to refer only to “the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden”.

  118. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    VERY well put Dan, because the d.e.f.i.n.i.t.i.o.n. of science is that it c.a.n. be r.e.p.l.i.c.a.t.e.d.

    Till people are regularly replicating it, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It never WAS, it NEVER WILL be.

    “OK, so you’ve observed something. How do you know it is right? How do you know you observed it correctly? Or wrote it down correctly? Or there wasn’t something else happening that you didn’t notice (like someone bumped the table or something) that messed up your observation? Why, you just do it again. This is the second important part of science: replication. Do it again. If we observe something, and we describe what we did and other people can repeat our experiment and observe the same result, then we can conclude we’ve correctly observed what is true.

    This is a big deal and it is the reason why scientists don’t care much about reports of ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), mind reading and stuff like that. Not because they don’t like the people doing it, not because the people doing it aren’t smart, not because they don’t use big words, but because other people are unable to repeat the experiment and get the same result. It’s that simple. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then you don’t understand it. It isn’t science. Accidents and coincidences happen all the time. Nobel Prize-winner Richard Feynman said science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.

    Once we can replicate an observation, we can propose a mechanism in nature that explains the observation (scientists call this kind of proposal a theory), or we can devise a mathematical relationship between parts of nature (a law). For our theory or law to be part of science, it must be able to predict a result of an experiment that has not yet been done. This is the third important part: prediction. If it can do this successfully, then it will be accepted. This is also important. If your explanation only explains what’s already been observed, then that’s OK, but not very convincing. Anyone can come up with an explanation for things they see. The really good ones explain what no one has seen yet.

    So, these are three vital parts of science that we are discussing today: observation, replication and prediction.”

    From a C.H.I.L.D.R.E.N’S. site on science.

    These people who are running this ‘catastrophe! Catastrophe if you don’t invest HERE! and HERE!’ need to be in jail.

    http://www.trimberger.org/programs/observe_replicate_predict.htm

    This didn’t one day become crime recently, it’s been crime ever since Al Gore and others defied law enforcement to compare their political power

    to his.

  119. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “…the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.”

    Not really. The point of discussion is your false claim that the MWP was not a global phenomenon. I and others have shown you that it was. The 2nd Law does not allow a major region to remain so anomalously cold or hot for hundreds of years as you sem to believe. The same goes for the LIA, which Mann ±90% erased.

    Anyway, thanks for your assertion. I back my comments by posating empirical evidence, and lots of it. You just assert your opinion, or link to other model-based opinions. And do I have to point out once again that the planet does not agree with your “carbon” scare?

  120. Jean Parisot says:

    son of mulder

    At October 28, 2012 at 11:45 am you ask:

    I still have no faith in tree rings as a proxy for global temperature. I think it’s a waste of money that could be better spent on real science. What sort of denier or sceptic does that make me?

    Empirical scum!

  121. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    “Regardless of who rejected the paper, there are almost always several referees, especially with high-quality journals.”

    Leif, if an editor send this type of papers to you, that means that the editor himself is biased on the topic. So, also the other referees were poor scientists unfamiliar and possible hostile on this topic.

    By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.

  122. markx says:

    More on Briffa – perhaps a decent chap, perhaps just trying to walk that fine line (maybe he just got swamped by the system):

    From climategate emails:

    cc: ???@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Calvert), ???@ocean.seos.uvic.ca
    date: Thu Aug 5 12:07:07 1999
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: Skeptics
    to: Tom Pedersen , ???@climate1.geo.umass.edu

    Temperature reconstructions based on ring density have an opposite bias – reduced density in recent years that may similarly be expressed to different degrees depending on the method of data processing and which would in any case suppress evidence of recent warming. This may or may not be associated directly with the effects of CO2 or other fertilization.

    Our density reconstructions still show the 20th century to be anomalously warm in a several hundred year context , and perhaps much longer one.

    The problem here is a genuine paucity of long series and statistical problems in processing and calibrating such data.

    We need to and are, doing much more work to explore these……

    I for one still believe that we are seeing the manifestation of greenhouse warming but I know the evidence presented to date leaves many questions still unanswered .

    I too believe that solar variability is a potential forcing factor that has likely contributed to the variability of 19th and 20th century observations .

    The extent of the effect surely requires much more model-based research.

    Simply correlating Hoyt’s series against observations or reconstructed temperatures does not get us far.

    I also believe we have major uncertainty surrounding global or hemispheric estimates of centennial or millennial reconstructions , and real problems with spacial patterns on long timescales.

    Saying this does not make me an outlaw in the palaeo family – I hope! – just someone anxious to maintain our objectivity.

    We should all resist the attempts of those who try to push us into the pro or anti greenhouse camps.
    I think Hoyt’s comments betray someone who is perhaps lacking the degree of objectivity I had previously thought him to have.

  123. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    So, also the other referees were poor scientists unfamiliar and possible hostile on this topic.
    I know that your definition of a poor scientist is one that is not enthusiastic about your papers…

    By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.
    If you try hard enough and long enough you eventually find a journal that will take your stuff.

  124. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.
    How many referees and editors were there on all yours papers that were rejected?

  125. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “…the point-of-discussion is the synchronicity of warm events within the Northern Hemisphere on centennial time scales.”

    Not really. The point of discussion is your false claim that the MWP was not a global phenomenon.

    Well then, I am sure you will have no trouble whatsoever pointing to the post where I made that assertion? Here’s a couple that might help you: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126559 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126537 …Or maybe not!

  126. joeldshore says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:

    By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.

    That’s pretty impressive. Do they give a money-back guarantee? In the journals that I have published in or refereed for, there are no guarantees given or expected from referees as to whether the papers are free of errors. Certainly, the journals ask one to assess validity as best as one can and to find errors as well as one can but they certainly don’t expect referees to determine definitively if the paper is error-free.

  127. wayne says:

    OMG!!

    Leif: “I only try to make sure that the solar data is correct”

    Says it all..

  128. Bill Yarber says:

    Figure 5c shows a spike in approx 1750, which is reported to be the coldest part of the LIA. Historical records from England suggest they were skating on the Thames during many winters from early 1700′s to 1830.

    So why the spike then? What am I missing?

  129. D Böehm says:

    joelshore,

    You are an apologist for Michael Mann. But if your position now is that there was a global MWP and a global LIA, post it here.

  130. S. Geiger says:

    Dr. Svalgaard – I have no idea which of you two represent more of the ‘mainstream’ in your area of expertise, however, the argument of “which journal published your paper” is on pretty thin ice in these circles. I know its way OT (and likely over all of our heads), but these types of arguments should consist of facts and dialog, not mere argument by journal association.

  131. davidmhoffer says:

    joeldshore;
    Nonetheless, I don’t think it matters. The IPCC quote refers to Briffa work covering “sites across northern Fennoscandia and northern Siberia”. The current Briffa paper seems to refer only to “the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I suppose we’re splitting hairs at this point. My understanding is that this data series is a subset of the ones you refer to, which in turn were cited by the IPCC as a proxy for NH temps, just as I pointed out. Now when we consider the larger data set being referenced by the IPCC, in the context of this paper, that statement by the IPCC becomes highly questionable on several grounds.

    1. This work shows that the techniques employed in Briffa 2002 and 2004 need to be corrected across the board. In other words, if this paper is correct, then all the other data series in the Fennoscandia and northern Siberia series also need to be corrected. Which in turn means that they will no longer be correlated to the temperature record for the NH and so the IPCC conclusion must be discarded. Or….

    2. If none of the other data series need to be corrected (only this one) the effect would be that the Fennoscandia series with the corrected data would no longer correlate to northern Siberia, meaning that the two areas are not sychronised. Since their being synchronised was a large part of the argument that they represented NH temps, this IPCC conclusion would have to be discarded in this case also.

    Either way, Briffa et al 2012 pretty much falsifies 2002, 2004, and the IPCC conclusion.

  132. ferd berple says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    Why don’t you ask them?
    ===========
    Surely suggesting a scientist’s paper has “been rejected by other journals” is not something nice to say, especially if it may not be true. So why say it if you did not know it for a fact at the time?

    If you have played fast and lose with the facts in this case, why should anyone expect that you would not do the same in other cases? How do we know that you will not simply be talking through your hat?

  133. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    You are an apologist for Michael Mann. But if your position now is that there was a global MWP and a global LIA, post it here.

    As I’ve pointed out ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126559 ), that is the position of Mann, at least as of his 1999 paper…and I don’t have any reason to believe that he has changed it.

    However, it was also his opinion that the Northern hemisphere warmth overall was not as great as in current times and, as I have explained, this seems to be not so much based on any claim that there weren’t areas…maybe even lots of areas…that saw warmth comparable to current warmth sometime during the several hundred year period broadly defined as the MWP. Rather, it is because the warmth in these different regions was not synchronous, which means that when you average over the whole hemisphere, you get a broad, diffuse bump rather than the more dramatic spike we get over the past several decades when most places have warmed with a large degree of synchronicity. This lack of synchronicity was in fact well illustrated by looking at two examples of evidences for the MWP that ColdOldMan linked to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126537

    That is the very site that claims to be refuting Mann’s claim and yet it gives support for Mann’s argument…Go figure!

  134. kuhnkat says:

    Leif Svalgaard opines,

    “But, for true believers, cheery picking always works their way. One way out is to claim that tree-ring data is nonsense, but that also makes nonsense that there was a ‘decline’ to hide.”

    Sorry Leif, it wasn’t us who created a dendro series that had a decline that had to be hidden so the series could be used in alarmist literature. Steve, Anthony and others simply pointed out this sad happenstance. There was a decline in THEIR series and they hid it. Are you becoming a DENIER??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  135. S. Geiger says:
    October 28, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    but these types of arguments should consist of facts and dialog, not mere argument by journal association
    Few facts and even less dialog have been brought to bear on this [and would have been OT anyway], but the journal issue is important as different journals have different ‘impact factors’ [often related to the quality of their peer-review process - although some will consider peer-review as mere gate keeping], so authors often ‘walk down the list’ until a friendly journal is found. Of course, in this agenda driven discussion, reason falls by the wayside and discussion eventually degenerates into ad-hom attacks, to wit the various remarks about persons’ expertise and bias, etc.

  136. John says:

    This is excellent new research. Keep in mind that this new work reflects a temperature record for Northern Sweden. Clearly these findings have implications for the results of Mann and Bradley and colleagues, when substituted for the Tornetrask data Mann now uses (as well as fixing the other issues, as Steve McIntyre has so ceaselessly and painstakingly pointed out).

    But I wouldn’t go as far as Leif Svalgaard and throw out the solar grand minimum and grand maximum calculations, at least not yet. Because the solar correlations are for temperatures worldwide, not just in Northern Sweden, it seems to me.

  137. joeldshore says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    Now when we consider the larger data set being referenced by the IPCC, in the context of this paper, that statement by the IPCC becomes highly questionable on several grounds.

    Either way, Briffa et al 2012 pretty much falsifies 2002, 2004, and the IPCC conclusion.

    I think that you are making a lot of assumptions here in regards to how significant the Briffa 2012 result turns out to be. At best, it raise some questions about that earlier work; it does not falsify it.

    Also, when you refer to the “IPCC conclusion”, you are referring, as near as I can tell, to one sentence of the IPCC report, which reports what Briffa et al. did but does not seem to offer a strong opinion one way or the other as to whether Briffa et al. are likely correct in their notion that this region can tell us a lot about the whole Northern hemisphere temperature record.

  138. ferd berple says:
    October 28, 2012 at 6:56 pm
    How do we know that you will not simply be talking through your hat?
    Because I simply do not do that. A Danish proverb says that “a thief thinks everybody steals”. Perhaps that is applicable to your suggestion.

  139. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 28, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Nicola Scafetta says:

    By the way, my two accepted papers were refereed by 4 people plus the editor and everybody agreed that the papers had to be published and were free of errors.

    That’s pretty impressive. Do they give a money-back guarantee? In the journals that I have published in or refereed for, there are no guarantees given or expected from referees as to whether the papers are free of errors. Certainly, the journals ask one to assess validity as best as one can and to find errors as well as one can but they certainly don’t expect referees to determine definitively if the paper is error-free.

    - – - – -
    That’s EXACTLY what they are supposed to be expected to determine. Many fields have revision rates one FIFTH that of the climatology religion.

    The religion where physicists claim they can’t think of a way to check rise of gas-relevant spectra (heat) in the atmosphere. Thay dont no no waye two.

    You’re an intellectual invalid who claims on an international forum for atmospheric and earth based electromagnetic energy,

    you don’t believe there’s a way for mankind to check whether there is a rise in gas-specific spectra of LIGHT

    in the atmosphere.

  140. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    And that therefore we must assume there IS, and use a fabrication called ‘precautionary principle’ to dismantle civilization’s infrastructure. No matter what the cost. Because if we don’t install Al Gore’s policies in spite of the election, we could all die.

  141. TimTheToolMan says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: assorted stuff implying Melvin is not useful whereas Mann is useful.

    Come on Jan, neither is representative of global temperatures. Or even Northern Hemisphere temperatures for that matter. Whats the point of saying one is better than the other, especially when the one you prefer was authored by a man who is known to be biased towards confirming AGW.

    The Melvin study is another piece in the puzzle. Nothing more. There was a time when AGW believers would argue there were no conflicting papers to AGW but you dont hear that as often anymore do you.

  142. kuhnkat says:
    October 28, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    There was a decline in THEIR series and they hid it.
    The data shown in the paper under discussion does not show a decline, so I don’t know what your point is, if any.

    John says:
    October 28, 2012 at 7:02 pm
    Because the solar correlations are for temperatures worldwide, not just in Northern Sweden, it seems to me.
    Yet, people take the temperatures presented for Northern Sweden as confirmation of the global MWP/LIA…

  143. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    Thank yew perfesser borehole, for that scintillating outlook on sientz and sients refurEEying.

  144. Chuck Nolan says:

    theduke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:28 am
    I can hear Rosanne Rosannadanna now: “Never mind.”
    ———-
    I think that was Emily sombody. Gilda would get on the news with Chevy or Jane and go on a rant then the host would correct her misunderstanding and she’d it.
    Can’t remember her last name though and maybe I’m wrong about the whole thing.
    Been a long long time.
    cn

  145. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “That is the very site that claims to be refuting Mann’s claim and yet it gives support for Mann’s argument…”

    Well, the interactive chart certainly doesn’t give very much support to Mann’s position. Most of the items show a global MWP. Not all, but most. I’ve posted that chart at least a half dozen times, and commentators generally agree that it shows a global MWP. It just so happens that you and Mann are not part of the MWP consensus. ☺

    But then, you never were part of the true CAGW consensus.

  146. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 28, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    “It also rather nicely illustrates how that site doesn’t bother to address the real scientific questions and hopes that people who want to believe what they are peddling won’t notice! ”

    What your very words illustrate is you take seriously the work of a man who thought he invented a whole field of math along with his colleagues, incorporating statistics so poorly written they were giving up hockey sticks to his colleagues, to people on the internet, and the man who wrote them claims we need to know there could be a catastrophe but that his work’s private so we’ll never know for sure because he might need to make use of that intellectual property in some way of his own, down the road.

    What your words illustrate is that you believe there is no way to check for magical properties of a gas in the atmosphere – whether it follows the hockey stuhtistic analysis.

    What your words illustrate is that you believe there might be some legitimacy to an operation wherein physicists repeatedly cry in public that they don’t think there’s a way to check for infrared spectra associated with a gas in the atmosphere.

    What your words illustrate is you’re a pseudo-science hick.
    Posing.
    On the internet no less.
    Not just in some university somewhere.

  147. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm
    “How many referees and editors were there on all yours papers that were rejected?”

    Technically speaking, my accepted papers were never rejected. Also if a previous version might have been rejected by a journal, the accepted version has always been a revision.

    See, Leif, your way of reasoning, which is filled of logical fallacies, demonstrates only your personal deep rancor toward everybody with whom you disagree. Essentially, you do not have scientific arguments, and use defamation and insinuations. Do not worry, more and more people are realizing who you really are.

  148. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 28, 2012 at 7:43 pm
    Technically speaking, my accepted papers were never rejected. Also if a previous version might have been rejected by a journal, the accepted version has always been a revision.
    So papers were rejected by one journal and after revision and submission to a lesser journal were finally accepted. How many referees and editors had rejected the papers the first time around?

    Do not worry, more and more people are realizing who you really are.
    And helped to that realization by a benevolent Scafetta telling them what to realize…

  149. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    You carbon dioxide zombies all sound the same. Like tobacco executives.

    “Please raise your right hand….proceed.”

    “I buhleev thair is uh.. MAGICAL GAS that… CAINT HAVE IT’S SPECTRAL PROFILE in thuh.. AT-MUS’-FEAR checked, and that the MAGICAL GAS might only be LOOKABLE AT with uh… HOCKIE STICK statistic that MAKES HOCKEY STICKS but is REAL MATH.”

  150. RoHa says:

    Time for a bit of discussion of these two. (Reported by Hockey Schtick.)

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053265.shtml

    How may low-cloud radiative properties simulated in the current climate influence low-cloud feedbacks under global warming?

    ” it is suggested that the strength of the tropical low-cloud feedback predicted by the IPSL-CM5A model in climate projections might be overestimated by about fifty percent. ” (Abstract)

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.html

    Atmospheric impacts on climatic variability of surface incident solar radiation

    A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds from direct measurements that there was a significant increase in solar radiation at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2008.

    “A new paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds from direct measurements that there was a significant increase in solar radiation at the surface of the Northern Hemisphere from 1982 to 2008. ” (Hockey schtick – http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au)

  151. joeldshore “than the more dramatic spike we get over the past several decades when most places have warmed with a large degree of synchronicity.”

    Except for the 30% of the world that has cooled. And the large number of airports etc whose only warming is UHI.

    Remember, the post 1980 warming may all be about clean air legislation removing a large amount of SO2 from the atmosphere.

    However, since proxies are not thermometers and thermometers are not proxies, why not compare proxies to proxies?

    Looking at the modern proxy record in the above graph, 1934, 1960 and 1980 are as warm as 2002 and all are a lot warmer than 1998.

    1934ish in the graphs appears to be the warmest year in both proxies. By far.

    Do you agree?

  152. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 28, 2012 at 8:34 pm
    1934ish is really 1936 now that I’ve looked at it closer.
    Perhaps you are overlooking 2003 or so…

  153. MikeN says:

    The existence of a Medieval Warm Period makes warming more likely. Mann has said that the localized MWP meant that their was a negative modulating effect in the tropics, which was LaNina like, and suggested similar thing in response to global warming. When asked if this meant climate models vastly overstate warming, he said ‘I agree with that.’ Having a global Medieval Warm Period frees Mann from having to support the idea that climate models vastly overstate warming.

  154. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Please, could someone tell me which TSI values should be used? WoodForTrees uses “PMOD composite TSI monthly average”:
    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1979/mean:13/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:13/normalise

    If the cycles of that are supposed to somehow match the cycles in temperature, I sure don’t see it.

    NOAA provides three different updating sets:

    1.) Composite Total Solar Irradiance database 1978-present, compiled by C. Frohlich and J. Lean

    2.) ACRIM Composite TSI Time Series 1978-present, compiled by R. Willson

    3.) SORCE (Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment) 2003-present, compiled by G. Rottman

    The Frohlich and Lean version incorporates the ACRIM data. The World Radiation Center is referenced, the start years match, leading me to believe this might be the “PMOD composite” WFT uses. The “readme” at the address given by WFT also references Frohlich and Lean.

    However, with further looking, I find the F&L database accessible from NOAA has nothing newer than 2003.

    NOAA says to check the ACRIM site for up-to-date info, where I can’t find anything newer than November 2011.

    And I can’t find the file WFT says it uses where it said it got it from. And March 2011 is the newest data WFT has.

    On the WUWT Solar Reference page, SOURCE is referenced (with the erroneous extra “U”), but that dataset only goes from 2003. Although I could try my luck with their annual Historical TSI Reconstruction which starts at 1610. (Does the xxxx.5 indicate it’s the center of that year, or it goes from July that year to end of June next year, or what?)

    Dr. Svalgaard provides a link to the PMOD data, but that file is no longer there. This file looks like the most current one, ends at July 3, 2012.

    (Note to Leif: PMOD link on your Download data page has an extra slash on the end.)

    So which TSI values should be used, and where do I get them?

  155. Dan in Nevada says:

    Leif and Nicola,

    How old are you guys anyway? Except for the big words, I’d guess maybe three. I’m totally aware that you both out-doctorate someone like me, but you’re not giving ‘credentialism’ a good name. I look to people of your caliber to shine some light on what is often a murky subject. Today you disappoint.

  156. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 28, 2012 at 9:08 pm
    So which TSI values should be used, and where do I get them?
    Last year it was finally officially realized that PMOD has uncorrected degradation so that the values have an artificial downward trend and that there is no observational evidence that the minima are different: Slides 31 and 33 of http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf “Observed data do not support a measureable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008″
    Something I have shown some time ago, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf which the observers have finally agreed to.

    If you want my best guess [based on the reconstructed sunspot number] you can get it here:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Guess.xls
    The values for the Maunder Minimum are, of course, pure speculation.

  157. Steven Mosher says:

    fact alert.
    this paper has little bearing on manns work.
    its a seasonal recon.
    its a local recon.
    for folks who follow rcs and modern tree bias its an important piece.

    a number of studies should recalc their results.
    the mwp will still be unclear

  158. Leif: “Perhaps you are overlooking 2003 or so…”

    If it was 2003, they wouldn’t have cut the top of the graph off. Therefore, logically it has to be 1936.

  159. Mosher: “its a seasonal recon”

    Do trees grow much in the winter?

  160. Sunspot says:

    Vukcevic is the only one that got anywhere near predicting SC24′s max before it started. The other so called experts failed miserably. To me, anyone that charts the history of a SC and then predicts what next month’s SSN will be, will get a job at the weather bureau. Just like any other Joe Blow.

  161. Dan in Nevada says:
    October 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm
    Today you disappoint
    Sadly true. Even responding to Nicola drags one down. But try to ignore the silly accusations and characterizations, perhaps there is something of value left when you strip off the noise.

  162. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 28, 2012 at 10:55 pm
    If it was 2003, they wouldn’t have cut the top of the graph off. Therefore, logically it has to be 1936.
    I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.

  163. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/
    Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?

    Why don’t you ask them?

    Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful. Further evasiveness won’t look good for you. You claimed their paper was rejected by other journals, as a way of attacking them. Which journals?

    Astronomy and Astrophysics isn’t such a bad journal to be publishing in anyway. At least they haven’t locked the paper behind a paywall, so anyone can download it and decide for themselves how good it is by clicking the link on my blog.

  164. Steven Mosher says:

    I see that the fake skeptics here didnt have the sense to check the ar5 deadlines. I see that nobody suggested fact chking tallbloke.

    let me help you with retorts. you can always try manns tactic and attack the messenger
    you can say it doesnt matter.
    you can use any manner of tactics you picked up from mann and jones.

  165. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    According to tallbloke the treemometer data ‘fit nicely’ with solar activity, so prove that the treemometer data are GOOD :-)

    This is what I said about treemometers:

    “I think there may be a link of sorts between temperature and tree ring width, mostly mediated by changes in rainfall and the temperature dependency of co2.

    So, pretty tenuous. I trust Loehle’s non-tree-ring temperature proxy more.”

  166. tallbloke says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:40 pm
    I see that the fake skeptics here didnt have the sense to check the ar5 deadlines. I see that nobody suggested fact chking tallbloke.

    Submitting before the deadline didn’t work out for Gergis et al though. Doesn’t the paper have to be ‘accepted’ by the Journal before the deadline too?

  167. tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
    Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful.
    That should be your default assumption. The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind…

  168. tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
    This is what I said about treemometers: [...] So, pretty tenuous.
    Yet you claim that they ‘fit nicely’ with your model. Nice confirmation bias there, or perhaps just ‘forked tongue’.

  169. sunshinehours1 says: ”Admittedly the cold started around 1600, warmed a bit and then made a big dip back to 8C. But it was cold. Very cold”

    At what month and date the cold started in 1600? .What brand of thermometers did you use at that time? Do you have data for every day and.month for Australia, New Zealand, Antarctic; it was 170years before James Cook discovered those lands – how did you get there before him – or maybe those lands are not on your planet…? How about the daily temp of Pacific; Pacific is as large as all the dry land on the planet, is it in your calculation? How about learning some reality about the past phony GLOBAL warmings – because they were NEVER global.!!!

    http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/skeptics-stinky-skeletons-from-their-closet/

  170. Mooloo says:

    Mann has said that the localized MWP meant that their was a negative modulating effect in the tropics, which was LaNina like, and suggested similar thing in response to global warming.

    That’s some powerful handwavium he’s got there. Rather like Trenberth’s heat locked up in the oceans; and the magic effect of aerosols; and the way polar amplification is not going to affect Antarctica as much after all, and …

    It’s all post hoc ergo propter hoc of the worst sort. “Just so” reasoning that would be laughed at if an undergraduate produced it, but is apparently de rigueur in the world of climate science.

    The simplest explanation, which Mann will never admit, is that the MWP wasn’t localised at all.

  171. Leif Svalgaard says: ”The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind”

    Is that why tallbloke thinks that everybody lies?…

  172. Roger says:

    I recall Briffa saying at the height of the Yamal Hoo Ha that he was still working on a “robust’ methodology and that ” time would tell” whether he was right or not (something like that).
    Strikes me as an honest bloke trying to get it right.

  173. tallbloke says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm
    By the way, a correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted in my paper:
    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    Hi Nicola, it’s an excellent paper and I’m really delighted you got it got published in such a prestigious Journal as JASTP.

    Just for the record, outside the literature, the correlation between planetary harmonics and Steinhilber’s TSI was first noted at the talkshop in July last year by Tim Channon in this comment,
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-channon-a-cycles-analysis-approach-to-predicting-solar-activity/#comment-5019 when he published this plot of his model using planetary harmonic frequencies: http://daedalearth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/sbf-tsi-a.png

    He then confirmed it was linked to the Sun’s motion at the talkshop in July 2011
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/the-luxembourg-effect/

    The key frequencies were found by Bart in his maximum entropy method study of the spectra of sunspot numbers, when he created a model of solar activity here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/bart-modeling-the-historical-sunspot-record-from-planetary-periods/

    Which I then followed up with my analysis of these key planetary frequencies in August 2011 here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/

    I appreciate you linking to my blog in two of your previous non-journal-submitted publications and I’m grateful that you have acknowledged our contribution to this field of study.

    Cheers

    TB

  174. richardscourtney says: ” For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.”

    And if it doesn’t, can the tree in your backyard tell about the temp on Midway / Pacific? Two trees 10feet apart, have different tree rings, 2] Agronomist and lumberjack can tell you that: the thickness of the rings on an individual tree depend on 101 different effects. Agronomist and lumberjacks work for leaving / climatologist use tree-rings; because they con for leaving
    The trees are lying Richo, same like you. The ”tree-rings theory” should be shoved up the Mann’s ring!!!

  175. vukcevic says:

    Once more
    CET- tree growing season (May-August)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-MJJA.htm

  176. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm
    Because I’m asking you, to find out if you are being truthful.
    That should be your default assumption. The Danish proverb “a thief thinks everybody steals” comes to mind…

    Leif, you made an assertion about the paper written by these scientists
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/

    You said:
    “Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.”

    I think it’s in your own interests to substantiate your comment, because otherwise, it makes you look like you’re just slandering Abreu and Steinhilber et al on the basis of nothing at all except your own prejudice against the field of study they have written the paper around.

    So, before I ask Abreu and Steinhilber if there is any truth in your comment, which journals rejected their paper that you know of? If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.

  177. MattA says:

    Maybe all this shows is that trees are horrible thermometers :-)

  178. Espen says:

    I notice that the reconstruction takes a big dip in the last half of the 16th century. That fits very well with historic records for Europe, where 1540 was possibly the warmest summer of the millennium – warmer than CAGW poster child 2003 – but where the last decades of that century had severely cold weather.

  179. tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:35 am
    If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.
    Talking about slander….

  180. P. Solar says:

    “Look at graph 5c, and you’ll see 20th century warmth matches peaks either side of the year 1000″

    You don’t need to go back 1000y, Just look at late 19th c. Just as warm as present.

    This warm period was suppressed by Hadley “bias corrections” which removed two thirds of the inconvenient downward trend.

    This plot shows Met Office Hadely adjustments remove about 0.3 C from the downward trend between 1860 and 1920.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/149o081.png

    Also note the 0.1 C offset in the AMO plot which aligns the two data sets thereafter. This again points out a glitch in the “bias corrections” . This was the point at which Hadley changes from one correction adjustment to another.

    All these “corrections” are largely guesswork in terms of duration, timing and magnitude of the effects. Hadley’s John Kennedy agreed that they were based on hypothesis. He explains the adjustments of this period here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/#comment-186646

  181. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
    This is what I said about treemometers: [...] So, pretty tenuous.
    Yet you claim that they ‘fit nicely’ with your model. Nice confirmation bias there, or perhaps just ‘forked tongue’.

    My model is calibrated nicely against thermometer measured SST’s back to 1850, not tree rings.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png

    Before then, there is little to go on apart from the proxy reconstructions. Of which Mann’s reconstruction is but one. As I pointed out, lgl’s use of the same method I developed for using TSI or SSN as a proxy for ocean heat content also fits Steinhilber’s TSI reconstruction quite well to the Mann08 temperature reconstruction.
    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/steinhilber-tsi-mann08-temp.png

  182. P. Solar says:

    P. Solar says: “You don’t need to go back 1000y, Just look at late 19th c. Just as warm as present. ”

    oops, I misread the dates, peak that was as warm as current period was late 18th c. , not late 19th (which was close but less warm than today.)

  183. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:49 am
    tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:35 am
    If you don’t know of any, and you were just making it up, now is the time to say so.
    Talking about slander….

    Talk about BS. See the use of the conditional in my statement there Leif? So, you are unable or unwilling to back up your slanderous accusation with any checkable facts. No matter, I’ll ask Abreu and Steinhilber, and then we’ll find out the truth about your comment on their paper: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/j-a-abreu-et-al-is-there-a-planetary-influence-on-solar-activity/ When you said:

    “after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.”

    Whatever the truth of the matter, Astronomy and Astrophysics is a pretty big and important journal, so if ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’s editors did reject it without review, with or without your knowledge, it doesn’t matter much. Science moves on, with or without reviewers such as yourself. Most of the people here have seen just how biased the journals you review for are anyway.

    Nature didn’t publish any solar papers for five years between 2005-2010.
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/sun-rediscovered-by-nature/

  184. Jimbo says:

    joeldshore,
    browse through some of these references to papers showing the Medieval Warm Period in many parts of the southern hemisphere such as Antarctica, southern Africa, South America, Australia, New Zealand.
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    Here is a handy map
    http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

  185. Wellington says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
    Sure, after having been rejected by other journals, they finally found one that would take it.
    tallbloke says:
    October 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
    Which journals rejected their paper, to your knowledge?
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm
    Why don’t you ask them?

    Since you chose to bring it up why not ask you?

  186. Jack says:

    More and more it’s looking like Briffa was the leak behind the Climategate emails. Probably he didn’t like being bullied by Mann and is now geting his revenge, aka playing the long game.

  187. M Courtney says:

    Trees as thermometers still seem to be worthless, in my opinion. If temperature limits growth then it may tell you something but it’s impossible to tell if that’s true.

    Additional soil nutrients may alter the limiting factor.
    Any study that doesn’t understand ursine foecal behaviours in arboreal environments lacks a certain common sense.

    More interesting is that we have here another slpit between the UK and US wings of the climate Team.

  188. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    TimTheToolMan wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126841

    in reply to my comment in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1126477

    Jan P Perlwitz says: assorted stuff implying Melvin is not useful whereas Mann is useful.

    I didn’t say or imply anything like what you assert here. You are reading something into my comment that isn’t in there.

    Come on Jan, neither is representative of global temperatures. Or even Northern Hemisphere temperatures for that matter. Whats the point of saying one is better than the other, especially when the one you prefer was authored by a man who is known to be biased towards confirming AGW.

    What is the point of a straw man argument? You aren’t replying here to anything I said. You are replying to something else.

    Besides that, pointing to an alleged bias of Mann as an argument against the Mann et al., (1999) study, is a logical fallacy. It’s an ad hominem argument. You can’t logically or empirically refute the results of a scientific study, of any scientific study, by applying ad hominem arguments against the authors of the study.

    The Melvin study is another piece in the puzzle. Nothing more. There was a time when AGW believers would argue there were no conflicting papers to AGW but you dont hear that as often anymore do you.

    To the contrary. Sets of statements that are generally accepted among climate scientists today, with the exception of a small minority, as a valid explanation regarding the diagnostic and the attribution of the global warming that is happening, were much more controversial in the field, let’s say 20 years ago, since there has been an accumulation of more and more scientific evidence in support of those statements over the time period from back then to today.

  189. Josualdo says:

    AlanG says: October 28, 2012 at 11:26 am
    But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?

    Well, there you are.

  190. richardscourtney says:

    Jan P Perlw1tz:

    At October 29, 2012 at 2:17 am you assert

    To the contrary. Sets of statements that are generally accepted among climate scientists today, with the exception of a small minority, as a valid explanation regarding the diagnostic and the attribution of the global warming that is happening, were much more controversial in the field, let’s say 20 years ago, since there has been an accumulation of more and more scientific evidence in support of those statements over the time period from back then to today.

    So what?
    What a self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’ think is not the subject under debate.

    The issue of this thread concerns what the recent Briffa paper indicates concerning the validity of treemometer studies and what they indicate. At very least the Briffa paper adds to the falsification of the MBH ‘hockey stick’.

    And the MBH ‘hockey stick’ was debatable from the start. Indeed, within a week of the publication of MBH98 I was questioning the validity of splicing different data sets (and I then did not know of “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures. Briffa’s paper is merely another nail in the coffin of the MBH ‘hockey stick’.

    However, the Briffa paper may also be ‘bad science’ because it relies upon treemometers, too. As I said of treemometry in my post at October 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    that assumes the limiting factor is a constant throughout the life of the tree. For example, growth or death (with falling) of a nearby tree may alter available sunlight.

    And, importantly, in the cases where temperature is the limiting factor then the tree only indicates temperature in the growing season. Altered autumn and winter temperatures will not be indicated.

    Most important of all is the inability of selection to provide a valid calibration sample: Lucia gives an excellent explanation of this for non-statisticians at
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

    The total data of Briffa’s convenience sample (n.b. not a random sample) may provide an apparent calibration. However, using that appearance as an indication of a calibration period would only be another example of mistaking correlation for causation (which seems to be a favoured error of the self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’).

    An important consideration in this thread (and for the Mann trial) is whether use of improper assumptions in statistical analyses of treemometer studies is deliberate ‘bad science’ or is merely incompetence. In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.

    Richard

  191. Simon says:

    Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?

  192. cedarhill says:

    Inside the mind of the Climate Gang can be torturous at times. However, given what some might call a mountain of evidence, the CG needs to accomplish:

    1. avoid being a skeptic ref. the mountain and acknowledge the mountain exists
    2. avoid the charge of just simply lying
    3. toss a bone to Mann so that he can claim it was the data and if the data is revised, hey! science. obtw, please pay me.

    The Mann Method has been disproven for about a decade (ref. McIntrye’s work along with the furious defense by the CG. Evidently, as with all things science, facts do emerge which overwhelm computer models and “adjustments”. Sort of like a slow motion Piltdown Man discovery. Since you cant make facts conform to the model and the model seems to be incapable of conforming to the facts, the answer is obvious. Reestablish yourself as the purveyor of the facts and tweak the models and produce a host of new theories for the opposition to unravel – all the while continually pushing, full bore, your agenda.

    In other words, muddy the water. The non-CG folks will go about sifting and filtiering and eventually “clean up” things but the CO2 will conintue to be slayed.

    Regarding the libel suit(s) of Mann: The ploy will be to blame the data. He can now attempt to use the latest foray by Briffa, et al, to his benefit. It might be an excuse to withdraw gracefully from the suit(s) or at least change tactics. It might give cover to all including UVa and PennSt.

    But it could be this is about self preservation. Hard to tell with the CG.

    Still, always view what the CG produces in terms of political spin. The fact folks are still debating the hockey stick, the climate models and we’re still putting up those disasterous chop-o-bird windmills and plotting how to renew energy should have taught lessons to the faithful.

  193. Ryan says:

    I doubt this paper will be allowed as part of Steyn’s defence. He needs to show he was not “reckless” based on his knowledge at the time. He can’t rely on anything that he has come to know after his comments were published – the judge could consider that to be merely fortuitous that it happens to align with Steyn’s published comments. He can rely on the work of McIntyre et al. before his comments were published.

    However, Briffa is very much part of Team AGW (or was….). So Mann must have known that Briffa was about to publish this paper. He may well have been a reviewer…. I wonder if Mann is now “a cornered animal” and his illogical, childish lashing out at Steyn merely reflects his general emotional state at the present time as his house of cards falls around his ears, exposing his enormous but battered ego to the derision of a wider public.

  194. D Böehm says:

    Simon says:

    “Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

    Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.

    Where is it?

  195. Tallbloke’s site links to the Christansen and Ljungqvist paper: http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

    The authors show dozens of little graphs showing the many proxy records over 2000 years. Right at the bottom is one showing a Hockey Stick. “Ah, this one stands out as different,” methinks. “Where is this from?” And then you see the title: Yamal.

    If Briffa really wants to come in from the cold, maybe he should issue a statement that the IPCC’s stance on global warming is based upon cherry-picked data. Suggested title: “Top Climate Scientist: ‘Today’s Temperatures Nothing to get Excited About’ “.

  196. son of mulder says:

    “Simon says:
    October 29, 2012 at 2:58 am

    Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

    It’s not a rise in temperature it’s a rise in a supposed proxy for temperature. Or put another way a variation of “Mike’s Nature Trick” has not been used in this case to “Hide the Rise”.

    And also thanks to

    “Jean Parisot says:
    October 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    Empirical scum!”

    Nice one, I think this could be a major boost to the tee-shirt industry.

  197. TimTheToolMan says:

    Jan writes “You can’t logically or empirically refute the results of a scientific study, of any scientific study, by applying ad hominem arguments against the authors of the study.”

    I dont need to, McIntyre has done that for me by looking at the actual science. If you understood what Mann has done with the hockey stick reconstructions then you would know what I say is not simply an ad hominem attack but instead an assessment of the motivations behind the “science” which the Melvin paper has now put even further into doubt. I expect that doesn’t sit well with you.

    The fact is that papers that dispute past AGW results are coming to light with ever increasing frequency. There was a time when it was an all too common belief today’s warming was unprecedented but now that’s a much less certain proposition.

  198. richardscourtney says:

    [ah . . here it is . . mod]

    D Böehm :

    At October 29, 2012 at 4:10 am you write in reply to Simon

    Simon says:

    “Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

    Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.
    Where is it?

    With respect, you misunderstand Simon’s point because I also noticed the large post-2000 increase in temperature which is in the above graphs of Briffa’s results.

    However, as your links show other data sets – including the data Briffa used for his calibration – do NOT indicate such a rise after 2000.

    In other words, Briffa’s analysis also has a divergence problem.

    Richard

  199. richardscourtney says:

    Moderators:

    Hmmm. Yet again my post seems to have gone in the ‘bin’: this time as a response to D Böehm.

    I am starting to wonder if I have been selected for ‘special treatment.

    I would welcome recovery of my post.

    Richard

    [nope . . there is nothing in the spam bin from you. Nope you have not been selected for "special treatment". . . mod]

  200. Henry Clark says:

    An illustrative comparison of this tree ring reconstruction of temperatures in Sweden to solar activity history, global temperature history by non-tree ring proxies, and arctic temperature history:

    Overall it is notably supportive, as long as the sources are primarily not those heavily revised for CAGW-movement convenience:

    http://s7.postimage.org/tc7f57vnv/composite2.gif
    (click to enlarge and scroll)

  201. Steve Keohane says:

    Steven Mosher says:October 28, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    fact alert.
    this paper has little bearing on manns work.
    its a seasonal recon.
    its a local recon.

    Yamal isn’t a local recon?
    Anything growing in Siberia isn’t seasonal?
    Good Grief!

  202. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127226

    So what?
    What a self-defined group of ‘climate scientists’ think is not the subject under debate.

    A climate scientist is a scientist who does research and publishes in scientific journals on past, present, and future climate of Earth, as a whole or aspects of it. There isn’t a big problem to define what a climate scientist is.

    Also, you are not entitled to impose on others here what they are debating and what they aren’t.

    and I then did not know of “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”

    The alleged “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”, which is nothing more than a talking point, unproven assertions that are disseminated in fake skeptic opinion blogs and similar.

    Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures.

    That is your assertion, according to which some studies, the exact references of which you avoid to provide here, would have achieved that.

    However, the Briffa paper may also be ‘bad science’ because it relies upon treemometers, too. As I said of treemometry in my post at October 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm
    [self quote]
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

    Obviously you have an opinion, which you are trying to back up with a link to an opinion on another opinion blog.

    In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.

    And yet another lie by you, Mr. Courtney. I haven’t made such a claim which you are asserting here, certainly not “repeatedly”. Considering your previous lies about what I allegedly said, like in the context of my statements about the fraudulent Oregon Petition, there seems to be a pattern here.

  203. richardscourtney says:

    Moderator,
    Thankyou for your reply to me at October 29, 2012 at 5:08 am. This is a resend of the post which went somewhere.
    Richard

    D Böehm :

    At October 29, 2012 at 4:10 am you write in reply to Simon

    Simon says:

    “Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

    Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.
    Where is it?

    With respect, you misunderstand Simon’s point because I also noticed the large post-2000 increase in temperature which is in the above graphs of Briffa’s results.

    However, as your links show other data sets – including the data Briffa used for his calibration – do NOT indicate such a rise after 2000.

    In other words, Briffa’s analysis also has a divergence problem.

    Richard

  204. Pamela Gray says:

    Jan, the only thing you have are warm temperatures in some places that have been warm enough to give a global average that is warmer when compared to some other period. We also have temperatures that are colder than that same comparison period. But of course, these are hidden in the global average. If there ever was a statistic that hides something we should know, it is the global average. But it is a useful statistic if you want to use it for some other purpose than explaining Earth’s temperatures. AGWers use the global average for some other purpose me thinks.

    You don’t have a lot. You do not have correlation. You do not have causation. You do not have models that are predictive. You have not ruled out natural intrinsic ENSO factors, along with ENSO variations in oceanic temperatures, clouds and pressure system spin offs. ENSO factors do not swing like a pendulum, something many climate scientists are now beginning to realize.

    What you do have is the same sorry set of statistics re-read over and over again. That kind of scientific reporting does not a case make.

  205. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    D Böehm wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127277

    “Did anyone else notice the large post-2000 increase in temperature?”

    Aside from Perlwitz and his fevered imagination, no.

    Is this comment by “D. Böehm” supposed to refer to an actual statement by me? Or is he just making something up?

  206. tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:21 am
    So, you are unable or unwilling to back up your slanderous accusation with any checkable facts.
    First, this was no slanderous accusation, just a statement of fact, and your fact checking as Mosh points out does not have a good track record. Second, as you well know, the review process is confidential and reviewers are not allowed to divulge details.

    No matter, I’ll ask Abreu and Steinhilber
    You could also ask them to publish [e.g. on your blog] the [many and detailed] reviews of their paper. Personally, I publish the reviews of my own papers, accepted or not. This allows people to judge the review process.

  207. D Böehm says:

    Jan Perlwitz,

    From numerous comments I assume you believe that global warming is continuing. Correct me if I am wrong. And my apologies to Simon for misreading his comment, and thanks to Richard Courtney for pointing it out.

  208. richardscourtney says:

    Jan P Perlw1tz

    This is a response to your pathetic post at October 29, 2012 at 5:56 am.

    It says to me

    you are not entitled to impose on others here what they are debating and what they aren’t.

    Quite correct, only Anthony can do that, and he chose the subject of this thread; not me and not you. I pointed out that your comment was an irrelevant distraction from the thread.

    You follow that with this

    The alleged “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”, which is nothing more than a talking point, unproven assertions that are disseminated in fake skeptic opinion blogs and similar.

    The only person you may be fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

    Not content with that nonsense, you quote my accurate and precise statement which said

    Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures.

    And you say

    That is your assertion, according to which some studies, the exact references of which you avoid to provide here, would have achieved that.

    No! Unfounded assertions are your habit and not mine. My statement is merely a mention of documented historical fact. If you truly are as ignorant as you claim to be then read the relevant peer-reviewed papers. It is not my duty to do the homework required to overcome your self-imposed ignorance.

    I referred to basic statistical procedural flaw with treemometry and linked to an explanation of it for non-statisticians from Lucia.
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tricking-yourself-into-cherry-picking/

    And your reply to that says in total

    Obviously you have an opinion, which you are trying to back up with a link to an opinion on another opinion blog.

    No, I have a conclusion – not an opinion – based on the studies of professional statisticians published for your benefit in peer-reviewed literature. And that is why I said

    Since then the studies of M&M, Wegman and North have all trashed it because MBH used invalid statistical procedures.

    Obviously you have a prejudice which prevents you accepting the truth.

    You follow that a set of blatantly deliberate falsehoods.
    I wrote and you quoted my writing

    In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.

    then you write this blatant and clearly deliberate set of falsehoods

    And yet another l1e by you, Mr. Courtney. I haven’t made such a claim which you are asserting here, certainly not “repeatedly”. Considering your previous lies about what I allegedly said, like in the context of my statements about the fraudulent Oregon Petition, there seems to be a pattern here.

    I have NOT made any “l1e” but you have made a series of l1es including the clearly deliberate set of falsehoods I quote here. The pertinent thread is at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/

    Your support of the Oreskes paper together with your lies about the Oregon Petition, about me, and about what I said of your comments are there for all to read. And people can also see how in that thread I and others refuted your l1es, others supported my factual statements, and nobody supported anything you said.

    There is a “pattern here”. Everybody can see it. And it is time you stopped doing it.

    It seems you really are a piece of work.

    Richard

  209. Luke says:

    @Wellington
    Since you chose to bring it up why not ask you?
    Maybe he’s said all he can. If he was a reviewer for a journal that rejected, it’s possible that reviewer policy doesn’t allow him to say, or he may be getting a source in trouble by saying which one (it’s possible that the association with a particular reviewer might make it obvious.) I don’t know the answer, but not revealing sources or which Journals have rejected it is not an admission of not knowing, nor is it slander.

    Even in absence of specific knowledge, you are talking about a field where Leif publishes and is influential. He has more than a rough idea of where the paper fits in the submission hierarchy for this type of paper. If he sees a paper published in lesser journal than would be expected for the conclusions and authors of said paper, there is a very logical reason to assume that it had been passed over one or more times.

  210. Bill Illis says:

    I sometimes wonder why people continue defending the hockey stick. It is really a waste of time and effort and one could be putting their resources into something more productive.

  211. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    “D Böehm” wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127388

    From numerous comments I assume you believe that global warming is continuing. Correct me if I am wrong.

    No, you are not wrong with respect to that. I’m very convinced that the physical process of global warming is continuing, which appears as a statistically significant increase of the global surface and tropospheric temperature anomaly over a time scale of about 20 years and longer and also as trends in other climate variables (e.g., global ocean heat content increase, Arctic and Antarctic ice decrease, mountain glacier decrease on average and others), and I don’t see any scientific evidence according to which this trend has been broken, recently.

    However, this doesn’t mean this trend must be statistically detectable on any arbitrarily short time scale, like 10 years, or 5 months, or 2 days. It doesn’t mean the surface or tropospheric temperature anomaly must linearly increase from one year to the next, or be larger each five years than the previous five years. It doesn’t mean that there can’t be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.

  212. Leif: “I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.”

    1) I’m suggesting they cut off the graph so you “can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003″.

    2) If tree rings made good thermometers, they would not be affected by UHI leaving the 1930s as the warmest decade.

  213. Jimbo says:

    It’s good to see that Michael Mann’s bio at Penn State has been corrected.
    “co-awarded” now reads “contributed… to the award”
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331829/mikes-nobel-trick-mark-steyn

    Now he should consider correcting his Brothers Grimm style Hockey Stick.

  214. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:41 am
    Leif: “I fail to see the ‘logic’. The top is cut off, so you can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003.”
    1) I’m suggesting they cut off the graph so you “can’t tell if it was 1936 or 2003″.

    “A thief thinks everybody steals”

  215. tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:24 am

    Hi Roger,

    it is important to clarify some issue here.

    About Tim Channon’s graph. It shows that Steinhilber’s TSI has a quasi millennial oscillation and a bisecular one. This result is not really surprising nor new. Steinhilber’s TSI is based on typical nucleotide records. These oscillations were noted far before Steinhilber. For example Bond et al 2001 on Science.

    The novelty of my paper

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    is not to have found a quasi-millennial oscillation in the solar record and the other oscillations, which was already well known, but to have deduced theoretically those oscillations in both phase and timing. In fact, my model is a hindcast of the data, not a simple fitting of the data.

    About “key frequencies were found by Bart” etc.. I need to disagree. What happened is that Leif who was chosen as a reviewer of my paper had the “honest” idea to put on WUWT some of the results of my analysis without saying that he got them from my paper.

    Several of his comments show that he knew too much about my paper.
    For example, he says referring to me:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706506

    (But are you now abandoning your view that the planetary influence is
    tidal [spring tides Saturn-Jupiter and perihelion tides from Jupiter]?)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706594
    (Except that Scafetta believes his solar variations have a tidal origin
    and is not related to solar velocity.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706608
    (Scafetta believes solar activity is caused by tides)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-706736
    (I’ll try to paraphrase what I think you are saying: the planets raise
    tides in the sun’s interior. These tides modulate [or even cause] solar
    activity. Solar activity thus have cycles driven by the planets.) (please note that this is quite correctly what I say in my papers)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-707053
    (Even your own work on tidally induced solar cycles was already done by
    Brown 111 years ago.) (note that Leif is explicitly referring
    to my own “work” on planetary tides on the sun also if he adds a
    ridiculous comment regarding Brown)

    Finally, in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%c2%b0ccentury-for-agw/#comment-709699

    he shows the following figure uploaded to his web-site

    http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Daily-Sunspot-Number.png

    in this figure he repeats my spectral analysis showing that
    the Schwabe 11-year sunspot number cycle can be decomposed in three peaks
    two of which close to the 9.93-year Jupiter and Saturn spring-tide and
    the 11.86-year Jupiter tide. Plus a middle peak close to my 10.9-year,
    which is the major finding in paper on which I build my model.

    Bart apparently took the idea from Leif’s comments and figures that were taken from my paper.

    Note that the behavior of Leif (disseminating in internet my results and ideas taken from my paper that he was refereeing) is a seriously break of the ethical code of the journal.

    So, I do not think that my paper was based on ideas took from your web-site in some way. On the contrary, I have indirectly originate some of the ideas published on your web-site, even if you did not knew it.

    Note that the first version of my paper was submitted on Dec/22/2010, by the way, and the first referee was not able to find any error. Then the hostile editor started looking for biased reviewers and after that I demonstrated that the second reviewer was an idiot, the editor was forced (also by the manager editor, I think) to reject him and sent the paper to Leif to be sure to get another biased review.

  216. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    richardscourtney in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127407,

    makes a lot of noise again and also claims:

    I have NOT made any “l1e”

    We can make it easy, Mr. Courtney, and examine your lies, about which you claim they are none, one by one. Let’s start with the most recent one:

    In
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127226

    you asserted following about what I allegedly claimed:

    In either case, as you say, it has been supported by the 75 people whom you have repeatedly claimed are 97% of ‘climate scientists’.

    Please provide the original quotes where I allegedly said such a thing, together with proof of sources. The burden of proof for your assertion is on you, and since you insist you didn’t tell a lie, you should be able to provide the requested. Or you can retract your assertion, apologize, and come up with any excuse for telling a falsehood, like you have been temporarily out of your mind, when you made this assertion, or whatever else you like.

  217. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:55 am
    in this figure he repeats my spectral analysis showing that the Schwabe 11-year sunspot number cycle can be decomposed in three peaks [...] which is the major finding in paper on which I build my model
    My analysis was based on Vuk’s ideas of the three peaks, long before yours, so your whining is misplaced. Brown already discussed this back in 1900: http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf

  218. Leif Svalgaard says:October 29, 2012 at 8:06 am

    Leif, you have “rediscovered” those ideas and references (including Brown paper) after having read my paper. So, your dishonesty is quite compelling. I just hope that Anthony opens his eyes, and understand who you really are. Also your presentation at AGU was partially inspired by my paper that you have read.

    About Brown, he did not find those peaks in the sunspot record. He did not calculate any power spectra of the data. Brown simply “conjectured” that the 11-year solar cycle could be constrained by the Jupiter-Saturn spring tide (9.93 yr) and Jupiter tide (11.86). But he did not go further than that. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1900MNRAS..60..599B

    It is my papers that have demonstrated that idea works.

    About Vuk’s ideas he was talking about the double cycles (19.86 yr and 23.7 yr). Vuk’s model does not have anything to do with my model, although you thought that it was equivalent to mine. Your arguments are nonsense.

  219. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:55 am
    in this figure he repeats my spectral analysis showing that the Schwabe 11-year sunspot number cycle can be decomposed in three peaks [...] which is the major finding in paper on which I build my model
    About the ‘three peaks’: here is my analysis of those [from Monday, ‎January ‎26, ‎2009, ‏‎11:17:46 PM] and ‘published’ on a blog the same day http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-SAM.pdf slide 2 discussing Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula’. Perhaps this is where you got the idea from in the first place?

  220. Bart says:

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:55 am

    “Bart apparently took the idea from Leif’s comments and figures that were taken from my paper.”

    No. I independently estimated a power spectral density of the sun spot numbers for myself, and recognized that the four peaks were the result of two peaks being rectified in the measurement. I did do so after Leif challenged me to demonstrate coherence in the data. I was pleased later to find that you and Vukcevic had also previously divined a similar relationship. It is not so obscure, indeed the relationship is readily evident, that multiple researchers would not independently recognize it.

    I do not believe that planetary phenomena are behind the cycles. That is merely my opinion, but A) I do not see a plausible mechanism B) it does not explain, for me, the random phase and amplitude variation in the components C) there are so many astronomical frequencies to choose from that being able to find a few which approximately match observations is not exceedingly unlikely, and no more dispositive than the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You may be able to match results over the short term with such a model, but I believe that over time, it will tend to drift off.

    I believe that these are merely natural modes of the Sun, which are lightly damped and have effectively random driving forces. Modal decompositions of systems governed by partial differential equations on a bounded domain are old hat. Finite Element Analysis is standard in industry for determining the normal modes of such a system.

    BTW, Roger – I did not use a “maximum entropy” spectral estimator. It is the FFT of a windowed autocorrelation estimate. Leif’s direct FFT of the SSN is a different, and markedly inferior, animal. There is a lot more to using the FFT to estimate a power spectral density than simply pushing the data through an FFT.

  221. davidmhoffer says:

    Jan Perlw1tz;
    over a time scale of about 20 years and longer
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Phil Jones: 15 years
    Ben Santer: 17 years
    JanP: 20 years

    Seems to be a trend here….

  222. davidmhoffer says:

    Jan Perlw1tz;
    A climate scientist is a scientist who does research and publishes in scientific journals on past, present, and future climate of Earth, as a whole or aspects of it. There isn’t a big problem to define what a climate scientist is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    What’s your point? Using the paper which this thread is the subject of, could you please explain why it is beyond the capabilities of someone outside of climate science to read, understand, and comment fairly upon?

  223. Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Leif, you continue to mislead people. Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not have anything to do with my model. It appears similar to you, but it is not. Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is based on double cycle length. You are not able to understand it, don’t you?

    See well the periods in the formula. It uses two harmonics at 19.859 yr and 2*11.862=23.724 yr.
    I use three harmonics at 9.3, 10.87 and 11.86 yr. Not two.

    The ABS function used by Vuk creates half harmonics and a third harmonic in the middle, but that is not mine 10.87 yr harmonic which has a different origin.

    Moreover, Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is very regular, while mine produces a far more complex patterns. For example Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not get the 61 yr cycle and the millennial cycle, which my formula gets.

    In your report You have used Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula (without referring to Vuk, by the way) and misunderstood it. In your review you did a mess, Leif. Let us see if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.

    Bart says: October 29, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Ok Bart, you found something independently.

    however, about the other issues you need to read carefully my two papers

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648

    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034

    see my web-site

  224. davidmhoffer wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127554

    Phil Jones: 15 years
    Ben Santer: 17 years
    JanP: 20 years
    Seems to be a trend here….

    With what exact statements by Jones and Santer are you comparing my statement? Please provide proof of source for the statements of the two, not just assertions from the “skeptic” rumour kitchen.

    I say about 20 years, since this has been pretty consistent since the 1970ies. I consider it as very likely that the 20 year trends will still be statistically significant also in three, five or ten years from now, unless there is some strong volcanic explosion that blows a lot of reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere causing a temporary temperature dip, or some other cause the effect of which is explainable within the framework of current knowledge about the climate system, but as event not really predictable.

  225. richardscourtney says:

    Perlw1tz:

    No! You will NOT manage to derail this thread by flaming me into going over all your misbehaviour on the earlier thread.

    Near the end of that thread Sean stated the matter much more politely than I could so I copy his post below.

    And this is my last response to you on this thread. Anyway I lack time to correspond with you because I need to do the more pleasant – and more useful – occupation of removing something nasty from the instep of my shoe.

    Richard

    *****************
    Sean says:
    October 28, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Jan P Perlw1tz says: I am a troll.

    Readers respond: go away troll, you have your own site to bash WUWT and post egregious l1es on, it is not our fault that you have no traffic…

    Anthony Watts says: lay off the troll.

    Readers wonder: when Jan was born, how many time did the doctor drop him on his head?

  226. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 9:35 am
    See well the periods in the formula. It uses two harmonics at 19.859 yr and 2*11.862=23.724 yr. I use three harmonics at 9.3, 10.87 and 11.86 yr. Not two.
    You trash around. In my 2009 analysis of Vuk’s [two-period] sunspot formula, I pointed out that its power spectrum has three peaks at 9.94, 10.78, and 11.91 years [slide 2]. BTW, your 9.3 should perhaps be 9.99. To remind you, here is my first review of one of your papers: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Report.pdf

    Moreover, Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is very regular, while mine produces a far more complex patterns. For example Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not get the 61 yr cycle
    It most certainly does: slide 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202011%20SH34B-08.pdf [it is simply a harmonic of the 120-yr modulation] or the table on page 1 of my review.

    In your review you did a mess, Leif.
    In my review I simply showed that the, by now, well-known three peaks [first pointed out by me in 2009] follow from the 120-yr amplitude modulation of the 11-yr cycle [regardless of Vuk's formula, which I only used as illustration, having already done the analysis back in 2009]. I wonder if you will ever admit that you got the three-peak idea from me.

  227. davidmhoffer says:

    Jan Perlw1tz;
    With what exact statements by Jones and Santer are you comparing my statement? Please provide proof of source for the statements of the two, not just assertions from the “skeptic” rumour kitchen.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    These comments are common knowledge and have been discussed at length here and in other forums on both sides of the debate.

  228. pochas says:

    There are those who envision a transcendent reality (a “gestalt”) that they fantasize could become the actual reality if only certain aspects of our current “actual” reality could be eliminated. Not being equipped with the means of successfully dealing with actually reality, they attempt to materialize the gestalt reality which is often some chimera of Marxism or religious or environmental extremism. And since science is concerned with actual reality, it acts to hinder their desired course of events, hence “post-normal science,” which supposedly can support the desired transformation, but actually degrades our ability to deal with actual reality which is the reality that includes famine, disease, and war.

  229. stephen richards says:

    davidmhoffer says:

    October 29, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Jan Perlw1tz;
    over a time scale of about 20 years and longer
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Phil Jones: 15 years
    Ben Santer: 17 years
    JanP: 20 years

    Seems to be a trend here….

    Dead on David. The longer their “pause” continues the longer becomes their cherry picker. They will be saying that 50yrs is too short unless Hansen et al can bend the figures even more than the 3°C they have already achieved.

    Piss off Perlwitz.

  230. Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Your review, that you have published clearly confirms what I said above.

    “Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is based on double cycle length. You are not able to understand it, don’t you? See well the periods in the formula. It uses two harmonics at 19.859 yr and 2*11.862=23.724 yr. I use three harmonics at 9.3, 10.87 and 11.86 yr. Not two. The ABS function used by Vuk creates half harmonics and a third harmonic in the middle, but that is not mine 10.87 yr harmonic which has a different origin. Moreover, Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula is very regular, while mine produces a far more complex patterns. For example Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula does not get the 61 yr cycle and the millennial cycle, which my formula gets. In your report You have used Vuk’s ‘sunspot formula (without referring to Vuk, by the way) and misunderstood it. In your review you did a mess, Leif. Let us see if you are honest enough to acknowledge it.”

    See Leif, your dishonesty or incompetency is demonstrated by the fact that in your own power spectrum analysis of the sunspot record you found the three peaks that I found in my paper.

    If you had repeated the analysis and not found the three peaks, you could correctly argue that you repeated the analysis, did not find the three peaks I was talking about and the paper could not be published.

    But what you did was to find my same spectral peaks, and then you said that my paper could not be published. This is dishonesty or incompetency.

  231. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    Well, the interactive chart certainly doesn’t give very much support to Mann’s position. Most of the items show a global MWP. Not all, but most. I’ve posted that chart at least a half dozen times, and commentators generally agree that it shows a global MWP. It just so happens that you and Mann are not part of the MWP consensus.

    Since noone is disputing if the MWP was global or not, that’s not particularly relevant. What is being disputed is whether or not the warm periods in different locations were synchronous or not. If they were synchronous, then you could get a hemispherical warmth similar to the modern warmth; however, if they were not synchronous, then when you add them all together, you get a broad, diffuse bump that is less warm than the late 20th century.

    And, as I pointed out, simply looking at the various charts there indeed shows that the warm periods in different regions were not well-synchronized with each other.

    Jimbo says:

    joeldshore,
    browse through some of these references to papers showing the Medieval Warm Period in many parts of the southern hemisphere such as Antarctica, southern Africa, South America, Australia, New Zealand.
    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    Here is a handy map
    http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

    See above. One of the primary examples of poor argumentation is when you create a “strawman” argument of the opposing position. That is exactly what you have done with the issue of the MWP. Hence, all these wonderful papers that CO2science has found are completely irrelevant because the don’t address the actual argument that Mann et al. have made for the MWP warmth being less than the current warmth (on hemispheric or global scales). Instead, they address a “strawman” argument that the MWP was not a global phenomenon.

    And, in fact, the data shown at CO2science provide evidence for exactly the reason why the current warmth ends up being less extreme than the modern warmth: For the modern warmth, the warming of different regions is largely in synch. During the MWP, the warming was not generally in-synch: Over the 500 year period from 900 to 1400, lots of regions showed some times when there was significant warmth but the times of significant warmth were often different from region to region.

  232. richardscourtney says:

    davidmhoffer :

    At October 29, 2012 at 9:05 am you say

    Phil Jones: 15 years
    Ben Santer: 17 years
    JanP: 20 years

    Seems to be a trend here….

    I disagree about a “trend”. It is consistent.
    Each stated period was longer than the time since global warming stopped.
    And each period is a demonstration of desperation at the failure of the world to agree with the warmunist world view.

    Assuming the AGW-scare is not history by then, if 20 years is reached then anticipate the stated period to be 30 years.

    The wheels are coming off the scare. They were loosened by climategate1 and later 2. The bandwagon ground to a halt at Copenhagen in 2009. Governments are abandoning responses to the scare so, for example, ‘renewables’ manufacturers are going out of business and ‘Carbon Trading Exchanges’ are collapsing. And the MSM is starting to notice that global warming stopped 16 years ago; the Daily Mail has published about it, and the BBC is to broadcast a radio program on effects of climategate although the BBC did not report climategate 1 or 2 when they happened.

    But many so-called scientists have built careers and reputations by riding the bandwagon. The panic is showing among some. Mann has become insanely litigious. Gleick has turned to deception and data theft. Another makes ridiculous attacks on WUWT threads. etc

    No, your numbers are not a trend. They are some of the shouts of desperation by those on the bandwagon who are trying to make it move again when they don’t have any way to re-attach its wheels.

    Richard

  233. davidmhoffer wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127647

    These comments are common knowledge and have been discussed at length here and in other forums on both sides of the debate.

    I see. You use the fait-accompli fallacy as pretext to chicken out of backing up your innuendo with something that has actual substance.

  234. Leif: ““A thief thinks everybody steals””

    I don’t cut the top off of my graphs to hide information.

    Take a look at graph (b) MXD Chronology. The highest peak since 1700 is one third of the way into the 1900s.

    Hiding information is what climate scientists do. They get caught over and over and shamelessly tell the same lies over and over.

  235. Back in the 1880s, Wolf calculated the solar cycle period to be 11.295 years based on the 10 cycles he had reconstructed. There is an amusing numerological coincidence pointed out at the time by Charles Harrison: if you insert the periods p, masses m, and distances from the Sun d for the eight planets in the formula P = sum(p*m/d^2)/sum(m/d^2) you also get 11.295 years. Unfortunately the formula fails for the last ~100 years where the solar cycle period has averaged 10.6 years [In my report I point out the change from 11.3 to 10.6].

    One can use Kepler’s third law to eliminate either p or d from Harrison’s formula, to make it [d in AU and p in years to get units right]:
    P = sum(m/d^(1/2))/sum(m/d^(4/2)) or P = sum(m/p^(1/3))/sum(m/p^(4/3))

    One can go one step further:
    P = sum(A)/sum(A/p) where A is the angular momentum

    One last trick. It can be written 1/P = sum(A/p)/sum(A) or F = sum(A*f)/sum(A) or
    frequency of cycle = angular momentum weigthed average frequency of the planets

    Numerology is fun!

  236. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 10:38 am
    See Leif, your dishonesty or incompetency is demonstrated by the fact that in your own power spectrum analysis of the sunspot record you found the three peaks that I found in my paper.
    I found the three peaks [and the 61-yr peak] long time before you did and showed that they were simply a consequence of the 120-yr modulation of the 11-yr cycle and did not require any planetary influence. Perhaps you picked the three-peaks idea up from me without attribution.

    This is dishonesty or incompetency.
    As I recall, I was the third referee called in because the first two had rejected your paper strongly and the editor wanted an additional independent and unbiased opinion. You might show us the reviews by these other referees.

  237. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 29, 2012 at 10:55 am
    I don’t cut the top off of my graphs to hide information
    I don’t think they were trying to hide anything [especially not trying to hide the high 2003 peak], but simply used the same scale as in Figures a), b) and c). From c) it is evident that the peak in the 2000s was higher than in the 1930s. As weather is not climate, the value in any given year [e.g. that 2003 was the warmest - or was that 2011?] is not representative of climate and has no particular climate significance.

  238. richardscourtney says:

    davidmhoffer:

    I know it is difficult, but please try to avoid being baited by the troll.

    He is evading your point by claiming he has not heard of the common knowledge which you mention. Upthread he evaded an issue by claiming he is ignorant of the Wegman and North Reports.

    The only abilities he has ever demonstrated on WUWT are an inability to answer direct questions and a willingness to claim ignorance as a method to evade questions. Oh, and of course his willingness to hide his l1es behind false accusations of l1es.

    He is not worth the bother of somebody such as yourself.

    Richard

  239. Edim says:

    That’s interesting Leif!

  240. Leif: “I don’t think they were trying to hide anything”

    I do.

    Leif: “From c) it is evident that the peak in the 2000s was higher than in the 1930s.”

    Get your eyes checked.

  241. davidmhoffer says:

    perlw1tz;
    I see. You use the fait-accompli fallacy as pretext to chicken out of backing up your innuendo with something that has actual substance.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No it means that I’m not going to waste my time grubbing up links to quotes that are well known.

    You never answered my question about winters with little or no snow being associated with late spring. Nor did you answer my question regarding what aspect of the paper which this thread is the focus of cannot be understood and analyzed by someone not in climate science.

  242. Leif Svalgaard says:October 29, 2012 at 11:06 am
    “I found the three peaks [and the 61-yr peak] long time before you”

    Leif, you are further claiming that you confirmed my results.

    Are you now claiming that the planetary influence on the sun, including the 61 yr cycle, was discovered by you? And that you rejected my paper not because erroneous but because you opposed that “your discovery” could be punished by me?

    I thought that you opposed the planetary theory of solar variation because in your opinion no evidences existed!

    I believe that also Anthony and everybody else thought that you were opposing the theory.

    To Anthony
    Anthony, please, note Leif’s metamorphosis. He is trying to become a butterfly!

    REPLY: well at least he isn’t making legal threats to journal editors – A

  243. sunshinehours1 says:
    October 29, 2012 at 11:46 am
    Leif: “From c) it is evident that the peak in the 2000s was higher than in the 1930s.”
    Get your eyes checked.

    http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-Briffa-Detail.png
    Enough said!

  244. vukcevic says:

    This is addressed to S & S (Svalgaard and Scafetta)

    Vuk’s sunspot formula is a CLASSIC
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
    solar science or numerology makes no difference.

    S & S take a note

    Vuk’s next CLASSIC
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
    climate science or numerology makes no difference.

    S & S please do go on. LOL.

  245. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 11:58 am
    I thought that you opposed the planetary theory of solar variation because in your opinion no evidences existed!
    I oppose it because your so-called ‘evidence’ is just numerology. The 2nd referee [whom you called an 'incompetent idiot'] emailed me this:
    “Dear Leif,
    Congratulations on your very clear demonstration of the numerological origins of Scafetta’s “planetary effects”. It would make a great rebuttal of that paper if it is ultimately made public on some forum.
    On the other hand, as I just explained to the Editor, after getting more familiar with Scafetta’s activities in the blogosphere I have now revised my earlier suggestion and I do not think that a refereed journal would be the right place for the paper. The guy simply seems unfit to lead a rational debate; if his paper were published, no matter if it remains uncited or it is rebutted, he would be able to show it up as a refereed publication; he might even demand that a 2nd paper of his be published with his arguments” against the rebuttal etc. So now I would suggest the paper for plain rejection. I gather you would agree with this solution?”

    And I’m saying that your claim that I got the three-peak notion from you is false.
    P.S. Where are the other reviews?

  246. vukcevic says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    S & S please do go on. LOL.
    Yes, this is good entertainment.

  247. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Leif, thanks for the TSI info.

    I stuffed it into a new spreadsheet along with the historical reconstruction available on the SORCE data page.

    Data prep for matching: Subtract 1/24 (half a month) from your times for start of month, then averaged the years. From SORCE reconstruction, subtract the 0.5 from (half year) from times.

    Observations:
    Yours has an apparent implicit minimum of approx. 1360.9 W/m².

    Yours has at least twice the variability, SORCE shows a peak height of one, yours has a height of two to two and a half. Artifact from smoothing?

    Yours tracks SORCE at about 0.2 higher, going backwards until about 1950. Then SORCE takes a great bend downward, opening the gap to about 0.5.

    If you’re in to seeing cycles and patterns, the SORCE reconstruction has an approx. 90 year “beat” going by the minimums. By eyeball, 1720 to 1810, 1810 to 1900. If it had not taken the great bend downwards, it might be more obvious if we have passed the end of a cycle around 1990. As it is, such an end cannot be detected.

    But with only two, arguably three, “cycles” visible, it seems likely they are an artifact of the program generating the SORCE reconstruction rather than a real pattern.

    The great bend downward is questionable, as recent corrections to the SSN have removed the evidence of a recent solar grand maximum (1945-1995) that is apparent from the great bend to present. Since the SSN corrections are recent and the SORCE reconstruction is generated once a year, last time was Jan 19, 2012, perhaps the great bend will be removed in future versions.

  248. Steve Garcia says:

    @AlanG October 28, 2012 at 11:26 am:
    “But. But. If I want my trees to grow more I water them. Why this dendrothermometry?”

    Exactly. One characteristic cannot be a proxy for two variables. You can try to get either precip or temp – pick one, but you can’t have both (you can’t have your cake and eat it, too). And since both are actually factors – of unknown and varying forcing, relative to one another – I challenge anyone to tell me with a straight face which – rain or temps – determines the TRW or MXD. Of course, they can’t. The entire dendroclimatology thing is a farce (I hate to use the word, but it is true), because they pretend that rainfall is a constant. The discipline (I hate to use the word, because it isn’t disciplined, when looked at this way) HAS to assume rainfall as constant, or else the ‘science’ can’t work. And seen from this perspective it doesn’t.

    Since both (and other factors, too) TOGETHER comprise the forcing for TRW and MXD, the graphs tell us about beneficence of the climate, but only as related to what is optimum for tree ring width and density to form/grow in summers – but also without delineating how much of each was acting on the tree growth.

    The reason that there ever WAS a divergence problem is because neither TRW or MXD really were ever proxies for temps. With the same temperatures, two data points in time on the same tree can – and will – result in higher TRW or MXD values, if the rainfall is more conducive to growth. When this happens dendroclimatology misses the mark, because rainfall is not taken into account.

    Steve Garcia

  249. Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Leif, you are further demonstrating that the review process was colored and there was an orchestrated decision.

    Well Leif, I have an idea. Why don’t you write a comment on my paper using your critique.
    You may coauthor it with your friend who believes that it is robust. He may also add his argument that he could reproduce the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial variation by superposing two harmonics with periods of 12 2/3 year and 14 year. (How can it be possible!)

    See, Leif, the second referee initially claimed that my paper had to be published together with his comment disproving it. I said that for me it was ok, I could add a short response. Then the referee saw my response and changed idea.

    To Anthony,
    Anthony, are you realizing that more and more papers are being published in support of the planetary theory of solar variation by numerous journals? And people like Leif are not able to disprove anything? Just use smearing logic and insinuations?

    What else do you want that it is published before you consider at least the possibility that the theory could be correct or at least interesting?

  250. davidmhoffer wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127757

    No it means that I’m not going to waste my time grubbing up links to quotes that are well known.

    You are just repeating the fait-accompli fallacy.

    There are many things going around in the “skeptic” blogosphere, which are thought among “skeptics” to be “well known”, but which are just total BS or nonsense without any scientific validity, for instance the believe that “global warming stopped”.

    There is some lack of honesty on your side, if you make some innuendo with respect to statements by me, but refuse to substantiate and to be specific, and so leaving me without any chance to examine the validity of your hidden argument.

    But it’s your choice, of course.

    You never answered my question about winters with little or no snow being associated with late spring. Nor did you answer my question regarding what aspect of the paper which this thread is the focus of cannot be understood and analyzed by someone not in climate science.

    And why should I have answered those questions? Why would I have the burden to answer some questions you just have made up because you felt like it? That’s how I see these questions. I may be more willing to answer some questions, if those questions are in reference to some statements and argument I actually made.

    On a side note: It’s just pathetic how Mr. Coal-Transport-Magazine Editor tries to influence other commenters now, after he has been exposed to have made claims he can’t back up with quotes and proof of source, because his claims are lies. He just could have admitted that he was wrong, when he made those claims.

  251. I don’t know the scientific merit of this paper yet, but at least one true proposition can already be derived from it with very high confidence.

    Briffa has deseted the Team

  252. JohnH says:

    Jan Perlwitz says:
    ” It doesn’t mean that there can’t be any natural variability that appears as wobbles in the temperature record (or in other climate variables), masking the multi-decadal temperature trend over a time scale shorter than 20 years with the effect that the longer term trend is not statistically detectable in the time series, if one chooses the time period only short enough.”

    I find this assertion interesting, as it is often claimed that natural variability can mask global warming over short time periods. In this context “natural variability” seems to be a catchphrase for unknown forcings and feedbacks that change global temperature in ways that we can’t predict or quantify. If these unknown factors are masking global warming, then it’s obvious that they must be equal in scale to the warming itself.

    Warmists, and the oft-cited list of responses to AGW skeptics, also claim that when all of the natural forcings are considered, their sum is inadequate to explain the observed temperature rise since 1975. How can these same scientists, in the same breath, admit that there are unknowns that are similar in scale and able to offset AGW for an extended time period, and still dismiss the same natural variability as the primary driver in any observed temperature increase?

    This is similar to the error they make when they claim that greenhouse gases can produce temperature increases 3-5 times that of the direct radiative effects of doubling CO2 (through the action of non-linear feedbacks), but deny that small changes in insolation can produce effects that are much larger than can predicted from the original forcing.

    Climate science, with it’s many interconnections with fields of study such as geology, astronomy. physics, history, archaeology, mathematics and biology, could be the most fascinating area of pure research for brilliant researchers to study. Instead, it’s riddled with small-minded tyrants who love the attention that comes with political activism, and have little to no intellectual curiosity about what all of the loose ends and inconsistencies could tell us. They’ve staked their careers to one issue, and they have nothing to lose at this point by defending it to the last.

  253. Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    I would like to add an additional comment on the interesting email between Leif and the second reviewer.

    Leif was the third reviewer of my paper, who was contacted by the journal AFTER the second reviewer final decision.

    The email posted by Leif clarifies the timing of what really happened.

    This is what appears to be happened.

    1) The second reviewer received my rebuttal and evidently he could not respond.

    2) So, he contacted Leif, sending him my paper and asked for suggestions.

    3) Leif wrote his report with his critique and send it to the second reviewer. The reviewer responded to Leif by sending him the above email.

    4) The reviewer returned his rejection decision to the editor without rebutting my rebuttal, but asking the editor to contact Leif.

    5) The editor contacted Leif.

    6) Leif submitted his negative report.

    So, it appears that it is Leif who is behind the decision of the second referee who was not able to write a proper rebuttal to my paper, so he contacted Leif.

    In conclusion, my paper was rejected by Leif. And the editor followed the suggestion of the second referee despite the referee could not rebut my rebuttal.
    Which demonstrates the bias of the editor.

  254. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    there was an orchestrated decision.
    Unanimous decision that the paper was junk. A ‘bad egg’ as Easterbunny said.

    Why don’t you write a comment on my paper using your critique.
    We considered that [I suggested that], but in the end we decided that your paper was not really worth it. See the email upthread.

    What else do you want that it is published before you consider at least the possibility that the theory could be correct or at least interesting?
    There is no ‘theory’, but a host of equally disparate and mutually conflicting pseudo-scientific hand waves. Not even a communal set of predictions [spaghetti graph] for the 21st century where each proponent gets to plot a curve with a different color. Tallbloke volunteered to make one, but has not done so.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm
    perhaps the great bend will be removed in future versions
    The SORCE reconstruction is based on two assumptions [both likely to be false]:
    1) the Group Sunspot Number is correct
    2) there is a ‘background’ variation which is equal to the 11-year moving average of the Group Sunspot Number on which TSI rides. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Background-Not.png

  255. Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Why don’t you write a comment on my paper using your critique.
    We considered that [I suggested that], but in the end we decided that your paper was not really worth it. See the email upthread.

    To Anthony.
    Anthony, note that Leif is not going to write a proper scientific rebuttal to my papers. So, my papers stand.

  256. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127689

    Assuming the AGW-scare is not history by then, if 20 years is reached then anticipate the stated period to be 30 years.

    I’m curious what Courtney, Stephen Richards, and their likes are going to say and do, when it is clear after 20 years that I, together with mainstream climate science, have been right and there is still an intact global warming trend in the global temperature anomaly also for periods starting around 1997, when global warming allegedly “stopped”, according to Courtney and likes.

    Reasonable folks, who have believed in the “skeptic” meme will probably acknowledge that they got fooled by internal natural variability and scientifically flawed statistical analysis presented to them by “skeptics”. I suspect, though, that the Courtneys and Richards will totally delve into lunacy and conspiracy fantasies then, if they haven’t already done so.

    Well, I’m going to tell the crowd here then, regarding the global warming trend, “I told you so!”.

  257. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Bill Yarber says:
    October 28, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    Figure 5c shows a spike in approx 1750, which is reported to be the coldest part of the LIA. Historical records from England suggest they were skating on the Thames during many winters from early 1700′s to 1830.

    So why the spike then? What am I missing?

    Please bear in mind that the reconstructions will reflect GROWING SEASON conditions; summertime, essentially. Also, even though I can’t recall precisely, I remember a paper or three that pointed out the LIA also had very high variability. Some summers much cooler, others not so much. Also, while the summers generally were a bit cooler, the winters were way cooler (on average). Finally, ALL of this is based on proxies. At best, IMHO, a first-order approximation to actual conditions.

  258. Werner Brozek says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 29, 2012 at 9:37 am

    davidmhoffer wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127554

    Phil Jones: 15 years
    Ben Santer: 17 years
    JanP: 20 years
    Seems to be a trend here….

    With what exact statements by Jones and Santer are you comparing my statement? Please provide proof of source for the statements of the two, not just assertions from the “skeptic” rumour kitchen.

    Perhaps these?
    Tuesday, January 10, 2012
    Email 4199, a ClimateGate twofer from Phil Jones: “the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”;

    See: http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2012/01/email-4199-climategate-twofer-from-phil.html

    See
    https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

    “They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

    “One individual short-term trend doesn’t tell you much about long-term climate change,” Santer said.”

  259. davidmhoffer says:

    Jan P Perlw1tz
    There is some lack of honesty on your side, if you make some innuendo with respect to statements by me, but refuse to substantiate and to be specific, and so leaving me without any chance to examine the validity of your hidden argument.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There’s an entire thread on the topic with quotes and links.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

    Now since you insist on me making you look foolish on what in fact IS common knowledge, I guess I have to oblige. Your welcome.

    Now are you going to answer my questions, or find some new excuse?

  260. MattA says:

    @Nick

    Thankyou for introducing me to the potent new form of logic – “argument by proverb”.

    All I need to to I tag my approriate proverb to the end of every opposition argument to invalidate it and if carefully chosen enough this will also smear their name.

    PS: Not all theives think everyone steals and many honest people think theives steal.

    To steal the potency of my argument I follow with the delightful African proverb: “A leopard never changes its spots”.

    be warned however I know many other delightful proverbs.

  261. MattA says:

    Sorry that was meant to be @ Lief but I am in a rush literally investigating a possible theft.

  262. JohnH wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127917

    I find this assertion interesting, as it is often claimed that natural variability can mask global warming over short time periods. In this context “natural variability” seems to be a catchphrase for unknown forcings and feedbacks that change global temperature in ways that we can’t predict or quantify.

    No, it’s not a catch phrase for “unknown forcings and feedbacks”. Forcings are external drivers of climate variability. “Natural variability” in my statement refers to internal variability, the climate system exhibits, even if the forcings stay the same. So, if it clarifies my statement add “internal” or “unforced” as additional adjective to “natural variability”. Sorry, if my statement wasn’t clear enough with respect to that.

    Warmists, and the oft-cited list of responses to AGW skeptics, also claim that when all of the natural forcings are considered, their sum is inadequate to explain the observed temperature rise since 1975. How can these same scientists, in the same breath, admit that there are unknowns that are similar in scale and able to offset AGW for an extended time period, and still dismiss the same natural variability as the primary driver in any observed temperature increase?

    The fact that unforced variability in the climate system can offset anthropogenic forcing changes on a time scale of about 15 years and smaller does not logically imply that unforced variability is also the primary cause of the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies. And who of “these same scientists” is supposed to have said that the unforced natural variability was of similar scale as the temperature increase since the mid 1970ies?

    This is similar to the error they make when they claim that greenhouse gases can produce temperature increases 3-5 times that of the direct radiative effects of doubling CO2 (through the action of non-linear feedbacks), but deny that small changes in insolation can produce effects that are much larger than can predicted from the original forcing.

    Red herring. Such a thing is not being “denied”.

  263. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I see that at October 29, 2012 at 1:47 pm the troll says he has failed to notice global warming stopped 16 years ago. Well, he has to pretend he has not noticed if he wants breath life back into the AGW scare and, thus, keep making a living from it.

    Of course, the present period with lack of discernible global warming or cooling will come to an end sometime. Hopefully, it will end with warming towards the temperatures of the MWP because cooling towards temperatures of the LIA could start. Warming is not a problem but cooling would be.

    Importantly, the IPCC’s “committed warming” has vanished. Either it did not exist or it is hiding somewhere possibly in the same place as Trenberth’s “missing heat”. Perhaps the troll is hiding them behind his sofa?

    Richard

  264. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    JPP, thought you were a GISS employee. Shouldn’t you be evacuating NYC?

    (Note: the rhyming was unintentional. And somehow funny.)

  265. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    ………
    Hi Doc
    There is more than a passing similarity between your GSN (Group Sunspot Number) and the NAP (North Atlantic Precursor)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
    not numerology but natural correlation based on well known and accepted data.
    Solar influence is far dipper than just the ‘thin air’ temperatures. A bit of a problem for you and your solar group, not to mention Perlwitz and his CAGW doomsters cabal.

  266. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    This one is a beauty.

    At October 29, 2012 at 2:20 pm the troll writes

    The fact that unforced variability in the climate system can offset anthropogenic forcing changes on a time scale of about 15 years and smaller does not logically imply that unforced variability is also the primary cause of the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies.

    Tru, it “does not logically imply” that.
    It demonstrates there is no reason to invoke a hypothetical “anthropogenic forcing” as an explanation for “the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies”.

    And it shows the hypothetical “anthropogenic forcing” does NOT provide “committed warming” which the IPCC says it must provide if the hypothetical “anthropogenic forcing” is to cause significant warming.

    However, it should be noted that making a living from the AGW-scare – as the troll does – requires invoking a claim that such a hypothetical “anthropogenic forcing” is the the explanation of “”the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies”.

    Richard

  267. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    Leif was the third reviewer of my paper, who was contacted by the journal AFTER the second reviewer final decision.
    This is correct

    2) So, he contacted Leif, sending him my paper and asked for suggestions.
    This is wrong, that is not how reviews are done [have you ever done one?]. The Editor asks me to review at which point I don’t know how many other reviewers there are and what they said. The reviewers don’t see each others’ until the final decision letter.

    “Easterbunny’ contacted me afterwards [via the Editor] about writing a rebuttal:
    “On the other hand, as I just explained to the Editor, after getting more familiar with Scafetta’s activities in the blogosphere I have now revised my earlier suggestion and I do not think that a refereed journal would be the right place for the paper. The guy simply seems unfit to lead a rational debate

    We decide not to respond as the paper is not worth it.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    Anthony, note that Leif is not going to write a proper scientific rebuttal to my papers. So, my papers stand.
    Your paper is not worthy of further reviews. You paper has already fallen flat. Bad papers are better forgotten than rebutted. Rebuttal just keeps them on unnecessary life-support for a while, until final oblivion.

    Now, I asked for the other reviews. Are you too embarrassed to show them?
    Please keep the entertainment coming. And continue telling Anthony what he should pay attention to.

  268. Bart says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 29, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    “The fact that unforced variability in the climate system can offset anthropogenic forcing changes on a time scale of about 15 years and smaller does not logically imply that unforced variability is also the primary cause of the statistically significant temperature increase since the mid 1970ies.”

    But, it does more-than-imply that you cannot rule it out, either. You actually have no idea of the correlation time of the natural variability, and have just grabbed “15 years and smaller” out of the air. Unknown means unknown. And, if you do not know, then why should we take painful and quite likely futile action against the unknown? What you are advocating is on a par with leechcraft and virgin sacrifice.

  269. vukcevic says:
    October 29, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    There is more than a passing similarity between your GSN (Group Sunspot Number)
    I don’t have a ‘Group Sunspot Number’. I showed that the official Group Sunspot Number is flawed and should not be used anymore…

  270. davidmhoffer says:

    15 years..17 years…20 years…

    The funny thing (to me) about this is that when I first started following the climate debate, there was a slight warming trend in place. Plenty of people pointed out that it was well within natural variability. The climate scientists at the time came out with detailed explanations of how this couldn’t possibly be natural variability.

    What a change a decade makes! Now the very same people are arguing that the lack of warming is because of natural variability!

  271. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    What else do you want that it is published before you consider at least the possibility that the theory could be correct or at least interesting?

    There is no ‘theory’, but a host of equally disparate and mutually conflicting pseudo-scientific hand waves. Not even a communal set of predictions [spaghetti graph] for the 21st century where each proponent gets to plot a curve with a different color.

    The biggest hand wave of all is you saying at one moment that there are no resonances in the Sun lasting more than 5 minutes, then in the next moment invoking a 120 year modulation of a ~11yr ‘dynamo cycle’ in order to be able to claim that the other peaks in the spectrum at 9.93 and 11.86 are just sideband harmonics of the 120yr and ~11yr periods and only coincidentally the orbital period of Jupiter and the tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn’s synodic cycle. Your logic contradicts itself.

    Tallbloke volunteered to make one, but has not done so.

    This is a lie. What I said was that I would get around to it if and when Leif showed us a dynamologists plot forecasting the 21st century from dynamology theory.

    He made his excuses and left.

  272. tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    120yr and ~11yr periods and only coincidentally the orbital period of Jupiter and the tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn’s synodic cycle.
    Those periods are not stationary, i.e. they change over time, contrary to planetary cycles. And tides won’t work anyway. In short, you have no ‘theory’. No equations, no numbers, no physics, no nothing.

    What I said was that I would get around to it if and when Leif showed us a dynamologists plot forecasting the 21st century from dynamology theory
    As dynamo theory cannot predict more than a cycle ahead I don’t need to show that we can’t. You, on the other hand claim to be able to predict thousands of years ahead. So, prove it with just a century. And plot all the ‘predictions’ from planetary enthusiasts [if any].

    He made his excuses and is still waiting. Perhaps you drop the predictability claim?

  273. Jai Mitchell says:

    “new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden”

    If it was only taken from a small geographic location it is not a proxy for global temperatures in my book. For example, we know that a negative El Nino Southern Oscillation leads to warmer temperatures in these regions but it is much (MUCH!) cooler in the south pacific western regions.

  274. tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    120yr and ~11yr periods and only coincidentally the orbital period of Jupiter and the tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn’s synodic cycle.
    The 120-yr ‘cycle’ has only been with us 300 years. The Abreu paper you refer to, does not mention or predict a 120-yr cycle, so its appearance at the present time is indeed a coincidence.

  275. Jai Mitchell says:
    October 29, 2012 at 4:14 pm
    If it was only taken from a small geographic location it is not a proxy for global temperatures in my book.
    Yet, solar [and planetary] enthusiasts claim that the proxy ‘fits nicely’ with their cycles.

  276. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    davidmhoffer wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127986

    There’s an entire thread on the topic with quotes and links.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

    Now since you insist on me making you look foolish on what in fact IS common knowledge, I guess I have to oblige. Your welcome.

    In a way I’m glad that you link to this article by Mr. Watts on his blog. It seems to me no one of the “skeptics”, including you, has bothered to do any fact checking, although at least one of the commenters has done it. You don’t seem to have paid attention to him.

    Mr. Watts gives following quote (in a somewhat confusing way that gives the impression at first, it is taken from some Daily Mail article) from the State of the Climate Report 2008:

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    So, this is apparently one of the statements to which you refer that they were “common knowledge”.

    However, Mr. Watts omitted an important part of the quote in his article. Here is a longer version of the quote, which I have taken from the report (p. S23):

    ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
    The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999–2008 trend (−0.05° to 0.05°C decade–1). Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999–2008 are statistically consistent with those in the 17 simulated decades (Fig. 2.8c).

    From the longer quote it becomes clear that the ruling out of Zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more refer to ENSO adjusted temperature changes, whereas Mr. Watts gives the impression in his articles those 15 years referred to the temperature changes as observed. In his article, Mr. Watts distorted the meaning of the quote he took from the report.

    And then, further down, Mr. Watts writes following:

    Climategate’s Phil Jones ‘insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said’ in 2012

    ‘Yet in 2009, when the [temperature] plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    Using the third person, Phil Jones is supposed to have said something in 2012 about what he said in 2009? Really?

    So, let me summarize what I have found under the link you gave me.

    An article with a distorted quote from a climate report published in 2008 and with an alleged quote by Phil Jones in the third person about himself coming from second or third hand, a crowd of “skeptics” in the comment section, including you, who are taking all of this at face value without doing any fact checking and who see themselves confirmed in their preconceived views by this, and you are trying to sell this to me now as “common knowledge”.

    This is why I ask for original quotes and for proof of source. This is why blogs like this are not reliable sources for alleged statements made by others, particularly by ones who are despised by Mr. Watts and his followers here.

    You are welcome!

    On a side note: Courtney’s announcement he made in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127600
    to not respond to my comments in this thread anymore, was true only for as long. LOL

  277. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm
    The Abreu paper you refer to, does not mention or predict a 120-yr cycle,

    Well clearly we need to convene some ‘workshops’ to get everyone singing off the same hymn sheet.
    /sarc

  278. tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    Well clearly we need to convene some ‘workshops’ to get everyone singing off the same hymn sheet.
    That is what characterizes a mature science. But more importantly you need to get the various hymn sheet produced and compared. You claim you can predict with precision solar activity thousands of year in advance. Well, if every planetary prediction produces a unique, different curve from all the rest, then, of course, they are worthless and the theory is dead. So, get on with it, or admit you can’t.

  279. Jai: “If it was only taken from a small geographic location it is not a proxy for global temperatures in my book. ”

    What would you consider a valid proxy for global temperatures? I don’t think there is one.

  280. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    davidmhoffer wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1128177

    15 years..17 years…20 years…

    It also seems to me that you are misrepresenting my statement as if I had said that it needed 20 years before the global temperature anomaly trends due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases could be statistically distinguished from unforced natural variability. If you aren’t, correct me, and explain what you want to state instead, please.

    The funny thing (to me) about this is that when I first started following the climate debate, there was a slight warming trend in place. Plenty of people pointed out that it was well within natural variability. The climate scientists at the time came out with detailed explanations of how this couldn’t possibly be natural variability.

    The truth of the assertions in this paragraph, how they are presented, can’t be tested. Therefore, they are just irrelevant blabber.

  281. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    Werner Brozek wrote
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127983

    Perhaps these?
    Tuesday, January 10, 2012
    Email 4199, a ClimateGate twofer from Phil Jones: “the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried”;

    See: http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2012/01/email-4199-climategate-twofer-from-phil.html

    And this is yet another example how “skeptics” use distorted quotes to misrepresent statements by climate scientists. A longer version of the quote goes as follows:

    The box is on page S20-21 of the bigger pdf. This is part of a much bigger article
    on the State of the Climate System 2008 which will appear later in the year.
    Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before
    we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and
    not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.

    (http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4199.txt)

    It’s the same context as the one I discussed in my reply to David M Hoffer, the State of the Climate 2008 Report. The 15 years refer to the temperature change after adjusting for El Nino, as it is described in the report.

  282. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1128045

    global warming stopped 16 years ago

    On what empirical evidence is this assertion supposed to be based?

    16 years ago put the starting point of the period at November 1996.

    Although global warming isn’t just a process concerning the global temperature, here are the global surface and lower tropospheric temperature trends in K with the 2-sigma ranges over those 16 years, using the trend calculator at http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    GISSTEMP: 0.104+/0.121
    NOAA: 0.082+/-0.12
    HADCRUT4: 0.089+/-0.124
    RSS: 0.032+/-0.214
    UAH: 0.114+/-0.214

    With the exception of RSS, which seems to be an outlier among the datasets, the trends over those 16 years are discernible, even if they are not statistically significant at the 95% level. The usual caveats about using too short datasets apply.

    Those trends are quite similar to the ones of another 16 year period, the period from 1980 to 1995. Global warming didn’t stop back then either. Courtney’s assertions, which are based on logically false reasoning, abusing statistical analysis, don’t have any scientific validity.

  283. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    As usual, the troll cannot restrain himself from presenting a falsehood. This time at October 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm where he writes

    On a side note: Courtney’s announcement he made in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127600
    to not respond to my comments in this thread anymore, was true only for as long.

    But I did not say that. At October 29, 2012 at 9:39 am I wrote to him saying

    And this is my last response to you on this thread.

    I have not and I will not respond to him. But that does not mean I intend to ignore his posts.

    I have and I will point out the falsehoods of the egregious and self-serving troll who is contaminating WUWT in his attempt to continue making a living out of the AGW-scare.

    Richard

  284. Gary Pearse says:

    I think it would be a powerful statement of sceptic evenhandedness if Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick were to critique Briffa’s statistics. I suspect, though, that Briffa has had his work reviewed by a statistician after the easy devastation by McIntyre and McKitrick of the cooked climate science behind the hockey stick. Although Briffa, among the bunch, came off not too badly in the Climategate emails in the integrity department – he seemed to be overwhelmed by the high power, low integrity part of the “consensus” and buckled under. His reported ill health at the time may have been a factor in asserting himself against the advocacy science which was under a head of steam at the time. This paper seems to me to be one to right the wrongs the much-fiddled tree ring proxy sustained on his earlier watch, now that the consensus commanders have weakened and lost their way. Phil Jones’s post climategate statement of a 15 year warming hiatus may also point to a bit of decency and honesty in a CRU elite, but he has sadly stepped back recently on this topic by stating that 16 (17?) years of no warming is to be expected in the CAGW scheme – not seemingly aware that there are only six parcels of this amount of time in a century.

  285. D Böehm says:

    Global temperatures, past fifteen years. Another view, five different data sets.

    There is no testable, falsifiable, empirical evidence showing that human-emitted CO2 has any effect on global temperature. None. There just is not any such evidence.

    That means that CO2=CAGW, and even CO2=AGW, are simply conjectures. They are not hypotheses, and they certainly are not theories. They are only conjectures; opinions.

    Far too much public money has already been shoveled into the pockets of these evil rent-seeking scientists. The real world does not support their scare stories. So they deviously manipulate the temperature record — GISS is notorious for its “adjustments”, which always show either a cooler past, or a warmer present. Their charts are mendacious propaganda. It is past time to stop funding these self-serving climate charlatans. The sooner their funding is cut off, the sooner we can get honesty back into science.

  286. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I notice that at October 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm the troll remains in denial of the halt to global warming.

    This would be sad if it were a mental condition instead of self-serving propaganda.
    Indeed, this is the data and the assertion of it he represents.

    GISSTEMP: 0.104+/0.121
    NOAA: 0.082+/-0.12
    HADCRUT4: 0.089+/-0.124
    RSS: 0.032+/-0.214
    UAH: 0.114+/-0.214

    With the exception of RSS, which seems to be an outlier among the datasets, the trends over those 16 years are discernible, even if they are not statistically significant at the 95% level. The usual caveats about using too short datasets apply.

    None of the data he provides indicates a “discernible” trend. Each trend datum is within the inherent error range he presents for it.

    Either he is a scientist so knows the data he provides shows that discernible global warming stopped 16 years ago or – more likely – his claim of discernible trends is a deliberate falsehood.

    Richard

  287. twomoon says:

    Briffa remains the most likely Climategate source.

  288. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    None of the data he provides indicates a “discernible” trend. Each trend datum is within the inherent error range he presents for it.

    What you are trying to say is that none of the trends are statistically-different from 0 at a 95% confidence level. Of course, what is also true is that none of them is statistically-different from the post ~1975 trend of ~0.17 C per decade at a 95% confidence level. So, the claim that “global warming stopped 16 years ago” is a deliberate falsehood. There is no statistically-significant evidence to support that claim.

  289. Darren Potter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: “There isn’t a big problem to define what a climate scientist is.”

    AGW climate scientist – person who puts his/her gains (Ego, Career, Politics, Funding) above Science, Truth, Fact, and/or Honesty.
    Wow you are right it was not a big problem.
    ;)

  290. Darren Potter says:

    Jan P Perlwitz: “… unlike the temperature reconstruction in Mann et al., (1999), doi: 10.1029/1999GL900070, which was a reconstruction of the Northern Hemispheric temperature.”

    Big problem in the reconstruction was based on biased data, flawed method, and ultimately cherry-picked plotting. And the bogus ideology of relating temperatures / co2 to tree rings.
    Talk about your ‘Pulp Fiction’.

  291. Bart says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    “…trends over those 16 years are discernible, even if they are not statistically significant at the 95% level.”

    This is quibbling. If they are not statistically significant, then you do not even know if they exist with any reasonable level of certainty. If CO2 is warming the globe, and its relentless increase in concentration should therefore be increasing the observability of its effect higher and higher as it rises above the noise floor, then it is damned inconvenient for you to have the warming trend statistically disappear for such a lengthy interval of time.

    Moreover, according to your hypothesis, the energy from the displaced warming has to be getting stored somewhere. So, it isn’t enough for you if temperatures simply resume an upward march. They’ve got A LOT of catching up to do and, you really should be honest with yourself and realize it just isn’t going to happen.

    “Those trends are quite similar to the ones of another 16 year period, the period from 1980 to 1995.”

    And, the overall trend across all the recorded data is the same as its been since the end of the LIA, plus or minus an additional quasi-periodic variability with a cycle time of about 60 years, which also has been in existence since the end of the LIA. There is nothing here out of the ordinary, nothing which would not be predictable without the kluge of anthropogenic forcing as a driver.

  292. TimTheToolMan says:

    Jan writes “I’m curious what Courtney, Stephen Richards, and their likes are going to say and do, when it is clear after 20 years that I, together with mainstream climate science, have been right and there is still an intact global warming trend in the global temperature anomaly ”

    Intact? Perhaps by then it will turn out to be only 0.1C warming/decade and that would be a considerable change from the dire predictions of today. Maybe less. But whatever.

    The missing heat isn’t missing because its hiding, afterall we had no problems “finding” it before. Its a copout to say its hiding in an area we dont measure well (ie deep ocean). No the missing heat is missing because its simply not there and that means there is a very good chance there is no radiative imbalance at the moment warming the planet.

    And that means AGW as you believe it from the models, could easily be wrong and instead the atmosphere is more efficiently transporting heat away and naturally decreasing the temperature gradient. ONLY time and data will tell and suggestions that because you’re “mainstream” and that gives your belief any credibility doesn’t wash with anyone here.

  293. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Ah come on guys, let’s cut JPP some slack. He’s one of the Kings of Climate, or at least a top lackey to one. He knows with precision the catastrophic future of the planet for a thousand years hence, that will be wrought by small variations in trace gases, as revealed by the commands given to the marvelous creations formed of silicon crystals.

    Now he’s at the mercy of mere weather, a collusion of natural events that’s poised to attack what he holds dear, which can’t be comfortably predicted even a half a day away. He is powerless before the wrath of natural variation.

    Thus the long drawn-out combination freak-out and distraction commentary. He’s scared, and can’t do anything about it. So he’s ranting against those who ignore what he knows has made this situation worse, that perhaps even caused it. Guess it’s just something he can do that feels like doing something.

  294. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    “Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    Anthony, note that Leif is not going to write a proper scientific rebuttal to my papers. So, my papers stand.”
    Your paper is not worthy of further reviews. You paper has already fallen flat. Bad papers are better forgotten than rebutted. Rebuttal just keeps them on unnecessary life-support for a while, until final oblivion.

    Leif, you are so sure of yourself.

    In the meantime other papers on the topic are being published on numerous journals. And you are not able to rebut anything. As I said you only prefer slander and defamation to a real scientific debate.

    Do not worry, if I am right, it will be nature to confirm my results, if I am wrong, I will be happy to be proven wrong.

  295. davidmhoffer says:

    Jan Perlw1tz;
    Using the third person, Phil Jones is supposed to have said something in 2012 about what he said in 2009? Really?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Common knowledge was Phil Jones Climategate e-mail. What a number of climate scientists said in private was exposed by climategate to be very different from what they maintained in public. In this case, Phil Jones was quite clear that if there was no statisticaly significant warming for 15 years, the CAGW theory would be in trouble. Taken in the context of the accompanying emails, it was very clear that he did not qualify this statement in any way shape or form as “ENSO adjusted”. In fact, I find that excuse rather amusing given that there has been rather open admission on the part of climate modelers that they cannot model ENSO well!

    Furthermore, you neglected to mention Santer’s comment which was made publicly, and also did not mention anything about “ENSO adjusted”.

    Further to my furthermore, the reasoning in the rest of the quote you provided is also…. well… unreasonable:

    “The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999–2008 trend (−0.05° to 0.05°C decade–1). Over most of the globe, local surface temperature trends for 1999–2008 are statistically consistent with those in the 17 simulated decades (Fig. 2.8c).”

    Frankly, I’m not sure what that means. 10 models that simulated 70 years each? Or 10 models that each simulated 700? Would these be the models that have widely diverging values for aerosol forcing? Are they based radiative forcing attributes that the IPCC rates as “low” or “very low” in 9 of 14 categories? But no matter, the point is the last sentence which claims that the 1999 to 2008 period is consistent with those 17 simulated decades in the past. OK, in the past, we didn’t have significant CO2 forcing, supposedly now we do. Where’s the warming?

    But frankly, I don’t care what simulations say, for the reasons above. A very wide range of forcings and an admitted poor understanding of many of the uncertainties in radiative forcing make them a poor standard to compare to.

    Bottom line: Phil Jones did say in his email that if there was no significant warming for 15 years, the theory would be in trouble. Santer jumped in later and said 17 years, and, like Jones, didn’t qualify it withyy a statement about ENSO, he was clearly talking about the temperature record only. Then you said something about 20 years. Frankly I don’t remember exactly what, but that is the context I took it to be in.

    You haven’t answered my question about low snowfall amounts and late springs. Don’t worry, I won’t bust your chops if the answer is “I don’t know”. I’ll explain it.

    Nor have you answered my question about the ability of a non climate scientist to understand the paper which this thread is (used to be?) the subject of.

    Nice try distracting everyone’s attention with the whole ENSO adjusted issue, but you said you wouldn’t answer me given that I didn’t document the source of the info I was quoting. You may agree or disagree with my interpretation of the info, but I provided it as asked and now I expect a response to my questions.

  296. The whole idea of relating temperatures to CO2 levels (let alone tree rings) has been proven just as false in this era as it was in the MWP. Joseph Postma’s new paper (22 Oct 2012) shows conclusively that there is no GHE caused by backradiation. He has quoted myself on pp 47-49 and, overall, this is a landmark paper debunking man-made warming with compelling empirical evidence. See: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
    Doug Cotton

  297. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm
    if I am wrong, I will be happy to be proven wrong
    You can start being happy right now.
    P.S. We are still waiting for you to produce the other reviews.

  298. Werner Brozek says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 29, 2012 at 5:16 pm
    Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and
    not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.

    I must say he did not word himself very well then since by reading “a total of 15 years”, one does not get the impression that he in effect meant 21 years from 1998 since he was counting from 2004/2005. But now the question is why from 2004/2005? The brand new Hadcrut4 data set has no warming at all from November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August.) (slope = -0.00018 per year) See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend
    To be fair to Phil Jones, he would not have known this at that time, but in light of this information, would you say that if we went another three years and two months with a slope of zero that CAGW is falsified?

  299. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm
    “You claim you can predict with precision solar activity thousands of year in advance. Well, if every planetary prediction produces a unique, different curve from all the rest, then, of course, they are worthless and the theory is dead. So, get on with it, or admit you can’t.”

    What kind of resoning is that? When people trying to understand a complex phenomenon they may propose alternative theories which may make different predictions that may be conflicting with each other. That does not mean that all theories must be wrong a priory. One of them may be found correct at the end. This initial uncertenty happens in every field of frontier science. This is how science progress.

    For example in the 16th century people were discussing new astronomical theories to contrast the Aristotelian geocentric theory, and at least three major similar but conflicting theories existed. The copernican theory, the theory of Tycho Brahe and Kepler’s theory. The three theories produced different predictions. Only one hundred year later, with further observations and Newtow’s theory solved the problem in favor of Kepler’s theory.

    If we were living in the 16-17th century, you would have argued that because the copernican theory, the theory of Tycho Brahe and Kepler’s theory were producing conflicting predictions, then the aristotelian theory had to be correct. (!)

    So, be patient. And try to read well my papers before criticizing them

    About your comment
    “Your paper is not worthy of further reviews. You paper has already fallen flat. ”

    Really? Apparently my papers are among the most downloaded papers of the journal, not bad for papers that have already fallen flat!

    http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/most-downloaded-articles/

    As I said, you only prefer slander and defamation to a real scientific debate.

  300. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm
    Of course, what is also true is that none of them is statistically-different from the post ~1975 trend of ~0.17 C per decade at a 95% confidence level. So, the claim that “global warming stopped 16 years ago” is a deliberate falsehood.

    That is an interesting way of looking at things! But suppose the slope was in effect 0. Then you could say it is just as likely to be warming as cooling. Then no action or money should be spent since you do not know what is really happening.

    On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 11 years and 9 months to 15 years and 9 months, but note *

    1. UAH: (*New update not on woodfortrees yet)
    2. GISS: since January 2001 or 11 years, 9 months (goes to September)
    3. Combination of 4 global temperatures: since November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August)
    4. HadCrut3: since March 1997 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to August)
    5. Sea surface temperatures: since February 1997 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to September)
    6. RSS: since January 1997 or 15 years, 9 months (goes to September)
    RSS is 189/204 or 92.6% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
    7. Hadcrut4: since November 2000 or 11 years, 10 months (goes to August.)
    P.S. My earlier graph estimating Hadcrut4 using GISS was off by only one month as the flat line started in December 2000 in the estimation.

    See the graph below to show it all. (GISS has an obvious error as it shows October, but I did not count that.)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.0/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.08/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend

  301. D Böehm says:

    joelshore,

    Werner Brozek is eating your lunch.

  302. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    What kind of reasoning is that?
    That was Tallbloke’s strong claim. Geoff makes the same claim. At least to your credit you know that it was overblown and false.

    Apparently my papers are among the most downloaded papers of the journal
    Helps to advertise it on blogs, doesn’t it? Explains why you are here. Those papers are only cited by one or two other papers [apart from many citations by yourself], so are already on the road to oblivion.

    You had at least two papers rejected by your peers that I know of. There must be at least 5 referee’s reports. Produce them here so people can see the problems real scientists have with your ‘papers’. That you continue to evade this step tells a lot about lack of quality. Did you rebut the reports? Other than by insulting the Editor, reviewers, and Journal Officials.

    As to the slander and defamation, may I point out that you are the one using inappropriate words like ‘dishonest’, ‘slander’, ‘defamation’, ‘incompetent’, and other assorted gutter words. Such usage is not fitting for a gentleman, but perhaps you don’t claim to be one.

  303. Geoff Sharp says:

    [snip - off topic]

  304. Geoff Sharp says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    October 29, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    [snip - off topic]

    If so then you had better snip, tallbloke’s, Nicola’s, Bart’s, Vuk’s and Leif’s comments in relation to the Abreu paper and the associated FFT discussions. The Abreu et al paper that has Steinhilber, McCracken and Beer as co authors should not be ignored and is worthy of a separate posting.

  305. Geoff Sharp says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm
    What kind of reasoning is that?
    That was Tallbloke’s strong claim. Geoff makes the same claim

    What claim did I make?

  306. tallbloke says:

    Geoff, here’s the claim we’re supposed to have made. It’s another Svalgaard straw man. He’s just wasting our time. As Nicola has pointed out, the solar-planetary theory is gaining traction rapidly despite Leif’s attempts to misdirect understanding and kill it with his illogical arguments and rhetoric. Coming from someone who is on the blogs 21/7 pushing his own ideas, it made me laugh to see Leif claim it was Scafetta’s promotion of his work on blogs being the reason for Scafetta having written 4 out of 25 of Elsevier’s most downloaded papers. With people of Steinhilber and Scafetta’s quality working on the SPT, I expect further progress before long.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 4:58 pm
    tallbloke says:
    October 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    Well clearly we need to convene some ‘workshops’ to get everyone singing off the same hymn sheet. /sarc
    That is what characterizes a mature science. But more importantly you need to get the various hymn sheet produced and compared. You claim you can predict with precision solar activity thousands of year in advance. Well, if every planetary prediction produces a unique, different curve from all the rest, then, of course, they are worthless and the theory is dead. So, get on with it, or admit you can’t.

    I have never made such a claim of course. It’s just Leif desperately flailing at the proponents of a theory who’s time is come. Once our various predictions from various methods tighten up and show stronger agreement than they already are, climatologists will show a sudden rekindling of interest in the Sun as a climate driver, because they’ll be able to run predictive models again after the failure of nature to conform to the co2 curve.

    Creating consensus in workshops isn’t something which “characterizes a mature science”. It’s something which characterises a corrupt science, led by the nose by the team who send each other emails behind the scenes, discussing how to keep new ideas out of the literature.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1127786

    Where did we hear that before?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/a-response-from-chris-de-freitas/

  307. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    …..official Group Sunspot Number is flawed and should not be used anymore…

    GSN is available from NOAA prior 1995
    Do you have link (or could you quote) the annual GSN after 1995?

  308. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    Your post at October 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm is falsehood worthy of Perw1tz himself. It begins

    richardscourtney says:

    None of the data he provides indicates a “discernible” trend. Each trend datum is within the inherent error range he presents for it.

    What you are trying to say is that none of the trends are statistically-different from 0 at a 95% confidence level. Of …

    No! That is NOT what I am “trying to say”.
    And your assertion that

    So, the claim that “global warming stopped 16 years ago” is a deliberate falsehood.

    is the precise opposite of the truth.

    Perw1tz claimed global warming did not stop 16 years ago and presented data which – he claimed – supported his assertion.

    My comment which you quoted states – without “trying to say” anything – that the data Perlw1tz provided refutes the assertion which he claimed it supports. As I said, there is no “discernible” trend in any of the data he provided in support of his claim that there is discernible global warming(i.e. a discernible trend of warming).

    If – as is the case – the determined trend is within its inherent error range then it cannot be distinguished from zero trend. He chose to present the +/- inherent error range and he chose the confidence level which provides that inherent error range. He could have chosen any confidence limit he wanted provided he had stated it. And it is a falsehood to claim I am “trying to say” anything about that choice: I accepted what he chose to present as his (presumably) best evidence.

    The data Perlw1tz provided shows exactly the opposite of what he asserted it shows. And that is what I said.

    Subsequently, at October 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm, Werner Brozek,addressed your falsehood and rubbed your nose in it.

    Richard

  309. tallbloke says:
    October 30, 2012 at 12:33 am
    I have never made such a claim of course.
    So, now you say that you cannot predict solar activity. Fair enough.

    vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 12:41 am
    GSN is available from NOAA prior 1995
    Do you have link (or could you quote) the annual GSN after 1995?

    There isn’t any GSN after 1995, and GSN should not be used anymore as it is not calibrated correctly. What people do is to use the SIDC sunspot number after 1995 as the GSN.

  310. joeldshore says:

    Werner Brozek says:

    But suppose the slope was in effect 0. Then you could say it is just as likely to be warming as cooling. Then no action or money should be spent since you do not know what is really happening.

    That’s just silly. By that standard, last week in Rochester we should have stopped preparing for winter given that we had several days of warm temperatures that surely made the temperature trends over some reasonable time period of a week or more positive rather than negative, as would be expected if this seasonal cycle theory was real.

    However, in reality, we have science and science allows us to go beyond just looking at noisy trendlines and actually understand what is going on. So, no, we aren’t in the Dark Ages where we have no understanding of the basic processes that govern the physical universe and are ignorant of basic statistical fluctuations to boot.

  311. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    This post also replies to your post at October 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm but addresses a different issue. My previous reply refuted your misrepresentation of what I had written and explained my actual words. This reply addresses the issue of statistical confidence raised in your post.

    The discussion was about global warming since 1970 and the fact that it stopped 16 years ago. The egregious troll had claimed the cessation of global warming has not occurred. Your support of the troll’s falsehood raised the issue of confidence in determination of the existence of global warming and its cessation.

    There are several ways to observe if the data sets of global temperature indicate warming since 1970 and if it has stopped.

    Firstly, one could eyeball a graph of the global temperature time series. This suggests there was warming since 1970 and it stopped around 15 years ago.

    Secondly, one could observe when each data set changed from a positive (i.e. warming) linear trend to a negative (i.e. cooling) linear trend. This is what Werner Brozek has done and reports in his post of October 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm. He finds the transition to cooling occurred between 10 and 16 years ago depending on which data set is used.

    Of course, his used model is a linear fit. This is clearly not a good model because global temperature exhibits many cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc.). A true model would fit to a composition of those cycles but that is not possible because their frequencies, magnitudes and phases are not known. Alternatively, linear comparisons could be made by assessing over periods which are a factor of all the cycle frequencies but those are not known. Indeed, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods suggest one cycle has a cycle length of ~900 years and most – possibly all – global warming of the last 300 years is recovery from the Little Ice Age which is part of this cycle.

    However, climastrologists (such as the troll) use linear fits to the data so it is reasonable to use linear fits when assessing their assertions.

    Thirdly, one can address sections of the period since 1970 to determine the confidence with which global warming can be observed. And the climastrologist practice of using a linear fits is appropriate for conduct of an assessment of their claims.

    There are two ways to conduct this assessment: i.e (a) equal periods and (b) moving periods.

    (a)
    According to all the data sets, the first three decades after 1970 each show global warming at 90% confidence. The decade from 2001 to 2010 does not show warming at 90% confidence. None of these decades show warming at 95% confidence.

    In other words, global warming which can be observed with 90% confidence existed for each of the three decades prior 2000 but that global warming stopped for the decade after 2000.

    (b)
    Global warming observable at 90% confidence has stopped (see (a)), but it needs to be determined when it stopped. This can be determined by taking now as the start point and assessing annual increments of time towards the past. This will answer the question of when global warming observable at 90% confidence stopped. According to HadCRUT3 this was 16 years ago.

    The above analysis uses 90% confidence because decadal trends are not discernible at higher confidence. Any confidence limit can be used. Climastrologists often use 95% confidence which is a low confidence: ‘hard’ scientists tend to use 99% confidence.

    However, differences are observable in the global temperature data at 90% confidence over periods shorter than since 1970, but they are not observable at higher confidence. Hence, if one wants to examine evidence for changes since 1970 then the use of 90% confidence is required and there is no valid reason to insist on another confidence level. The results of any analysis need to be considered in the light of the confidence which can be applied.

    In conclusion, it can be stated that global warming discernible with 90% confidence stopped 16 years ago.

    Reasons why it stopped can be debated, but it stopped.

    Richard

  312. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    I write to agree with a point you make in your post at October 30, 2012 at 5:32 am.

    You say

    However, in reality, we have science and science allows us to go beyond just looking at noisy trendlines and actually understand what is going on. So, no, we aren’t in the Dark Ages where we have no understanding of the basic processes that govern the physical universe and are ignorant of basic statistical fluctuations to boot.

    I agree.
    There is no reason to use “looking at noisy trendlines” as an excuse to pretend the blindingly obvious is other than it is.

    We now know that climate cycles and the global warming of the last 300 years are consistent with recovery from the LIA with periods of no-warming and cooling provided by shorter cycles. I completely agree with you that “noisy trend lines” cannot change that.

    Richard

  313. [snip - calling other posters "nitwits" isn't going to help convince them - rewrite and resubmit - Anthony]

  314. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 4:49 am
    So, now you say that you…

    You should spend less time telling other people what they said and more time thinking about what they say.

  315. Leif Svalgaard says: October 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    Leif, I am sorry that you continue with your smearing and defamatory tactics.

    In science, theories can be rejected with valid arguments. You have “opinions” against a planetary theory of solar and climate variation. However, your “opinions” are not conclusive, and you know it well. That is why you simply use smearing tactics, don’t you?

    So, wait that the science progresses on this issue. If the theory is correct it will be Nature to confirm it, if the theory is not correct it will be found out.

    However, at the moment many people are focusing on the importance of climatic and solar oscillations, and the results of many papers including mine is that these oscillations can be astronomically induced because they can be deduced by planetary orbital oscillations. So, the theory seems to work, once it is well understood. The future will tell more.

    About whether diferent versions of my two papers have been previously rejected by a journal. It is irrelevant here. Journal articles can be rejected and then improved and accepted. This happens for most articles. About my specific papers you are talking about, the first reviews were positive.

    For example on 2/24/2011 the editor wrote this email to me about one of my papers

    Dear Dr. Scafetta,
    We received a positive referee report recommending acceptance of the revised version of your manuscript. Congratulations!

    Then, I believe that the editor was somehow biased by somebody else and started to behave strangely. And my papers were blocked. In fact, the editor became very unresponsive.

    For example, the reviewer that contacted you argued that my paper do not have to be published because he could reproduce the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial variation by superposing two harmonics with periods of 12 2/3 year and 14 year.

    That is, he claimed that the 11-year sunspot cycle plus its secular and millennial variation, which I was modeling very precisely with my model, could be produced also by this kind of formula

    f(t) = A * cos(2p*(t-T1)/12.66) + B * cos(2p*(t-T2)/14)

    I wrote the editor that this referee clearly did not understand math because the above formula cannot produce anything similar to a 11-year solar cycle, nor its secular variation. However, the editor refused to acknowledge the clear evidence that the referee was wrong and claimed that my paper had to be rejected because the referee said so.

    Tell me, Leif, do you agree that the above formula can capture the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial oscillations?

  316. tallbloke says:
    October 30, 2012 at 7:52 am
    You should spend less time telling other people what they said and more time thinking about what they say.
    Thinking about what you said: you claim to be able to forecast and hindcast solar activity [whether it is for centuries or millenea doesn't matter] much better than solar dynamo enthusiasts. Geoff also makes similar claims, and even Scafetta. Plus a whole host of other luminaries: Vuk, Fix, etc. You claimed you could forecast the 21st century with some precision. The problem is that those forecasts have not been collated and compared. The only thing we hear is the exorbitant claims: everyone claims they are on the right track, have traction, gaining support, etc. Nicola mentioned that even if ten different planetary predictions are all different, one of them might be correct [apart from the likely possibility that they are all wrong], in which case there is a 90% chance that a given one is wrong. A sign of good science is that people build on each other’s work and have a common set of accepted ‘facts’ [a paradigm]. This paradigm may not be quite right, but is better than a scattered and fragmented community. So, a comparison of predictions is really a good thing. We did that at the NOAA/NASA Prediction Panel meetings and it brought out what the problems and successes were.

  317. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 8:32 am
    Leif, I am sorry that you continue with your smearing and defamatory tactics.
    You have to learn that saying that you are wrong and that your paper is junk is not ‘smearing and defamation’. Your ‘sorry’ seems insincere.

    You have “opinions” against a planetary theory of solar and climate variation. However, your “opinions” are not conclusive, and you know it well. That is why you simply use smearing tactics, don’t you?
    Again, saying that you are wrong is not smearing. You saying that I use smearing tactics is, however, smearing. Try to understand the difference. And I do not have ‘opinions’. I have outlined my arguments in referee’s reports and postings here. They are not ‘opinions’, but reasons.

    So, wait that the science progresses on this issue.
    ‘Science’ has faltered on this issue for 150 years and is still bumbling along.

    However, at the moment many people are focusing on the importance of climatic and solar oscillations, and the results of many papers including mine is that these oscillations can be astronomically induced because they can be deduced by planetary orbital oscillations.
    The planetary theory has the allure of simplicity, in contrast to the complicated real science.

    For example, the reviewer that contacted you argued that my paper do not have to be published because he could reproduce the 11-year solar cycle and its secular and millennial variation by superposing two harmonics with periods of 12 2/3 year and 14 year.
    Such statements out of context are not useful. We need to see all of the reports in full. Put them in a file that we can link to, or email it to me, then I’ll upload the file.

    That is, he claimed that the 11-year sunspot cycle plus its secular and millennial variation, which I was modeling very precisely with my model, could be produced also by this kind of formula
    f(t) = A * cos(2p*(t-T1)/p1) + B * cos(2p*(t-T2)/p2)

    Some variation on that formula does a good job, e.g. the one I used in my toy-example:
    ‘Sunspot Number’ =SQRT(ABS(k*cos(π/p1*t) + cos(π/p2*t)))

    There are several counts against you:
    1) the formulae are arbitrary and numerological
    2) the mechanisms are un-physical, e.g. your fusion argument ignores the fact that it takes 250,000 for the fusion energy to exit the core washing out any shorter periodicities
    3) you misuse data, e.g. the auroral data we discussed at length already
    4) failure to account for e.g. the Maunder Minimum.

  318. Leif Svalgaard says: October 30, 2012 at 8:47 am
    ” The problem is that those forecasts have not been collated and compared.”

    As usually, you are interested only in smearing and defamation. You are not interested in understanding the issue, don’t you?

    About my model, in the paper the model has been carefully tested in its hindcasting capabilities for centuries and millennia. And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns. Much better than any other solar model.

    About the future, it predicts that the sun is entering in a grand minimum modulated by a quasi 60 year oscillation, with a minimum in the 2030s.

    That the sun is entering into a grand minimum, is something said by a lot of people, not just me. So, about my model I can say that the “forecasts have been collated and compared” And they are consistent with my model.

    read well my paper
    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648

    Now you need to wait and see what happens.

  319. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
    As usually, you are interested only in smearing and defamation.
    You need to learn that saying you are dead wrong is not defamation, while saying that I smear you is defamation. Do you understand the difference?

    And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns.
    Such a claim always triggers the BS-filter.

    That the sun is entering into a grand minimum, is something said by a lot of people, not just me.
    I too say that, does that make me right in everything I say?. It seems to be a popular bandwaggon on which to jump.

    So, about my model I can say that the “forecasts have been collated and compared”
    So, you have compared your detailed cycle by cycle forecast with Geoff’s, Tallbloke’s, Ed Fix’s, Chartova’s, Vuk’s, etc ? And yours is vastly superior to theirs, right?

    Now you need to wait and see what happens
    I forecast the sunspot number in the year 2123 to be 123, now you wait and see what happens :-)

  320. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
    And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns.
    In your paper you say “reasonably well”, not ‘very’, and with good reason as your Figure shows spectacular failures: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Failure.png e.g. predicting what is the lowest cycle in a 100 years to be higher than the super cycle 19. It seems that peer-review had failed you.

  321. To the readers,

    Leif continues to tell lies after lies and use misleading statements against my research.
    I simply wish Anthony realizes that there is something wrong with Leif’s way to argue.

    Only by reading my papers, one can really understand what I wrote. So,do not trust Leif’s presentation of my works. Read them and form your opinion

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648

    Scafetta N., 2012. Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 81-82, 27-40.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001034

    Just responding to Leif’s false statements which, by the way, are already responded and discussed in my papers.

    1) the formulae are arbitrary and numerological
    Re: No, it is not. The folmulae that I use are very specific and rooted in astronomy and physics and data analysis.

    2) the mechanisms are un-physical, e.g. your fusion argument ignores the fact that it takes 250,000 for the fusion energy to exit the core washing out any shorter periodicities
    Re: Leif is thinking about random diffusion of photons, which is slow. But he does not know that energy can also propagate via sound-wave like mechanisms. These propagate very fast. For example, when we talk particles of gas exit our mouth and diffuse relatively slowly in the air, however the pressure perturbation they produce propagates fast as a sound wave, and we can hear each other talking.

    3) you misuse data, e.g. the auroral data we discussed at length already
    Re: I used the data as published. Leif claims that the aurora data are wrong because as they are they would support a planetary influence on the sun or earth. If my conclusion is wrong because the data are wrong or they are too short and the analysis is somehow misleading is something that needs to be properly investigated. Just saying the data are wrong is not a valid argument. Note that a planetary harmonical signature in the aurora records have been noted by numerous authors even by aurora experts in the 19th century.

    4) failure to account for e.g. the Maunder Minimum.
    Re: The Maunder minimum as well as the other grand solar minima are clearly recovered by my model. See figure 5 and 6 in
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000648

  322. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 4:49 am
    GSN should not be used anymore as it is not calibrated correctly

    Ok, that may be so. Although my North Atlantic Precursor data collection and assemblage is far from perfect (just raw data with no weighting), but it does appear that from 1760 to present, the NAP’s correlation to the GSN is a bit closer than to the SSN.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm
    Either way , geological records in the N. Atlantic show that the solar influence may be an important if not fundamental contributing factor.
    I understand that you will and why will disagree, no mechanism or physical explanation available etc. etc. but it would be less than wise to totally ignore possibility of a direct or indirect link, but we have been here before.

  323. Anthony Watts wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129057

    [snip - calling other posters "nitwits" isn't going to help convince them - rewrite and resubmit - Anthony]

    Fair enough, although [snip — mod.]

  324. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
    And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns.
    Even Vuk does better than you: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Failure-Big.png
    Rarely does one see such failures: Maunder Minimum is wrong, phases around 1800 and 1900 are wrong, cycle 13-24 are wrong, cycle 19 is wrong, the coming minimum [which you called a Maunder-type minimum] is higher than the minimum around 1900, etc. I would be ashamed to claim that this is very well>/b> reconstructed; it is terrible. As I said, peer-review has let you down this time. Perhaps you could show the reviews for this paper? IMHO all reviews should be published too, so editors and reviewers can’t easily do [as you called it] ‘strange things’. Don’t you agree?

  325. October 30, 2012 at 10:33 am
    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
    And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns.
    Even Vuk does better than you: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Failure-Big.png
    Rarely does one see such failures: Maunder Minimum is wrong, phases around 1800 and 1900 are wrong, cycle 13-24 are wrong, cycle 19 is wrong, the coming minimum [which you called a Maunder-type minimum] is higher than the minimum around 1900, etc. I would be ashamed to claim that this is very well reconstructed; it is terrible. As I said, peer-review has let you down this time. Perhaps you could show the reviews for this paper? IMHO all reviews should be published too, so editors and reviewers can’t easily do [as you called it] ‘strange things’. Don’t you agree?

  326. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129008

    The discussion was about global warming since 1970 and the fact that it stopped 16 years ago.

    This is only a fact in Courtney’s fantasy, since he hasn’t provided any shred of evidence for this assertion.

    There are several ways to observe if the data sets of global temperature indicate warming since 1970 and if it has stopped.

    Firstly, one could eyeball a graph of the global temperature time series. This suggests there was warming since 1970 and it stopped around 15 years ago.

    Why doesn’t Courtney uses this opportunity to try to get a PhD after writing some thesis, in which he presents this new, revolutionary scientific method, called “eyeballing”, with which he is able to finally and ultimately refute global warming? Then he even could legitimately call himself, “Dr. Courtney”.

    Secondly, one could observe when each data set changed from a positive (i.e. warming) linear trend to a negative (i.e. cooling) linear trend. This is what Werner Brozek has done and reports in his post of October 29, 2012 at 8:35 pm. He finds the transition to cooling occurred between 10 and 16 years ago depending on which data set is used.

    Courtney is asserting here, results from a trend analysis where the trends do not show any statistical significance whatsoever allow conclusions about a reversal of a trend, here from a warming to a cooling trend. His reasoning does not have any scientific validity at all. Again, he is just proving that he is absolutely clueless, regarding what are scientifically valid conclusion from statistical analysis.

    (a)
    According to all the data sets, the first three decades after 1970 each show global warming at 90% confidence. The decade from 2001 to 2010 does not show warming at 90% confidence.

    I’m not aware of any statistical analysis presented by Courtney where it is demonstrated that this assertion by him about the three decades was true. I have only seen that he has repeatedly made this assertion without providing any proof. Perhaps he believes, the endless repetition of the same unproven assertion makes this assertion true with time.

    But for the sake of the argument, assuming his assertion about the tree decades was true, the following conclusion he draws from this,

    In other words, global warming which can be observed with 90% confidence existed for each of the three decades prior 2000 but that global warming stopped for the decade after 2000.

    lacks again any scientific validity. The failure of the test for statistical significance in a time series does not allow the conclusion that a trend is absent.And “stopped” means the same as absent. Perhaps, the slope of the trend decreased? But not even that would be a valid scientific conclusion from the changed significance. A decrease in statistical significance of a trend from one period to the next period doesn’t by itself even allow the conclusion that the trend slope decreased, since the statistical significance depends both on the trend slope and on the properties of the fluctuations overlaying the trend within the time period, the amplitude and how the fluctuations are distributed over the time interval. Statistical significance also decreases when the amplitude of the fluctuations increases, even if the trend slope stays the same.

    In summary, Courtney abuses statistical analysis and produces unscientific nonsense as “reasoning” for his assertion that global warming “stopped”. His assertion is without any scientific merits.

  327. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:24 am
    I understand that you will and why will disagree, no mechanism or physical explanation available etc. etc.
    No, not really. It is more that NAP is not defined and that the correlation is lousy.

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:18 am
    Leif continues to tell lies after lies and use misleading statements against my research.
    You have still not produced the reviews or the comparisons with other planetary predictions.

  328. davidmhoffer says:

    Perlw1tz;
    blah, blah, blah….

    You STILL haven’t answered my questions.

  329. joeldshore says:

    Richard S Courtney says:

    We now know that climate cycles and the global warming of the last 300 years are consistent with recovery from the LIA with periods of no-warming and cooling provided by shorter cycles. I completely agree with you that “noisy trend lines” cannot change that.

    That’s not science. It is just curve fitting…epicycles. “Recovery from the LIA” is a meaningless phrase. What CAUSED such a rise in temperature?

    According to all the data sets, the first three decades after 1970 each show global warming at 90% confidence. The decade from 2001 to 2010 does not show warming at 90% confidence. None of these decades show warming at 95% confidence.

    In conclusion, it can be stated that global warming discernible with 90% confidence stopped 16 years ago.

    You are just engaging in cherry-picking here. Why did you choose to look at decadal periods? Why did you decide to look at 90% confidence? It is simply because it gives the answer that you want. There is no reason to expect that the climate system forced with continuing increases in greenhouse gases will always show warming with greater than 90% confidence over decadal periods. In fact, climate models forced with continuously increasing greenhouse gases will show periods of more than a decade over which the trend line is not only not increasing with 90% confidence but for which the trend line is in fact negative.

  330. D Böehm says:

    I see that Mr Perlwitz is still engaging in his habit of writing and posting L-O-N-G comments throughout his workday. As a taxpayer, I call that misappropriation of public funds. I doubt that arguing with commentators on blogs is in Perlwitz’ job description.

    That said, Perlwitz is still trying to convince intelligent readers that Down is Up, Ignorance is Strength, and 16 years of flat temperatures is AGW. As if. I showed in my links [around 6 pm yesterday] that global temperatures have been flat. Perlwitz asserts otherwise. Perlwitz is wrong.

  331. vukcevic says:

    Dr. S: No, not really. It is more that NAP is not defined and that the correlation is lousy.

    To the contrary: correlation is far above what ‘random walk’ would produce, each major rise or fall in the solar activity has corresponding movement in the N. Atlantic.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-NAP.htm

  332. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:21 am
    “No, not really. It is more that NAP is not defined and that the correlation is lousy.”
    To the contrary

    What do you call the spectacular failure in the 1730s?

  333. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I have read the diatribe at October 30, 2012 at 10:51 am from the troll.

    It makes many untrue assertions and demonstrates the anti-scientific nature of the troll.

    Importantly, the diatribe makes blatantly wrong assertions concerning statistical concepts. In light of the true subject of this thread, it is surprising that a climastrologist would want to proclaim his ignorance of statistical concepts so blatantly.

    The fundamental point of his post is that the troll claims the discussion was not about whether global warming stopped 16 years ago. His diatribe quotes me saying

    The discussion was about global warming since 1970 and the fact that it stopped 16 years ago.

    And says

    This is only a fact in Courtney’s fantasy, since he hasn’t provided any shred of evidence for this assertion.

    In fact the “fantasy” is his.
    At October 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm the troll wrote

    richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1128045

    global warming stopped 16 years ago

    On what empirical evidence is this assertion supposed to be based?

    The subsequent debate was about that question which the troll posed.

    There is no point in refuting the remainder of the troll’s diatribe. It is all untrue and based on similar delusional fantasies. So, I will not feed the troll.

    Richard

  334. Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:03 am
    Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
    And it performs very well in reconstructing all known major solar and climatic patterns.
    In your paper you say “reasonably well”, not ‘very’, and with good reason as your Figure shows spectacular failures: http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Failure.png e.g. predicting what is the lowest cycle in a 100 years to be higher than the super cycle 19. It seems that peer-review had failed you.
    and
    Leif Svalgaard says: October 30, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Leif is doing his best to defame and mislead. He should read the paper instead with an open mind. But he is simply filled of rancor and hate.

    The model proposed in the paper is based only of three harmonics. Getting the full solar signal in its minimal details with just three harmonics is evidently impossible. Nowhere in the paper it is claimed that the proposed model is infinitely precise. It gets the major patterns within a statistical error. The multidecadal/secular/millennial patterns are well recovered, while for the dacadal pattern it is more difficult and this is written in the paper.

    For analogy, ocean tides are predicted with great precision only with 30-40 astronomical harmonics, not just three. So, my model can be improved, and this is said in the paper.

    Leif simply does not understand that science progresses by steps. Leif would be right if he could propose an alternative model based on internal solar dynamics alone that performs better than mine in hindcasting the solar patterns. But he does not have such a model. So, he defame my work simply because it is not the “final and ultimate” work in solar physics and improvements can be done with further research, of course. This is what happens everywhere in science.

    Moreover, Leif is completely misunderstanding my model. For example, when he says

    “predicting what is the lowest cycle in a 100 years to be higher than the super cycle 19″

    Leif is thinking about sunspots which were quite numerous during cycle 19. However, my model is more an abstract estimate of the total solar irradiance modulation. There is no experimental evidence that the total solar irradiance of cycle 19 (around 1960) was higher than that of cycle 23 or of cycle 18, for example. And the solar reconstructions vary. See here for example about one solar reconstruction based on Hoyt and ACRIM that contradicts Leif:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/

    The sunspot cycle and the total solar irradiance cycle are strongly “linearly” related only in Leif’s imaginative model. Indeed, the two cycles may differ in multiple patterns such as amplitude and phase. So, in his comments, Leif is simply using his (mis)understanding of solar physics mixed with his strong desire of defamation.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:58 am
    “You have still not produced the reviews or the comparisons with other planetary predictions.”

    What is this guy talking about? Why review should matter given that the papers passed the review process by numerous referees far more qualified than Leif? Why comparison with other planetary models should matter? The comparison must be done with solar and climate records, that is what done in my papers.

    To Anthony:
    do you really approve Leif’s way of reasoning? Do you really think that Leif, or his friends, could give a valid and unbiased review of my papers with the above sloppy way of reasoning?
    With such a reasoning methodology there would be no one paper in solar physics and geophysics that would pass Leif’s review!

    Now I am too busy, so I leave this discussion.

  335. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “What CAUSED such a rise in temperature?”

    Good question. Nobody knows for sure. Good misdirection, too. Because Mann’s hokey stick always was an invented fiction.

    We don’t know for sure what caused the LIA. But the subsequent recovery has been along the same warming trend line — with no acceleration — since then. The global warming trend has been the same, whether CO2 was low or high. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion is that CO2 does not cause global warming. Or if it does, the effect is so minuscule that it is not even measurable, and thus it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. AGW is simply an evidence-free belief system.

  336. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:42 am
    Leif is doing his best to defame and mislead. He should read the paper instead with an open mind.
    I show a Figure from your paper. Its failures speak for themselves.

    Leif is thinking about sunspots which were quite numerous during cycle 19. However, my model is more an abstract estimate of the total solar irradiance modulation.
    You show a comparison between sunspots and your ‘model’

    Why review should matter given that the papers passed the review process by numerous referees
    As I said, peer-review failed for your papers. It is of interest to read the faulty reviews.

    The comparison must be done with solar and climate records, that is what done in my papers.
    With the spectacular failures evident in http://www.leif.org/research/Scafetta-Failure-Big.png

    With such a reasoning methodology there would be no one paper in solar physics and geophysics that would pass Leif’s review!
    I review a couple dozens each year, and many good ones pass. Bad ones flunk, like yours did.

    Now I am too busy, so I leave this discussion.
    This has not been a discussion in any real sense of the word. So nothing is lost by you being ‘too busy’.

  337. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    I am replying to your post at October 30, 2012 at 11:10 am.

    You say

    Richard S Courtney says:

    We now know that climate cycles and the global warming of the last 300 years are consistent with recovery from the LIA with periods of no-warming and cooling provided by shorter cycles. I completely agree with you that “noisy trend lines” cannot change that.

    That’s not science. It is just curve fitting…epicycles. “Recovery from the LIA” is a meaningless phrase. What CAUSED such a rise in temperature?

    It IS science.
    Much of modern science would not exist without the scrupulous examination of epicycles by Copernicus. In science one starts with examination of phenomena and then moves towards explanation of them. It is NOT science to ignore the behaviour of phenomena and merely to guess their causes.

    Nobody knows what caused recovery from the LIA. That is why the long-term cycle which produced the LIA is worthy of investigation. But we do know that anthropogenic GHG emissions cannot have caused the recovery from the LIA.

    And you say of my assessment of the recent cessation of global warming by use of statistical confidence.

    You are just engaging in cherry-picking here. Why did you choose to look at decadal periods? Why did you decide to look at 90% confidence? It is simply because it gives the answer that you want. There is no reason to expect that the climate system forced with continuing increases in greenhouse gases will always show warming with greater than 90% confidence over decadal periods. In fact, climate models forced with continuously increasing greenhouse gases will show periods of more than a decade over which the trend line is not only not increasing with 90% confidence but for which the trend line is in fact negative.

    Clearly, you did not read the assessment I wrote and you claim to be addressing. My assessment answered your questions.

    My choice of decadal periods was arbitrary but provided four sub-sets of the data set for the considered period since 1970 (i.e. the longest period which the troll introduced to the discussion at October 29, 2012 at 9:37 am). Four sub-sets is the minimum required to indicate a series of similar subsets for comparison to the most recent subset (and before you ask, two is not an adequate series).

    As I said, any confidence could have been chosen, but a trend is observed in each of the first three sub-sets at 90% confidence. No trend is observed in any of them at 95% confidence.

    The answer I wanted was the ability to observe a trend in those three sub-sets and that answer turns out to be 90% confidence.

    Climate models only “show” how they behave, and that is not relevant to the issue of how the real world is observed to have behaved.

    The important point is that the analysis which I provided indicates global warming which is observable with 90% confidence stopped 16 years ago. Reasons why it stopped are not known, but it stopped.

    You are welcome to discuss possible reasons for that cessation. Alternatively, you can copy the troll and pretend it did not stop, but that would be a rejection of both science and logic

    Richard

  338. I rephrased and resubmitted my posting that was snipped here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129057

    Is the resubmitted one going to be posted here? I just want to know.

    REPLY: I assume you can answer this question yourself – Anthony

  339. Nicola Scafetta says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:42 am
    See here for example about one solar reconstruction based on Hoyt and ACRIM
    We went over that one. It is flawed. Here is what it really looks like: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png

  340. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:27 am
    What do you call the spectacular failure in the 1730s?

    It just show that even you sometimes could be correct, i.e. sunspot count at early 18th century was 10% underestimated, or have you given up on the idea ‘no grand maxima’?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
    N. Atlantic data, most of it from Danish records, Danes were keen observers of that stretch of water, are far more accurate than any solar or climate data of the period.
    North Atlantic controls the CET, which also shows that solar output of the early 18th century is underestimated.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm
    and finally
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm
    Now if you whish to do something beneficial for the humanity (rather than waste your time, which you do so competently) email me and we can sort out N. Atlantic geo-solar puzzle as demonstrated independently by NAP (as above) and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
    Let me know when you embark on ‘the road to Damascus’ and you will not regret it.

  341. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    email me and we can sort out N. Atlantic geo-solar puzzle
    Thank you for your kind offer, but perhaps you should consult a ‘real expert’ like Nicola, provided he is not too busy and can find time. He has all the answers already.

  342. In reply to the comment by richardscourtney in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129369

    Courtney quotes a previous statement made by himself (boldface by me):

    The discussion was about global warming since 1970 and the fact that it stopped 16 years ago.

    and my reply to it:

    This is only a fact in Courtney’s fantasy, since he hasn’t provided any shred of evidence for this assertion.

    He now has commented my reply as follows:

    The fundamental point of his post is that the troll claims the discussion was not about whether global warming stopped 16 years ago.

    I do not believe that my reply saying that the fact was only one in Courtney’s fantasy, can be really misunderstood by anyone who is clear in his mind, in a way that it referred to his meta statement about what the discussion was about, but not to what Courtney explicitly claimed the fact was, that global warming “stopped”, particularly since I also mentioned the missing evidence for it in the same sentence.

    Thus, I do not believe in some innocent misunderstanding on the side of Courtney here, unless he has some serious problems in understanding statements in written English when he reads them. Well, that would create some serious obstacles for his PhD thesis about “eyeballing” as new, revolutionary scientific method to refute global warming.

    The alternative possibility I see here is that he is just bluntly lying now, as a mean of distraction, after I have thoroughly debunked his unscientific, nonsensical “reasoning”, which he has used to support his unproven and baseless assertion, according to which global warming “stopped” some time ago.

  343. Bart says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:51 am

    “Why doesn’t Courtney uses this opportunity to try to get a PhD after writing some thesis, in which he presents this new, revolutionary scientific method, called “eyeballing”, with which he is able to finally and ultimately refute global warming? Then he even could legitimately call himself, “Dr. Courtney”.

    “Eyeballing” is an essential step in analysis. Even the most sophisticated statistical test you can throw at a given set of numbers has assumptions built in which may, or may not, be applicable for the data at hand. The human brain is an amazing pattern recognition device which can generally, sometimes with the aid of some basic filtering/smoothing, cut through the clutter and identify what is truly happening.

    Any rigorous data analysis must include sanity checks at fundamental levels to establish that the result makes actual sense. In the real world, where engineers build systems which must function properly or there are immediate and severe consequences, a failure to establish the fundamental “rightness” of one’s analysis can buy you a quick ticket to oblivion.

    In this particular instance, Dr. Perlwitz’ admonition is akin to the lover caught in flagrante delicto who demands of his significant other, “Who’re you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”

    joeldshore says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:10 am

    More chaff from Dr. Shore. No further comment needed or merited.

    D Böehm says:
    October 30, 2012 at 11:56 am

    “We don’t know for sure what caused the LIA.”

    But, we do know some things it was not. It was not humans.

  344. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    N. Atlantic data, most of it from Danish records
    congratulations! you have discovered a 200-yr cycle in NAP that matches the 100-yr cycle in SSN every 2nd cycle. This could be the discovery of the century, or of the last centuries.

  345. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    I asked Anthony Watts the question,

    Is the resubmitted one going to be posted here? I just want to know.

    and he replied

    REPLY: I assume you can answer this question yourself – Anthony

    I take this as a “No”.

    This is, of course, up to you, it’s your blog, you are the dictator here, and you can do as you like, post what you like and do not post what you don’t like or the other way around. I wonder, though, why you asked me to rephrase the criticized wording and to resubmit, if you don’t post it anyhow. Are you trying to keep me busy?

    REPLY: Unless we are talking about different comments, it is right above you on this thread. There’s nothing in que for you. – Anthony

  346. Werner Brozek says:

    Joeldshore says:
    October 30, 2012 at 5:32 am
    So, no, we aren’t in the Dark Ages where we have no understanding of the basic processes that govern the physical universe and are ignorant of basic statistical fluctuations to boot.

    Phil Jones:
    “We don’t know what natural variability is doing.”

    richardscourtney says:
    October 30, 2012 at 6:51 am
    In conclusion, it can be stated that global warming discernible with 90% confidence stopped 16 years ago.

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 30, 2012 at 10:51 am
    The discussion was about global warming since 1970 and the fact that it stopped 16 years ago.

    This is only a fact in Courtney’s fantasy, since he hasn’t provided any shred of evidence for this assertion.

    Attributed to Phil Jones: Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

    Does this mean Phil Jones and Richard Courtney share a common fantasy?

  347. Anthony Watts wrote:

    REPLY: Unless we are talking about different comments, it is right above you on this thread. There’s nothing in que for you. – Anthony

    This seems to have been just a misunderstanding, then. Yes, we are talking about different comments. I’m going to resubmit the replacement comment for the snipped one.

  348. richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1128889

    Perw1tz claimed global warming did not stop 16 years ago and presented data which – he claimed – supported his assertion.

    Courtney is disseminating falsehoods again. He states the assertion, “global warming stopped 16 years ago”. I asked for the evidence for this assertion, and I showed with some data sets that there are discernible trends over the last 16 years in most of those sets, which are not statistically significant at a significance level of 95%, though. I compared those trends to the trends in a similar 16-year period, 1980 to 1995, when global warming didn’t stop either, even though the trends were not statistically significant at 95% during that period. Contrarily to Courtney’s falsehood, nowhere did I say the data I presented supported that global warming did not stop. Instead, I say the temperature data do not provide the evidence for Courtney’s assertion that global warming stopped.

    Courtney hasn’t provided any empirical evidence for his assertion that global warming “stopped”. He can’t because there is no empirical evidence for this assertion. Courtney only abuses statistical analysis and draws logically false, i.e., scientifically flawed conclusions from it.

    The burden of proof for the assertion that global warming “stopped” is on Courtney and all the ones who state this assertion. They have not delivered so far.

    However, it is obvious that Courtney believes when he shows a trend is not “discernible” or statistically significant in a time series that such a result falsified the presence of the trend. He has argued repeatedly in this way. However, by arguing in this way Courtney has only proven that he is absolutely clueless with respect to statistical analysis and the conclusion that can validly be drawn from the fact that a test for statistical significance fails.

  349. D Böehm says:

    Perlwitz says:

    “Are you trying to keep me busy?:

    Someone needs to. I’m talking about your boss, who apparently approves of your constant posting on blogs throughout you taxpayer-paid work day. You and your boss are both corrupt.

    Your boss is the scofflaw James Hansen. Right?

  350. Bart says:

    I do want to point out that, to a significant degree, all the talk about statistical significance is not even wrong. One cannot know if something is statistically significant without knowing the correlations of the underlying process. Most statistical tests make assumptions, such as that the errors are i.i.d.. If they are not actually so distributed, then the tests based on that assumption are, at best, only moderately informed guesses.

    And, that is how you quickly get into situations where “eyeballing” is, in fact, the best you can do. Anyone who can look at the last 30 years of data and not recognize that there has been a substantial deviation in the rate of change of the global temperature metric is just fooling himself. And, you all know what Prof. Feynman said of that.

  351. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I write to ask some questions. I need to recap to ask them.

    1.
    The troll claimed the discussion was not about the fact that global warming stopped 16 years ago.
    2.
    I quoted the troll questioning my statement that global warming stopped 16 years ago and asking justification for it.
    3.
    I pointed out that the subsequent discussion was about answers to his questions and their validity.
    4.
    At October 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm the troll writes

    I do not believe that my reply saying that the fact was only one in Courtney’s fantasy, can be really misunderstood by anyone who is clear in his mind, in a way that it referred to his meta statement about what the discussion was about, but not to what Courtney explicitly claimed the fact was, that global warming “stopped”, particularly since I also mentioned the missing evidence for it in the same sentence.

    Thus, I do not believe in some innocent misunderstanding on the side of Courtney here, unless he has some serious problems in understanding statements in written English when he reads them. Well, that would create some serious obstacles for his PhD thesis about “eyeballing” as new, revolutionary scientific method to refute global warming.

    The alternative possibility I see here is that he is just bluntly lying now, as a mean of distraction, after I have thoroughly debunked his unscientific, nonsensical “reasoning”, which he has used to support his unproven and baseless assertion, according to which global warming “stopped” some time ago.

    I have some difficulty understanding that obtuse drivel, but I think it tries to assert that I was “lying” because I accurately quoted the troll.

    So, my question is
    Does anyone have an alternative understanding of the troll’s drivel?

    Richard

  352. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    N. Atlantic data, most of it from Danish records
    congratulations! you have discovered a 200-yr cycle in NAP that matches the 100-yr cycle in SSN every 2nd cycle. This could be the discovery of the century, or of the last centuries.

    ……
    No idea what you are talking about. Congratulations are due to you relatives from the land of fire and ice, and they were not recording the ice (do you want the data?).
    You might like to do some calculations using geomagnetic storms induction as a trigger but don’t expect it to happen there and then: http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/06/68/65/PDF/2004JB003282.pdf

  353. richardscourtney says:

    Bart:

    At October 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm you rightly say

    I do want to point out that, to a significant degree, all the talk about statistical significance is not even wrong. One cannot know if something is statistically significant without knowing the correlations of the underlying process.

    YES!
    Indeed, I mentioned that in my post at October 30, 2012 at 6:51 am where I wrote

    Of course, his used model is a linear fit. This is clearly not a good model because global temperature exhibits many cycles (e.g. AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc.). A true model would fit to a composition of those cycles but that is not possible because their frequencies, magnitudes and phases are not known. Alternatively, linear comparisons could be made by assessing over periods which are a factor of all the cycle frequencies but those are not known. Indeed, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods suggest one cycle has a cycle length of ~900 years and most – possibly all – global warming of the last 300 years is recovery from the Little Ice Age which is part of this cycle.

    However, climastrologists (such as the troll) use linear fits to the data so it is reasonable to use linear fits when assessing their assertions.

    The only disputable part of that is its final statement because it could be interpreted as saying,
    “It is alright to do it wrong because others do”
    although it is intended to mean
    “Climastrologists won’t complain if results are presented in the same form as they present results”.
    (Of course, the troll will complain at anything if it does not support the AGW-scare which is giving him a living so his complaints can be disregarded).

    Richard

  354. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Leif Svalgaard on October 30, 2012 at 1:29 pm:

    congratulations! you have discovered a 200-yr cycle in NAP that matches the 100-yr cycle in SSN every 2nd cycle. This could be the discovery of the century, or of the last centuries.

    Ah Leif, you are intriguing me!

    Following the time-honored principle that if a moron can find the same result then it is nothing special and likely wrong, I am attempting my own SSN curve fitting. (Possibly I’ll find something different, as in nothing.) Yearly values with pre-1946 correction, just playing. Matching up the minimums, I found the best match was with a cycle length of 11.15 years.

    So the (approximately?) 100 yr cycle is nine sunspot cycles in length (100.35).

    Now I want to know why it would be nine times.

    Time to load up the monthly 12-mo smoothed and see if the match is still there.

  355. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    You might like to do some calculations using geomagnetic storms induction as a trigger
    It is precisely that high conductivity that screens the core from any external influence, in combination with the high conductivity [effectively a superconductor] of the core itself. Then skin depth is small, in the mantle about 50 km and in the core only 200 m for a disturbance lasting one day [typical for a geomagnetic storm]. This is well-known and need not be computed again. The result is that geomagnetic storms do not penetrate into the core to alter the magnetic field there. I think I have explained that several times by now.
    What happened to your grandiose plan of carpet-bombing geophysics departments with your ‘paper’?

  356. Gary Pearse says:

    Bart

    “Anyone who can look at the last 30 years of data and not recognize that there has been a substantial deviation in the rate of change of the global temperature metric is just fooling himself.”

    When the rising temps have gone up for the same amount of time that they have stopped ~16 years, during which the entire Global Warming alarm industry was created, this latter 16 year period is huge statistically. It has caused the entire movement to have to hum and haw about overprint of natural variability (a factor that was considered small before now) and that the models say 16 years flat is perfectly okay. It is statistically huge when you realize that all the stuff they have put out in IPCC terror with 95% confidence over the years and 4 to 6 degrees rise by 2100 being tailored down to 3 -6 and now ~ 2 or so. It is huge statistically when the agents of doom have added step-wise increases to the record for recent temps and decreases to earlier temps. It is huge when the record 1934 was beaten down over half a dozen years to make 1998 the hottest year of the last millennium. It is huge when the very people who cooked this whole thing are the ones saying the 16 year hiatus is no big deal. In fact, with 1934 the record, we have had a 78 year zero trend. With the MWP being reinstated, maybe we have an 800 year period of no trend – now that is huge.

  357. D Böehm says:

    Perlwitz says:

    “I’m waiting for an answer.”

    It was tempting to make you wait.

    Anyway, as a taxpayer I am entitled to point out when someone is screwing off, instead of doing the job the public pays them to do. And I’m sure your written job description does not say you get to sit around and post comments on blogs throughout your work day. Other GISS employees don’t do it. Why do you?

    How much does your pay and benefits package cost the hard-bitten taxpayers? Whatever it is, you are not worth it. If you didn’t show up for work after today, the world would keep turning. There would be zero downside. The taxpaying public would be better off. And AGW would still be an evidence-free conjecture.

  358. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 30, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    Ah Leif, you are intriguing me!
    Please don’t take my joke seriously :-)

    Now I want to know why it would be nine times.
    Perhaps due to the planets :-)

    Anyway, the ’100′-year cycle is not a real cycle, only a coincidence that have been there the last two or three centuries. Already Rudolf Wolf [who first determined the cycle length] found 11 and 1/9 years, so exactly nine cycles per century. Unfortunately, the cycle length varies, both from cycle to cycle, but also a bit from century to century. The length of the cycle is probably determined by the rotation of the sun [faster = shorter cycle] and by age [faster = young]. We see that in other stars.

  359. Bart wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129670

    Anyone who can look at the last 30 years of data and not recognize that there has been a substantial deviation in the rate of change of the global temperature metric is just fooling himself.

    Like the “substantial deviation in the rate of change of the global temperature metric” in the 16-year time period 1980 to 1995?

    Here are the trends with the 2-sigma ranges for the same data sets from above for this time period, using the trend calculator at http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php again:

    GISSTEMP: 0.048+/-0.159
    NOAA: 0.085+/-0.138
    HADCRUT4: 0.097+/-0.138
    RSS: 0.023+/-0.228
    UAH: -0.012+/-0.241

    Look, how similar these 16-year trends are compared to the recent 16 years.

    So, consequentially, anyone who claims such a “substantial deviation” in recent years or that global warming “stopped” 16 years ago, would also have to claim that there was a very similar “deviation” or that global warming “stopped” also from 1980 to 1995.

    Then again, the temperature increase from 1980 to today is clearly statistically significant with at least 95% probability. And not just so.

    GISSTEMP: 0.151+/-0.048
    NOAA: 0.151+/-0.045
    HADCRUT4: 0.159+/-0.046
    RSS: 0.135+/-0.078
    UAH: 0.141+/-0.078

    So, global warming is supposed to have “stopped” between the start of 1980 and the end of 1995, and global warming is supposed to have “stopped” again 16 years ago, starting in November 1996. When is all the warming supposed to have happened then that made the trend from 1980 to today as clearly statistically significant? It leaves only the period from January 1996 to October 1996, doesn’t it? Now, this can’t be true, either. The trend from January 1996 to October 1996 is not statistically significant, either. So, no global warming in this period, either.

    Thus, no “discernible” global warming from 1980 to 1995, no “discernible” global warming from January 1996 to October 1996, and no “discernible” global warming from November 1996 to today. According to this, there hasn’t been any “discernible” global warming during any time from 1980 to today, looking at the partial time periods separately. And yet, looking at the whole time period there has been statistically significant global warming.

    No global warming and statistically significant global warming at the same time. Both statements can’t be true at the same time, though. The solution for this conundrum is that the conclusions about no global warming are based on too short time series used for the statistical analysis. Absence of a detectability of a trend does not logically imply the absence of a trend, since it can’t be logically excluded the possibility that the absence of detectability is only due to insufficient data.

    On a side note: The trends above for the period 1980 to 1995 also show that the recent assertions by David Rose in the Daily Mail and by Judith Curry, according to whom the recent time period was something different to what had been observed before in the temperature record since the 1970ies are false. Something very similar had been observed before from 1980 to 1995. Curry and Rose used the trick for their assertion, though, to compare a 17-year time period, 1980 to 1996, with the recent time period, where the recent time period wasn’t even full 16 years, more like 15 years instead. One year can make a big difference.

  360. richardscourtney says:

    Gary Pearse:

    I agree with the point you are making in your post at October 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm but, with respect, I think you are missing the importance of the true statements made by Bart.

    All you say is true, but the excuse for all of it is AGW which it is asserted has caused, is causing and will cause global warming. And global warming stopped 16 years ago.

    Those who have a vested interest in the AGW-scare are trying to claim both that
    (a) AGW has not stopped
    and
    (b) the stop is not evidence against AGW.
    If you doubt they are making these mutually exclusive claims then read the posts from the troll in this thread.

    Their excuse for their claims is blatantly erroneous statistical analyses. This is not unusual for such people. The true purpose of this thread is to discuss the paper of Briffa which compares to the statistically flawed analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes which provided the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.

    Bart is pointing out that those promoting the AGW-scare are using a false excuse for the cessation of global warming and, therefore, their claims – which I list as (a) and (b) – are wrong.

    He is giving you strong evidence for your point.

    Richard

  361. “D Böehm” wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129739

    It was tempting to make you wait.

    Well, I’m still waiting, since my questions I asked in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129684

    were not answered. But maybe someone else can help “D Böehm”?

    I’m very certain that I will have to wait forever, before I get a straight answer, since no one has entitled “D Böehm” to impose on me at what times I must work and when I’m allowed to do something else (and not even allowed to work at these other times, instead?). And there is no law that gives “D Böehm” this entitlement or anyone else, only because they were taxpayers.

    And to answer your question from your previous post. No, Jim Hansen is not by boss.

  362. Bart says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    October 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    We are not in disagreement. I was addressing the claim that lull of the past 16 years is not “statistically significant”. That claim has no rigorous backing, any more than did the claims for what came before. There is no conclusive, not even preponderant, evidence that we have experienced anything other than a natural trend with natural variation.

  363. richardscourtney says:

    OOPS!
    I intended to write
    (a) global warming has not stopped

    Sorry.
    Richard

  364. richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1129682

    The troll claimed the discussion was not about the fact that global warming stopped 16 years ago.

    Courtney is only repeating his lie from before. I never claimed such a thing.

  365. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: October 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    …………….
    You got it, and that is where the action comes from, ask your iceland’s relatives
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
    sun and the Earth in the North Atlantic.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
    as for the core it’s a bit of a bore, but ‘one has to go with the flow’.
    grandiose plan ? Ahh, my dear friend Leef Svalbaard.

  366. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    The Wikipedia Solar variation entry has been processed and sanitized by the (C)AGW-pushers for the protection of the brainwashed. Small example: Nevertheless, Solanki agrees with the scientific consensus that the marked upswing in temperatures since about 1980 is attributable to human activity. Etc.

    Did find this:

    87 years (70–100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990),[31] Braun, et al., (2005).[32]

    and this:

    There is weak evidence for a quasi-periodic variation in the sunspot cycle amplitudes with a period of about 90 years (“Gleisberg cycle”). These characteristics indicate that the next solar cycle should have a maximum smoothed sunspot number of about 145±30 in 2010 while the following cycle should have a maximum of about 70±30 in 2023.[38]

    I don’t think that page gets updated very often. Ref 38 was Hathaway and Wilson 2004, “What the Sunspot Record Tells Us About Space Climate”. Free download.

    Paper reveals that last bit from Wikipedia was lifted straight from the Abstract, thus missing the nine other characteristics that preceded the Gleissberg cycle.
    145+/-30 maximum smoothed in 2010? The sum of all monthly smoothed numbers in 2010 was 210.7.

    I have seen 11.1 years given for the sunspot cycle length before. Yet somehow on Wikipedia’s List of solar cycles, the mean of solar cycles 1 to 23 was only 10.6 years. Go figure.

  367. joeldshore says:

    Bart says:

    The human brain is an amazing pattern recognition device which can generally, sometimes with the aid of some basic filtering/smoothing, cut through the clutter and identify what is truly happening.

    The problem in this case is that the human brain is too good a pattern recognition device. It often sees patterns in random data when the patterns aren’t really there.

    It is not hard to demonstrate this sort of thing in this particular case by creating “artificial data” that has a linear trend plus some sort of random noise. One then can find segments of that data where it looks to the eye like the trend has stopped (and, of course, is even “confirmed” in the sense that if you do a linear fit over that interval then you find a negative slope). But we know the underlying trend hasn’t stopped because the “data” was explicitly created with a linear trend. Tamino had a nice demo of this sort of thing once.

  368. davidmhoffer says:

    For the record, as this thread shows, I have asked climate scientist Jan Perlw1tz two questions. One in regard to what aspects of the Briffa paper above cannot be understood by someone outside of the climate research field, and the other in regard to the cause of late springs in years with little or no snowfall.

    Having been repeatedly asked these questions, and having had ample time to respond, he has not. We are left to draw our own conclusions as to why.

    My expectation is that he will not answer the first question because there is nothing in that paper that would require any knowledge specific to climate research to understand, and the second because he doesn’t know.

  369. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm
    and that is where the action comes from
    “The easiest one to fool is oneself”.

  370. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    ‘It often sees patterns in random data when the patterns aren’t really there.’

    We’re not talking Escher prints here. It’s a very basic trend, followed by not-a-trend. You are flailing.

  371. joeldshore says:

    In the “picture is worth a thousand words” department, here is a graph that shows in blue the data and trend for 1975-mid 1997 http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crumod2.jpg . Then in red is the data from mid-1997 to the present with the red line just being the blue trend line extrapolated to the present. As you can see, the post mid-1997 data does not deviate in any marked way from the trend line one draws based on the data up until mid-1997. [And, if you wonder if mid-1997 is some sort of cherry-pick, the answer is that it was, but it was the cherry-pick that was made by David Rose in his recent claim about global warming having stopped.]

  372. vukcevic says:
    October 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    You might like to do some calculations using geomagnetic storms induction as a trigger
    http://igppweb.ucsd.edu/~cathy/Classes/SIO229/geomag_2012_64-71.pdf
    Table of Skin Depths
    material , S/m 1 year 1 month 1 day 1 hour 1 sec 1 ms
    core 3  10^5 4 km 770 m 200 m 40 m 71 cm 23 mm
    L. mantle 10 900 km 170 km 46 km 9 km 160 m 5 m

    The table shows skin depths for a variety of typical Earth environments and a large range of frequencies. The first line shows that for practical sounding the core is effectively a perfect conductor into which the external magnetic field does not penetrate.

    Let this be the final word on the subject.

  373. joeldshore says:

    Bart says:

    We’re not talking Escher prints here. It’s a very basic trend, followed by not-a-trend. You are flailing.

    So, when the same thing occurs in synthetic data sets of a linear trend plus noise, does that mean that the computer disobeyed the commands of the programmer and just decided to make the underlying trend stop even though it was programmed to keep going?

    Bart, I think you are intelligent enough to know better than this.

  374. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    joeldshore said on October 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm:

    In the “picture is worth a thousand words” department, here is a graph that shows in blue the data and trend for 1975-mid 1997 http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crumod2.jpg . Then in red is the data from mid-1997 to the present with the red line just being the blue trend line extrapolated to the present. As you can see, the post mid-1997 data does not deviate in any marked way from the trend line one draws based on the data up until mid-1997. [And, if you wonder if mid-1997 is some sort of cherry-pick, the answer is that it was, but it was the cherry-pick that was made by David Rose in his recent claim about global warming having stopped.]

    It shows Tami welcomes manipulating the presentation to provide a false fact.

    You’re *ahem* mistaken about “mid-1997″. As clearly reported in the original WUWT report (bold added):

    The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

    From start of 1975 to start of 1997 (end of 1996) to present looks somewhat different:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend

    There is no single straight line, 1975 to start of 1997 is not perfectly overlain on 1975 to the present, last month currently being August 2012. Your “proof” is a lie.

    And if it was “mid-1997″? The mistake would logically be to choose August, as that month was mentioned.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.75/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997.75/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.67/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.67/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend

    Closer, but still not the single line of the Tami site graph. Your “proof” doesn’t exist.

    BTW, HadCRUT3 is also fun to look at.
    Start of 1997

    “Mid-1997″

    No “proof” there either.

    What’s the matter, Joel? Aren’t people thinking critically and scientifically supposed to verify facts for themselves, rather than trust something that popped up on some internet blog?

  375. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    October 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm
    Let this be the final word on the subject.

    If you mean that :
    The first proposition, that the sun affects magnetic field of the earth, is foolish, absurd, false and deviating because it is expressly contrary to rule of science … and the second proposition, that the earth climate change is caused by the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a our point of view at least, opposed to the true science.

    In the name of established consensus you are to relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun is cause of any changes on the earth, nor henceforth to hold, blog comment, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing.

    Yes your holiness.

  376. kadaka (KD Knoebel) wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130165

    You’re *ahem* mistaken about “mid-1997″. As clearly reported in the original WUWT report (bold added):

    The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

    No, he is not mistaken. You only have been gullible enough to take at face value what the “original WUWT report” reported. The temperature curve shown in this WUWT article,
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/13/report-global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago/

    is a forged temperature curve that was taken from the David Rose article,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H
    in the Daily Mail

    That this temperature record in the Daily Mail article is forged can easily be shown.

    Go to woodfortrees.org and compare the curve in the Daily Mail article with the curve from August 1997 in green, and the additional part of the curve in red, how it would have looked like, if it really had started at the beginning of 1997:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.8

    David Rose of the Daily Mail didn’t set a good example for honesty at the side of the “skeptics” there.

    Does anyone of the “skeptic” WUWT followers do ever any fact checking, when they believe something was in support of their preconceived views?

  377. Correction to my previous comment:

    The starting points in the woodfortrees.org graph must be 1997 and 1997.58 or 1997.67 (I can’t exactly pinpoint it). Somehow, I don’t know how, I got into my head the number after the decimal point was the month number. Sorry about that.

    Here is the graph with the corrected starting points:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.58
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.67

    It doesn’t change anything else what I said about the forged graph in David Rose’s Daily Mail article, though.

  378. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    I remind that in answer to you at October 30, 2012 at 12:28 pm I wrote

    The important point is that the analysis which I provided indicates global warming which is observable with 90% confidence stopped 16 years ago. Reasons why it stopped are not known, but it stopped.

    You are welcome to discuss possible reasons for that cessation. Alternatively, you can copy the troll and pretend it did not stop, but that would be a rejection of both science and logic.

    Subsequently, October 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm, you say to Bart:

    It is not hard to demonstrate this sort of thing in this particular case by creating “artificial data” that has a linear trend plus some sort of random noise. One then can find segments of that data where it looks to the eye like the trend has stopped (and, of course, is even “confirmed” in the sense that if you do a linear fit over that interval then you find a negative slope). But we know the underlying trend hasn’t stopped because the “data” was explicitly created with a linear trend. Tamino had a nice demo of this sort of thing once.

    And you emphasise your point when, at October 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm, you say to Bart:

    So, when the same thing occurs in synthetic data sets of a linear trend plus noise, does that mean that the computer disobeyed the commands of the programmer and just decided to make the underlying trend stop even though it was programmed to keep going?

    OK. I understand that to be a clear discussion of “possible reasons for that cessation” which fulfills my request. Thankyou.

    I am writing to address the issue you raise and which I have quoted. As I understand it, your point is this:
    There is a long term linear trend in the data since 1970 and the recent cessation of a trend is merely random fluctuation around the long term trend.

    OK. For the sake of argument I will accept your point as being true and consider its implications.

    The total data set does not run from 1970 to present: it runs from ~1880 to present.
    The trend runs throughout all that data set which has periods of ‘stasis’ prior to 1910, from ~1940 to ~1970, and since ~2000 (+/- 5 years in each case).
    (Also, there are good reasons to think the trend originates centuries before the start of the data set and at the initiation of the LIA but here I am considering the data set).

    Importantly, there was negligible AGW prior to 1970.

    The period from 1910 to 1940 has the same trend as the period from 1970 to 2000.
    And
    The period from 1910 to 1970 has the same trend as the period from 1970 to the present.

    Therefore,
    if your claim is true that the recent cessation of a trend is merely random fluctuation around the long term trend, then the lack of change after 1970 to the long term trend is strong evidence that AGW has had no discernible effect.

    Please note that I have only addressed one of your claims. Your other claim was refuted by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at October 30, 2012 at 9:40 pm.

    Richard

  379. joeldshore says:

    kadaka says:

    There is no single straight line, 1975 to start of 1997 is not perfectly overlain on 1975 to the present, last month currently being August 2012. Your “proof” is a lie.

    What’s the matter, Joel? Aren’t people thinking critically and scientifically supposed to verify facts for themselves, rather than trust something that popped up on some internet blog?

    No…What I do is actually read and understand peoples’ arguments. What you do is attack bizarre “strawman” versions of their arguments. There was no claim made that if you fit a trend line from 1975 to the start (or middle) of 1997 and one from 1975 to the present that they lie exactly on top of each other. Why would that even be the argument?!?

    The argument is that if you fit a trend line from 1975 to the start of 1997 (or the middle of 1997, the exact time not making much difference) then an extension of that trendline to the present shows that the data since then has not deviated in any significant way from that trendline.

    It is also strange that you are so interested in the fact that your trendlines from 1975 to the start of 1997 and those from 1995 to the present don’t lie EXACTLY on top of each other. Why would you expect them to? They are in fact quite close…and, furthermore, your trendline from 1975 to present is actually STEEPER than the one from 1975 to 1997. Do you think that is compatible with the claim that global warming stopped in 1997?

  380. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    Therefore,
    if your claim is true that the recent cessation of a trend is merely random fluctuation around the long term trend, then the lack of change after 1970 to the long term trend is strong evidence that AGW has had no discernible effect.

    So, you think that in the absence of AGW, there was just going to be this indefinite trend of temperatures rising at a rate of 1.5-2 C per century? (Heck, it is even a little less than 1 C per century if you take the flat periods of the 20th century into account?)

    Your other claim was refuted by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at October 30, 2012 at 9:40 pm.

    With refutations like that, who needs support? He argued against the notion that the data since 1997 is quite compatible extrapolation of the 1975-1997 trendline by showing that the trendline for the data from 1975 to the present is actually slightly STEEPER than the 1975-1997 trendline!

    Quite a counterargument that!

  381. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    I see the troll is still being a pest at October 31, 2012 at 2:55 am. Not content with asserting it is a “l1e” to quote him verbatim, in support of his daft claim that global warming has not stopped, he says

    the forged graph in David Rose’s Daily Mail article

    .

    And he clearly shows how “forged” that graph when his post links to these two graphs saying

    Here is the graph with the corrected starting points:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.58
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.67

    .
    /sarc on/The immense recent global warming and, therefore, the “forged” nature of Rose’s graph are clearly seen in the graphs he provides. /sarc off/

    Richard

  382. Nick Kermode says:

    Richard,

    Rose doesn’t even have the intelligence to label his graph correctly. A twelve year old could point that out to you . I would take what he says as fact extremely cautiously.

  383. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    Your post at October 31, 2012 at 4:23 am is a non sequitur.

    I accepted YOUR assertion for sake of argument and addressed its implications. Using that assertion as an assumption I concluded – and you quoted my conclusion – saying

    Therefore,
    if your claim is true that the recent cessation of a trend is merely random fluctuation around the long term trend, then the lack of change after 1970 to the long term trend is strong evidence that AGW has had no discernible effect.

    You have replied

    So, you think that in the absence of AGW, there was just going to be this indefinite trend of temperatures rising at a rate of 1.5-2 C per century? (Heck, it is even a little less than 1 C per century if you take the flat periods of the 20th century into account?)

    Say what!?
    It was YOUR assertion I assessed, not mine.

    There WAS “this indefinite trend of temperatures rising”. I assumed the only change was AGW and then assessed that change using YOUR assertion.

    If you now want to claim “this indefinite trend of temperatures rising” has stopped then you have to justify your new claim. And that will be a problem for you because nobody knows the cause of that rise.

    You then dispute the analysis by kadaka (KD Knoebel) which also shows you are plain wrong. But that is his analysis so I leave it to him to justify it.

    Richard

  384. richardscourtney says:

    Nick Kermode:

    Thankyou for your advice to me at October 31, 2012 at 5:32 am which says

    Rose doesn’t even have the intelligence to label his graph correctly. A twelve year old could point that out to you . I would take what he says as fact extremely cautiously.

    I accept both your points, but I reply that Rose was merely saying the upward trend in global temperature stopped 16 years ago. The data says it did then stop.

    The issue is not whether one agrees with Rose. It is whether one agrees with the data. I and others (e.g. Phil Jones) agree with the data. Indeed, the Met.Office has agreed Rose correctly presented the fact that – according to their data – discernible global warming stopped 15 years ago.

    By the standards of newspaper journalists, Rose did rather well. As you say, the newspaper graphic was improperly labelled (which may have been a fault of the graphics editor and not Rose) but it was certainly NOT “forged” as the troll claims: it did present the data reasonably well when compared to many newspaper graphics and it did show the recent ‘flatline’ in global temperature as the Met.Office has agreed.

    Richard

    PS I enjoy your film reviews – and especially your rants – on BBC Radio 5. But I was disappointed in your history of James Bond films in your recent TV documentary.

  385. vukcevic says:
    October 31, 2012 at 1:31 am
    In the name of established consensus you are to relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun is cause of any changes on the earth,
    Just that geomagnetic storms cannot change the earth’s core and that therefore your correlation is spurious.

  386. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    “As you can see, the post mid-1997 data does not deviate in any marked way from the trend line one draws based on the data up until mid-1997.”

    You have got to be kidding. There is a marked, long term negative curvature in the data set which flatly contradicts your hypothesis. Try fitting a quadratic.

    joeldshore says:
    October 30, 2012 at 6:16 pm

    I’m sorry you are confused, Joel. But, I think the reason is because you have things upside down and backwards. Saying something can have happened is not the same as saying it did happen. Especially when that something is a long stretch of the imagination. It is true that I cannot rule out your hypothesis 100%, but you are not even above the 50% likelihood mark in supporting it.

    The onus is on you and the CAGW crew to demonstrate that something is happening out of the ordinary, not me and the skeptics to show that something is not. Right now, there is nothing to indicate that anything out of the ordinary is going on.

    You can hem and haw, and claim the reverse because you think something should be happening out of the ordinary, but that is only your personal bias. And, true science does not recognize the whims of a subset of investigators. Moreover, it is your side which is demanding a wrenching downgrade to our quality of life. Extraordianry claims, requiring extraordinary action, require extraordinary evidence. You have nothing dispositive to show.

    What you DO have is behavior which is markedly diverging from your prognostication. As Courtney has pointed out several times, if your process is dominant then, by definition, it cannot be dominated by others. If you do not, cannot, say for certain what is happening, then acting on your belief is tantamount to leeching blood, or tossing virgins into the volcano. This is not science. It is superstition. It is very old school appeasement of your gods. I do not worship your gods, and I will not help you throw that lass into the molten depths.

  387. Anyone who claims that global warming “stopped” or similar since about 1997 or so has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the global temperature trend since this point in time, when global warming allegedly “stopped”, is statistically significantly different from the previously statistically significant global warming trend in the decades up to same point in time. The statistical Null hypothesis, they have to successfully reject is in this case that the trend, which is the default case here, in the temperature record up to the point when global warming allegedly “stopped” has not changed since then.

    If someone of the ones who state the assertion about the “stopped” global warming, is able to demonstrate that the Null hypothesis above can be successfully rejected, using proper statistical analysis, I will concede that they indeed have statistical evidence at hand, which indicates something has changed significantly in the global temperature record since 1997 or whatever point is claimed to be the one at which global warming allegedly “stopped”.

    However, claims based on “eyeballing” and similar offered here in the thread by Mr. Coal-Magazine Editor, who is probably going to write his PhD thesis soon where he refutes global warming using “eyeballing”, and by other “skeptics” are not a scientifically valid approach to provide evidence for the assertion of the “stopped” global warming.

    The “skeptics” have not delivered so far. Herewith, I challenge them to deliver.

  388. Bart says:

    And, let us not forget the article at hand, which now shows that late 20th century average temps are no higher than they have been in the past. So, now the AGW crew has a completely circularized argument on their hands:

    A) increasing CO2 is causing rising temps
    B) temps appear not to be rising now, or even out of the ordinary, but they will become so because increasing CO2 is causing rising temps
    C) therefore, AGW is real

    They are reduced to saying that the lull in rising temps does not disprove the hypothesis, therefore the hypothesis is proved. And, through the looking glass we go.

  389. Bart says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 31, 2012 at 7:47 am

    “…has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the global temperature trend since this point in time, when global warming allegedly “stopped”, is statistically significantly different from the previously statistically significant global warming trend…”

    Nonsense. If the current trend is not statistically different from the previous trend, then the previous trend is not statistically different from the current. Which is to say, the whole shebang is not statistically significant in proving anything.

    The burden is on you to prove otherwise. I challenge you to deliver.

  390. richardscourtney says:

    Bart:

    Your post at October 31, 2012 at 7:51 am was fortuitously timed. Clearly, you could only have written it before seeing the post from the troll which was sent for moderation only four minutes earlier (at October 31, 2012 at 7:47 am).

    However, your post provides a precise description (minus untruths and ad homs) of the contents of that post from the troll.

    The defence rests, M’Lord.

    Richard

  391. I see the forging of the graph in the Daily Mail article,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H

    in the context of the assertions that are made in the Daily Mail article, particularly this one:

    This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

    The intention is to deliver the message that the recent time period is different to what had been observed in the time before since 1980. For that reason, about 15 years (August 1997 to August 2012) are lied into almost 16 years, and those are compared to the period 1980 to 1996, that is, to a 17-year period. In this way, it is disguised that time periods, which actually have different lengths are being compared. Two years can make a big difference in the temperature trend and its statistical significance.

  392. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 3:32 am
    They are in fact quite close…and, furthermore, your trendline from 1975 to present is actually STEEPER than the one from 1975 to 1997. Do you think that is compatible with the claim that global warming stopped in 1997?

    There are two different issues here that were not explicitly explained. The slope IS flat on Hadcrut3 from March 1997. (I know this will change to April 1997 once the September anomaly of 0.520 gets incorporated into woodfortrees.) However global warming did not stop until September of 1998. So if one takes the slope from 1975 to September 1998 and then from 1975 to the present, the slope is in fact less steep for the latter. And this IS compatible with a slightly changed claim that global warming stopped in September of 1998. Is that better? See

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:1998.67/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.16/trend

  393. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    In the post at October 31, 2012 at 8:11 am the troll is spinning so fast it is surprising he does not drill himself into the ground.

    He claims the graph of Rose is “forged” because it does not also show another graph for a different time period.

    On that basis, Rose would be guilty of forging the Mona Lisa if he painted a house but did not also paint a boat.

    Richard

  394. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From joeldshore on October 31, 2012 at 3:32 am:

    No…What I do is actually read and understand peoples’ arguments. What you do is attack bizarre “strawman” versions of their arguments. There was no claim made that if you fit a trend line from 1975 to the start (or middle) of 1997 and one from 1975 to the present that they lie exactly on top of each other. Why would that even be the argument?!?

    Follows from what you said about the Tami site graph.
    “…here is a graph that shows in blue the data and trend for 1975-mid 1997…”
    “Then in red is the data from mid-1997 to the present with the red line just being the blue trend line extrapolated to the present.”

    As a continuation of the blue trend line to the present, the correct terminology would have been the red line is an extension of the blue line. Thus red and blue together describe a single line. And this is what the graph shows. So 1975 to 1997 lies exactly on 1975 to present, as the graph shows. But that’s not what real graphs from the real data show.

    The argument is that if you fit a trend line from 1975 to the start of 1997 (or the middle of 1997, the exact time not making much difference) then an extension of that trendline to the present shows that the data since then has not deviated in any significant way from that trendline.

    And there you’ve just stated it. One trend line from 1975 to 1997, with an extension there’d be a 1975 to present trendline, they would not deviate in any significant way. This is absolute basic geometry here, just playing with line segments. Why don’t you understand what you’ve said?

    I suppose another possible interpretation of what you said is an extension of the 1975 to 1997 line from 1997 to present is indistinguishable from a 1997 to present line. Except this is clearly not the case from the graphs I provided, and claiming this is true would be fraudulent.

    It is also strange that you are so interested in the fact that your trendlines from 1975 to the start of 1997 and those from 1995 to the present don’t lie EXACTLY on top of each other. Why would you expect them to? They are in fact quite close…

    Because you provided a graph as proof that shows an EXACT lining up, that’s why.

    …and, furthermore, your trendline from 1975 to present is actually STEEPER than the one from 1975 to 1997. Do you think that is compatible with the claim that global warming stopped in 1997?

    You expect a rising series of flat steps to have a steeper slope than the steps. That’s how a staircase works.

    Your obsession with making global warming conform to a linear trend is noted, even if the instrumental record is better described by alternating warming and cooling stages with a general upward trend. We’ve entered a cooling stage. Why is that so hard to accept?

  395. joeldshore says:

    Bart says:

    You have got to be kidding. There is a marked, long term negative curvature in the data set which flatly contradicts your hypothesis. Try fitting a quadratic.

    Give me a break. Even linear fits over such time periods give pretty large uncertainties in trend. Fitting a quadratic is just fitting to noise. I will be interested to see if a few years from now you are still interested in doing quadratic fits…Or, how well you think a quadratic fit would have done back in, say, around 1998 or 1999. The only reason that you want to fit to a quadratic is because the noise is such that fitting to noise is a good thing now if you want to believe global warming is ending.

    What you DO have is behavior which is markedly diverging from your prognostication.

    No, the plot that I linked to shows that the behavior over the last ~15 years is in very good agreement with what we would have predicted by linear extrapolation of the trend up to that point.

    As Courtney has pointed out several times, if your process is dominant then, by definition, it cannot be dominated by others.

    That’s just sophistry. How hard is it to understand the concept of a slow linear trend with fairly large amount of superimposed noise? You can simulate this, for heaven’s sake, and the point is that the noise dominates on short timescale but the underlying trend is what dominates at long timescales. Come on, Bart, you are an engineer, not a philosophy major. You should know this stuff.

  396. joeldshore says:

    Werner Brozek says:

    There are two different issues here that were not explicitly explained. The slope IS flat on Hadcrut3 from March 1997. (I know this will change to April 1997 once the September anomaly of 0.520 gets incorporated into woodfortrees.) However global warming did not stop until September of 1998. So if one takes the slope from 1975 to September 1998 and then from 1975 to the present, the slope is in fact less steep for the latter. And this IS compatible with a slightly changed claim that global warming stopped in September of 1998. Is that better?

    Are you guys serious? You make one cherry-pick in one context and another cherry-pick in another? That’s rich!

    And no, that is still not evidence that global warming stopped in September 1998. The fact that the trendline from 1975 to the present was slightly steeper than the trendline from 1975 to 1997 was just “icing on the cake” as far as I was concerned. I just pointed it out as an additional source of amusement for how pathetically weak the argument kadaka made was. However, the fact that you can cherrypick a date in 1998 and have that slope be slightly less steep than the trendline is irrelevant. The point is that, within errorbars, the trendlines are the same!

  397. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    richardscourtney wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130754

    referencing my comment in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130720

    He claims the graph of Rose is “forged” because it does not also show another graph for a different time period.

    The Coal-Magazine Editor is lying again, or he has serious problems to understand statements in written English. I didn’t claim anything like this in the referenced comment or in any other comment.

    What I actually said, in a comment before the referenced comment, was that the graph in the David Rose article in the Daily Mail is forged, because the starting point of the graph was manipulated. Data that actually start in August 1997 are presented as starting at the beginning of 1997. And in the referenced comment, I said, by doing so a time period of about 15 years is misleadingly presented as a time period of almost 16 years.

    In the referenced comment I also speculated about the motives for the forgery.

  398. Jan P Perlwitz says:

    bart wrote in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130710

    If the current trend is not statistically different from the previous trend, then the previous trend is not statistically different from the current.

    Your tautology is a red herring.

    The trend from mid 1975 to including July 1997 is statistically significantly different from a Zero trend with more than 3 sigma, i.e., the probability to be wrong is less than 2 out of a thousand. The trends for the different data sets and the 2-sigma intervals are, using http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php (start date: 1975.5; end date: 1997.58):

    GISSTEMP: 0.146+/-0.09
    NOAA: 0.15+/-0.079
    HADCRUT4: 0.161+/-0.081

    I can successfully reject the Null hypothesis that the trend from mid 1975 to 1997 cannot be statistically distinguished from a Zero trend. I have delivered. I also can do the same for the time period from mid 1975 to today.

    Since you assert global warming “stopped” or similar after 1997, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the trend after the point in time, when global warming allegedly “stopped” is statistically significantly different from the statistically significant trend up to the point in time when global warming allegedly “stopped”. As long as you don’t do that you don’t have any argument for your claim that things have been different after 1997 or so, compared to the decades before this point in time. Eyeballing or gut feeling do not qualify as scientifically valid approaches to back up an assertion about the alleged “stopped” global warming or similar.

    The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

    I do not have the burden of proof for your assertions.

  399. D Böehm says:

    I see Perlwitz is still writing and posting long comments arguing with people throughout his taxpayer-financed work day. Could he be any more corrupt and dishonest?

    Get back to work on the job the public pays you for, Perlwitz, and quit wasting our time here.

  400. Gary Pearse says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 31, 2012 at 10:47 am
    “I see Perlwitz is still writing and posting long comments arguing with people throughout his taxpayer-financed work day.”

    Actually from what he in fact blathers about suggests that the tax payer is saving money from having him diverted from whatever job he is being overpaid for. I wonder if his marching orders for today were to do just what he is doing.

  401. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 10:24 am

    Why a quadratic? Because, to put it as delicately as possible, your linear trend after 1997 sucks. There is clearly an increasing divergence from it.

    You haven’t a leg to stand on. As I explained above, you are now trying to assert that something which cannot be disproven (at least, not on these terms) is thereby proven. That’s ridiculous.

    “… the behavior over the last ~15 years is in very good agreement with what we would have predicted by linear extrapolation of the trend up to that point.”

    Objectively speaking, it just ain’t so.

    “How hard is it to understand the concept of a slow linear trend with fairly large amount of superimposed noise?”

    Not at all difficult. But, the existence of a concept does not establish a general rule. I can simulate all kinds of stuff. A computer program can verify the mathematics of a model, but it does not verify the model itself. Only empirical data can do that. And, that data is no longer cooperating with your narrative.

    “I will be interested to see if a few years from now you are still interested in doing quadratic fits…”

    We could play that game all day long. I will be interested to see if a few years from now the IPCC still exists, and their proponents and hangers-on haven’t been tarred and feathered in the streets, because the odds are looking pretty good that we are on the cusp of a sharp downturn. Appeals to an imaginary future in which you will be vindicated are not particularly compelling.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    October 31, 2012 at 8:50 am

    “Your obsession with making global warming conform to a linear trend is noted, even if the instrumental record is better described by alternating warming and cooling stages with a general upward trend. We’ve entered a cooling stage. Why is that so hard to accept?”

    Hear, hear!

  402. Bart says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 31, 2012 at 10:44 am

    “The trend from mid 1975 to including July 1997 is statistically significantly different from a Zero trend with more than 3 sigma, i.e., the probability to be wrong is less than 2 out of a thousand.”

    Based on what statistical model? If you do not have a valid statistical model, your confidence intervals are useless.

    “I do not have the burden of proof for your assertions.”

    You have the burden of proving your assertions, i.e., that your prognostications for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are valid.

  403. richardscourtney says:

    D Böehm:

    At October 31, 2012 at 10:47 am I think you are being a little unfair to the troll when you write

    Get back to work on the job the public pays you for, Perlw1tz, and quit wasting our time here.

    His “job the public pays [him] for” is to use his computer to fabricate fictions which are intended to mislead the public. And he is doing that here.

    Richard

  404. joeldshore says:

    kadaka says:

    As a continuation of the blue trend line to the present, the correct terminology would have been the red line is an extension of the blue line.

    Fine…Perhaps “extension” would have been a little bit clearer than “extrapolation”, although I don’t see extrapolation as all that bad. Furthermore, I still don’t understand why you would think it would be necessary for the trendlines for 1975-1997 and 1975-present to fall EXACTLY on top of each other in order to include the trend shows no evidence of markedly changing.

    And there you’ve just stated it. One trend line from 1975 to 1997, with an extension there’d be a 1975 to present trendline, they would not deviate in any significant way. This is absolute basic geometry here, just playing with line segments. Why don’t you understand what you’ve said?

    No…It is not simple geometry. If global warming had stopped, we’d expect the data after 1997 to clearly fall away from the extension of the 1975-1997 trend line up to the present. That hasn’t happened: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crumod2.jpg

    Your obsession with making global warming conform to a linear trend is noted, even if the instrumental record is better described by alternating warming and cooling stages with a general upward trend. We’ve entered a cooling stage. Why is that so hard to accept?

    Because there is no evidence of any statistically-significant deviation from the original trendline. Not even close.

  405. joeldshore says:

    Bart says:

    Why a quadratic? Because, to put it as delicately as possible, your linear trend after 1997 sucks. There is clearly an increasing divergence from it.

    No it doesn’t and no there isn’t: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crumod2.jpg

    Not at all difficult.

    Then why did you engage in word games when you are smart enough to understand the concept of a linear trend plus noise. Even if you don’t believe that is what is involved here, you can’t dismiss the possibility just by appealing to silly logical sophistry.

  406. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    It seems that you have not expressed your meaning clearly in your post to kadaka at October 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm because you say

    If global warming had stopped, we’d expect the data after 1997 to clearly fall away from the extension of the 1975-1997 trend line up to the present.

    Obviously you intended to say something other than your words I have quoted because both kadaka and Bart have shown you that the trend HAS fallen away since 1997. Indeed, everybody (except the troll whose self-serving falsehoods are irrelevant) agrees there is no significant trend since 1997. Even the UK Met,Office agrees.

    So, I would appreciate a clarification which explains what you did intend to say.

    Richard

  407. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Continuing to insist something which is clearly visible isn’t is not worthy of a response. You and Jan can dress it up in a simulacrum of science, but you are not fooling anyone but yourselves.

    And, as I have emphasized repeatedly to your seemingly deaf ears, it is not enough for you to establish a “possibility”, even if that is what you had done. There are endless possibilities for all manner of catastrophes. Why should your fear of any particular one lay a claim on how I live my life?

  408. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 10:29 am
    The point is that, within errorbars, the trendlines are the same!

    I agree with respect to my two lines starting from 1975, but not for HadCRUT4 starting from 1997. (I will also concede that Rose’s graph has the x axis displaced by about 6 months.) As for the 16 years, as near as I can tell, Rose started from January 1, 1997 and went to August 31, 2012 and while that is actually 15 years and 8 months, he rounded it to the nearest year and came up with 16 years. Now whether or not this is acceptable may depend on who your intended audience is. The slope from January 1, 1997 to August 31, 2012 on HadCRUT4 is 0.00474896 per year or 0.047/decade. Is this significant at the 95% level?
    In Phil Jones’ interview from February 2010:
    “B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
    I know it is a bit more complicated than that, but if 0.12 C/decade is NOT significant over 15 years, I do not see how 0.047/decade over a slightly different 15 years and 8 months can be significant. Is Jones using a different criteria?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend

  409. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From joeldshore on October 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm:

    Furthermore, I still don’t understand why you would think it would be necessary for the trendlines for 1975-1997 and 1975-present to fall EXACTLY on top of each other in order to include the trend shows no evidence of markedly changing.

    You provided a graph with a single straight line segment, AC, point A at 1975, C at present. You specified AB, B at 1997, with BC being an extension of AB, thus implicitly specifying AB and BC as on AC. AB must exactly line up with AC by definition. Simple geometry.

    No…It is not simple geometry. If global warming had stopped, we’d expect the data after 1997 to clearly fall away from the extension of the 1975-1997 trend line up to the present. That hasn’t happened: [same junk Tami site graph]

    What is this “clearly fall away”? The slope of 1997-present is clearly far less than the slopes of 1975-1997 and 1975-present. For that graph to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

    Because there is no evidence of any statistically-significant deviation from the original trendline. Not even close.

    The slopes by WFT:
    1975 to start of 1997 is 0.0158627°C per year.
    1975 to present is 0.0170183 per year.
    Start of 1997 to present is 0.00474896 per year.

    1997 to present is only 29.9% of 1975 to 1997 rate.
    1997 to present is only 27.9% of 1975 to present rate.

    You would claim that is not a statistically-significant deviation?

  410. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    Obviously you intended to say something other than your words I have quoted because both kadaka and Bart have shown you that the trend HAS fallen away since 1997. Indeed, everybody (except the troll whose self-serving falsehoods are irrelevant) agrees there is no significant trend since 1997. Even the UK Met,Office agrees.

    So, I would appreciate a clarification which explains what you did intend to say.

    I said exactly what I intended to say.

    (1) Look at the picture: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crumod2.jpg The data from 1997 to present are still basically following the extension of the trendline that was drawn through the 1975-mid 1997 data.

    (2) I didn’t say what the trend did. I said what the data itself did. Trends over short time periods in noisy data are very noisy. A trend is basically a derivative and derivatives of noisy data are extremely noisy unless you take it over periods long enough that the trend overwhelms the noise.

    (3) No, what the Met Office says is that the trend since 1997 doesn’t quite meet 95% significance level as being different from 0. However, it also doesn’t meet the 95% significance level as being any different than the trend up to 1997. Trends over short periods in noisy data are very noisy so that leads to huge errorbars on trend estimates and makes silly claims such as “global warming stopped in 1997″ blatant falsehoods.

  411. joeldshore says:

    kadaka says:

    You provided a graph with a single straight line segment, AC, point A at 1975, C at present. You specified AB, B at 1997, with BC being an extension of AB, thus implicitly specifying AB and BC as on AC. AB must exactly line up with AC by definition. Simple geometry.

    Duh…but that is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is the fact that the DATA don’t deviate from the line AC. If the DATA were falling off that extension of the linear trend line from 1975 to 1997, then that might be evidence that the warming was really slowing down. However, the data aren’t showing any sign of doing that.

    What is this “clearly fall away”? The slope of 1997-present is clearly far less than the slopes of 1975-1997 and 1975-present. For that graph to pretend otherwise is dishonest.

    And, you can see by looking at slopes over other historical time periods during the last 40 years that the slopes can vary significantly over such time periods because, as I explained above, the slope is a very noisy metric in a system with noise except if you look over large enough time periods that the trend dominates the noise. In particular, the big El Nino in 1998 and the general La Nina conditions over the last few years have a huge effect on the slope over the 15 year time period.

    But, looking at what the plot that I showed you is a more robust measure of what is happening because rather than letting the noise of ENSO dominate things, it looks overall at whether the data has continued to follow the upward trendline from pre-1998. And, the answer is that it has, despite the normal ups-and-downs due to the noise.

    You would claim that is not a statistically-significant deviation?

    Yes. For the reasons discussed above. The errorbars on the slope estimate over 15 years or less is still large. (Heck, even over 20+ years, it is not so small.)

  412. joeldshore says:

    Werner Brozek: What you are missing is the fact that just because the trend since a certain time is not statistically-significant does not mean that global warming has stopped at that time, particularly when the difference of the trend from the longer term trend is not statistically-significant either. It just means we don’t have good enough statistics on the trend.

    Look, if you want to say that it is POSSIBLE (in the sense of >5% chance) from the data that global warming stopped in 1998, then that might be a correct conclusion…But there is no real evidence to support the claim that it did. And you have to open up your mind to all sorts of claims, such as the one that starting in January of this year, global warming has accelerated to the point where the warming rate is now 0.4 C per year…which is roughly what I just read us the trend in the UAH data since that time. That is more than 20 times the long-term rate!

  413. D Böehm says:

    Werner, you are correct as usual. But why start at 1975? Looking at a much longer time span, we see that the long term [natural] global warming trend is not accelerating. The green line shows that long term, the trend is actually decelerating.

    And the past decade shows that [natural] global warming has stalled, despite a large rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2.

    The central point is the fact that whether CO2 is low or high, the [natural] global warming trend remains the same. It is not accelerating, despite much higher CO2. The only rational conclusion: ∆CO2 does not cause ∆T. In fact, just the opposite is true. And there is still no empirical evidence to support AGW.

  414. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    In your reply to me at October 31, 2012 at 4:59 pm you say

    (3) No, what the Met Office says is that the trend since 1997 doesn’t quite meet 95% significance level as being different from 0. However, it also doesn’t meet the 95% significance level as being any different than the trend up to 1997. Trends over short periods in noisy data are very noisy so that leads to huge errorbars on trend estimates and makes silly claims such as “global warming stopped in 1997″ blatant falsehoods.

    I would appreciate it if you did not accuse others of “blatant falsehoods” when they state clear and unblemished fact and you are stating blatant falsehoods. We already have the other troll doing that.

    However you look at it, the data says global warming stopped 16 years ago. Reasons why it stopped are not known but it is a blatant falsehood to pretend otherwise.

    Your excuses are becoming pathetic. For example you said that if global warming had stopped 16 years ago then the long term trend since 1970 would have declined by inclusion of the period after 1997 in the trend. kadaka showed it declined by ~28%. You then moved the goal posts.

    I can understand the other troll trying to protect his pay, but I fail to understand why you refuse to accept the simple truth that global warming stopped 16 years ago.

    Face reality. It is what it is, and it is incapable of caring what you want it to be.

    Richard

  415. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    “The data from 1997 to present are still basically following the extension of the trendline that was drawn through the 1975-mid 1997 data.”

    No, they aren’t. The trend line is slashing diagonally through them. This is a surreal argument, and it’s not making any headway. Why do you persist?

  416. Gunga Din says:

    1. richardscourtney says:
    October 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm
    joeldshore:
    In your reply to me at October 31, 2012 at 4:59 pm you say
    (3) No, what the Met Office says is that the trend since 1997 doesn’t quite meet 95% significance level as being different from 0. However, it also doesn’t meet the 95% significance level as being any different than the trend up to 1997. Trends over short periods in noisy data are very noisy so that leads to huge errorbars on trend estimates and makes silly claims such as “global warming stopped in 1997″ blatant falsehoods.
    I would appreciate it if you did not accuse others of “blatant falsehoods” when they state clear and unblemished fact and you are stating blatant falsehoods. We already have the other troll doing that.
    However you look at it, the data says global warming stopped 16 years ago. Reasons why it stopped are not known but it is a blatant falsehood to pretend otherwise.
    Your excuses are becoming pathetic. For example you said that if global warming had stopped 16 years ago then the long term trend since 1970 would have declined by inclusion of the period after 1997 in the trend. kadaka showed it declined by ~28%. You then moved the goal posts.
    I can understand the other troll trying to protect his pay, but I fail to understand why you refuse to accept the simple truth that global warming stopped 16 years ago.
    Face reality. It is what it is, and it is incapable of caring what you want it to be.
    Richard

    ===================================================================
    This reminds of a conversation I had once. Someone I know father-in-law had recently passed. He said he’d served on the Battleship Oklahoma. I asked if his father-in-law was at Pearl Harbor. He said no, he’d served in the Korean War. I told him that the USS Oklahoma had been sunk at Pearl Harbor and never raised. He insisted his father-in-law had served on the Oklahoma escorting a carrier in Korea. He was adamant. It was obvious he believed what he was saying. I thought, “Maybe we named another type of ship after the Oklahoma?” I did a little searching and found out that we did have a heavy cruiser named the Oklahoma City that escorted a carrier during the Korean War. I asked if his father-in-law had been on the USS Oklahoma City. His eyes lit up and he said, “YES!” I told him that the Oklahoma City was a heavy cruiser and not a battleship. His reply was, “What’s the difference!”
    I didn’t reply.
    I sent him a link to the veterans of the USS Oklahoma City in case his wife wanted to let them know about their shipmate.
    What more could I do?

  417. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    I would appreciate it if you did not accuse others of “blatant falsehoods” when they state clear and unblemished fact and you are stating blatant falsehoods

    Well, if you stop saying false things, I’ll stop pointing them out. But I am not holding my breath!

    Your excuses are becoming pathetic. For example you said that if global warming had stopped 16 years ago then the long term trend since 1970 would have declined by inclusion of the period after 1997 in the trend. kadaka showed it declined by ~28%. You then moved the goal posts.

    And already we have another falsehood. In fact, kadaka found ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1131098 ):

    1975 to start of 1997 is 0.0158627°C per year.
    1975 to present is 0.0170183 per year.

    So, I don’t know where you got the claim that you make about what he showed. What he actually showed is that the trend from 1975 to present is LARGER than the trend from 1975 to the start of 1997.

    What he does show is that the slope from 1997 to the present is only 28% of the slope from 1975 to the present, but that is doing what I have explained again and again you can’t do. The error bars on such a claim, if properly computed, would be so huge as to make the claim meaningless.

  418. joeldshore says:

    Bart says:

    No, they aren’t. The trend line is slashing diagonally through them.

    It is? http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crumod2.jpg

  419. joeldshore says:

    Gunga Din says:

    I asked if his father-in-law had been on the USS Oklahoma City. His eyes lit up and he said, “YES!” I told him that the Oklahoma City was a heavy cruiser and not a battleship. His reply was, “What’s the difference!”

    Nice story and it indeed well illustrates the problem here. Richard Courtney could not distinguish the difference between what I talked about and the claim that kadaka made even though that difference was clear as day. You only had to look at the numbers kadaka wrote down!

  420. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    “It is?”

    Yes.

  421. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “… the trend from 1975 to present is LARGER than the trend from 1975 to the start of 1997.”

    Not really.

  422. Bart says:

    D Böehm says:
    October 31, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Don’t let yourself get backed into a corner on the basis of an arbitrary measure. These trends are meaningless, because the process isn’t a linear function. But, at least, compare apples to apples.

  423. Gunga Din says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 6:50 pm
    Gunga Din says:

    I asked if his father-in-law had been on the USS Oklahoma City. His eyes lit up and he said, “YES!” I told him that the Oklahoma City was a heavy cruiser and not a battleship. His reply was, “What’s the difference!”

    Nice story and it indeed well illustrates the problem here. Richard Courtney could not distinguish the difference between what I talked about and the claim that kadaka made even though that difference was clear as day. You only had to look at the numbers kadaka wrote down!
    ==========================================================
    It wasn’t a story. It happened.
    Did the Medivial Warm Period happen or not?

  424. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Re D Böehm on October 31, 2012 at 7:11 pm:

    Mr. Böehm, do not be ensnared by his sinister confusing words. In your rush to justice you have made a critical error.

    Correct graph. Really.

    He has stated the full rise from 1975 to present is steeper than the short piece from 1975 to 1997. We know there has been a gentle warming slope since the LIA. As the rise of a full stairway is steeper than the steps, so may the full rise from 1975 to present be steeper than the 1975 to 1997 step, as the diabolical Mr. Shore is well aware.

    (Yes, Mr. Böehm, I am stroking a cat. A grey shorthaired tiger pattern. White fluffy cats are for limp-wristed effeminate drama queens.)

  425. Bart says:

    And, everyone… stop accepting these bogus estimates of significance. They are surely based on canned routines which assume a linear trend polluted by independent sample-to-sample noise. That’s not what’s going on. Tossing them out as if they had any scientific value is not, in fact, scientific.

    This gives a better representation. From 1970 to 2000 is what is supposed to be CAGW. But, it’s the same slope as 1920-1940. And, the actual long term trend, about which the temperature varies in consistent fashion, shows no sign of changing or having changed.

    In the near terms, we are facing a repeat of what happened after 1940.

  426. Bart says:

    Typo: But, it’s the same slope as 1910-1940.

  427. Werner Brozek says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 31, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    …starting in January of this year, global warming has accelerated to the point where the warming rate is now 0.4 C per year

    But as you well know, if there is a lot of noise in 15 years, there is a huge amount in 8 or 9 months, particularly since we went from a La Nina to an El Nino during this time!

    I understand what you are saying regarding the slopes, but let me give a different scenario. A man who lived to be 100 years had his height measured on his birthday every year. He grew until he was 20 and then stopped growing. If I were to ask you if he stopped growing when he was 20, you would take his height when he was 20 up to any age you like and if you find the slope is 0, then you know he stopped growing at age 20. But if you insist on taking the slope from year 1 in all cases, you could then conclude the man still grew between 90 and 100 since the slope is still positive. Is this not correct?

  428. Bart asked in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130922

    Based on what statistical model? If you do not have a valid statistical model, your confidence intervals are useless.

    The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
    Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    You have the burden of proving your assertions, i.e., that your prognostications for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are valid.

    You are quite right with respect to me having the burden of proving my assertions. Everyone has to carry his/her own package. However, I’m not aware that I made any prognostication that contained a statement about “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. So, no I don’t have any burden to prove anything with respect to that. Neither does this term, “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, appear anywhere in the IPCC Report 2007, unless I missed it.

  429. vukcevic says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm
    The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
    Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Foster knows nothing about historical records. When I put this
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
    on RealClimate, without the label, despite it being from the world best known temperature data, he said it was a fraud and proceeded with outburst of vulgar obscenities. He was duly told off by Gavin and his posts deleted.
    Temperature models from an ‘expert’ who knows nothing about historical records are worth just that NOTHING.

    Dr. Perlwitz if your opinion and knowledge are based on the above so called ‘expertise’, they are also worth nothing too. Learn about the past before you attempt to prophesize future.

  430. vukcevic says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm
    The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
    Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Foster knows nothing about historical records. When I put this
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
    on RealClimate, without label, despite it being from the world best known temperature data, he said it was a fraud and proceeded with outburst of vulgar obscenities. He was duly told off by Gavin and his posts deleted.
    Temperature models from an ‘expert’ who knows nothing about historical records are worth just that NOTHING.

    Dr. Perlwitz if your opinion and knowledge are based on the above so called ‘expertise’, they are also worth nothing too. Learn about the past before you attempt to prophesize future.

  431. richardscourtney says:

    Bart:

    Your post at October 31, 2012 at 8:08 pm says everything which needs to be said about this subject.
    It concurs with my earlier post at October 30, 2012 at 7:02 am which said

    There is no reason to use “looking at noisy trendlines” as an excuse to pretend the blindingly obvious is other than it is.

    We now know that climate cycles and the global warming of the last 300 years are consistent with recovery from the LIA with periods of no-warming and cooling provided by shorter cycles.

    [emphasis added: RSC]

    Indeed, in a few brilliant words your post summarises points in my posts at
    October 29, 2012 at 3:20 pm
    October 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm
    October 30, 2012 at 4:48 am
    October 30, 2012 at 6:51 am
    October 30, 2012 at 7:02 am
    October 30, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    October 30, 2012 at 3:14 pm
    October 31, 2012 at 3:08 am
    Thankyou!

    I copy your post below to add attention to it.

    Richard

    _______________

    And, everyone… stop accepting these bogus estimates of significance. They are surely based on canned routines which assume a linear trend polluted by independent sample-to-sample noise. That’s not what’s going on. Tossing them out as if they had any scientific value is not, in fact, scientific.

    This gives a better representation. From 1970 to 2000 is what is supposed to be CAGW. But, it’s the same slope as 1920-1940. And, the actual long term trend, about which the temperature varies in consistent fashion, shows no sign of changing or having changed.

    In the near terms, we are facing a repeat of what happened after 1940.

  432. Shawnhet says:

    Just a brief note here: i believe that at least one of these slopes posted earlier by kadaka must be wrong.

    The slopes by WFT:
    1975 to start of 1997 is 0.0158627°C per year.
    1975 to present is 0.0170183 per year.
    Start of 1997 to present is 0.00474896 per year.

    When I redo the slope calculation using the 75-97 and 97-present ones individually I end up with a trend of ~ 0.0112 °C per year which is obviously less than the 1975-97 slope.

    Cheers, :)

  433. Shawnhet says:

    I would also like to agree with Bart’s approach above when he looks at the longer term trends ie from 1900 and on. It seems to me that much more interesting than asking whether the post 1997 trend is statistically significant is asking (for instance) whether the trend for the last 60 years is statistically any different than the trend for the 60 years before that.

    Just eyeballing a couple of WFT graphs suggests that the 1892-1952 warming is ~ 1/2 the warming trend of the 1953-2012 trend.

    Cheers, :)

  434. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Jan P Perlwitz on October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm:

    Bart asked in
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#comment-1130922

    Based on what statistical model? If you do not have a valid statistical model, your confidence intervals are useless.

    The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:
    Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011: Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 6, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022, dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Said reference is found on the SkepSci trend calculator page.

    You know, if you don’t understand their manipulations and can’t explain their model, you could have simply said so. You don’t have to pretend it makes sense to you by throwing out the common reference.

    Sounds like Nancy Pelosi science, first you have to accept it and use it and incorporate into everything, then you’ll find out what’s in it.

    Although given the multiple F-R 2011 flaws found just in this initial report, why you’d trust the results of an unverified program based on a flawed paper is quite a mystery. For all we know you fob that calculator off on the unwashed masses while using something better and accurate for your own work.

  435. joeldshore says:

    kadaka says:

    He has stated the full rise from 1975 to present is steeper than the short piece from 1975 to 1997. We know there has been a gentle warming slope since the LIA. As the rise of a full stairway is steeper than the steps, so may the full rise from 1975 to present be steeper than the 1975 to 1997 step, as the diabolical Mr. Shore is well aware.

    First of all, this recovery since the LIA meme is just about as useful as saying “God did it.” You know that any such recovery won’t continue forever. And, in fact, from what we understand about the possible volcanic and solar forcings involved (and the latter is somewhat limited by ambiguities in the record before the satellite era), there is no reason to expect that the natural trend would have been for rising temperatures in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, if anything, there should have been a small negative trend.

    Second of all, I don’t understand your logic here: So, you’ve divided things up into gently rising “steps” and then jumps…but you can’t just then ignore the jumps as if they don’t exist: They are part of the long term trend.

    And, this division of the data into gentle steps and jumps is really most likely just seeing patterns in noise. One can again take simulated data where one knows for a fact that the data reflects an underlying constant linear trend plus noise and one will be able to draw similar steps and jumps in such data. That strongly suggests that the notion that this is what the data actually reflects has no real evidence to back it up. People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.

  436. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    At November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am you write

    People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.

    It seems you have as much understanding of what is “fact” as the other troll.

    Richard

  437. joeldshore says:

    richard: In the synthetic data, we do know for a fact that the patterns found do not actually exist because we know how the data was created.

    We don’t know that for a fact in the real data, but to believe that they do on the basis of thinking you see such patterns (and with no reasonable mechanistic explanation) is sort of like continuing to believe Yuri Geller can bend spoons with his mind after James Randi has clearly demonstrated how he can just as convincingly bend spoons using slight-of-hand.

  438. joeldshore says:

    Here is a discussion (with links to an earlier discussion) on seeing…and even “detecting”…step changes in synthetic data sets that we know for a fact have simply an underlying linear trend plus noise: (snip. As a mod who is fed up with tamino’s ugly comments regarding Anthony Watts and this site, you will understand if I delete your free advertising. Readers can find tamino on their own if they are interested. ~mod)

  439. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    At November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am you wrote

    People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.

    And at November 1, 2012 at 10:20 am I quoted your statement and commented

    It seems you have as much understanding of what is “fact” as the other troll.

    To my surprise. at November 1, 2012 at 10:49 am you have confirmed my comment by writing in total

    richard: In the synthetic data, we do know for a fact that the patterns found do not actually exist because we know how the data was created.

    We don’t know that for a fact in the real data, but to believe that they do on the basis of thinking you see such patterns (and with no reasonable mechanistic explanation) is sort of like continuing to believe Yuri Geller can bend spoons with his mind after James Randi has clearly demonstrated how he can just as convincingly bend spoons using slight-of-hand.

    It is a fact that we can observe similar patterns in some synthetic data.
    Therefore, it is a fact such patterns in the real data MAY be a result of random chance.
    It is NOT true that when we see such patterns in the real data “we know for a fact that none exist”.

    What we know as fact is
    (a) we can observe the pattern in the data
    and
    (b) the pattern exists because we observe it
    and
    (c) possible reasons for the pattern exist
    and
    (d) one of the possible reasons is random chance.

    Your assertion of knowledge is a claim that because you have seen a possible cause of the pattern in synthetic data then that is known to be the cause in the real data when other possible explanations also exist.

    This is exactly the same behaviour as the other troll who repeatedly asserts possibilities as being reality.

    Richard

  440. Bart says:

    richardscourtney says:
    November 1, 2012 at 11:34 am

    joeldshore:

    “People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.”

    People using inappropriate tools (like linear trends on data with long term correlations) and assuming statistical models which do not apply in the particular case are even worse at finding patterns where none exist. Because, not only do they find them, but they have unwarranted confidence in their spurious conclusions.

  441. Bart says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    “The original scientific reference where the statistical model is being described, on which the trend calculator is based, is this one:”

    Great. A first order autoregressive model when the PSD indicates nothing of the kind. This is pitiful.

  442. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am

    “First of all, this recovery since the LIA meme is just about as useful as saying “God did it.” You know that any such recovery won’t continue forever. And, in fact, from what we understand about the possible volcanic and solar forcings involved (and the latter is somewhat limited by ambiguities in the record before the satellite era), there is no reason to expect that the natural trend would have been for rising temperatures in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, if anything, there should have been a small negative trend.”

    Truly, that is a tour-de-force of circular reasoning. If you do not know what caused it, then you have no idea how long it should continue. You make a conclusion “from what we understand” when, in fact, you do not understand it, but you use that “understanding” to assert that you know it should not continue this long. Brilliant. F-.

  443. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    It is a fact that we can observe similar patterns in some synthetic data.
    Therefore, it is a fact such patterns in the real data MAY be a result of random chance.
    It is NOT true that when we see such patterns in the real data “we know for a fact that none exist”.

    …Which is surprisingly similar to my statement that “In the synthetic data, we do know for a fact that the patterns found do not actually exist because we know how the data was created. We don’t know that for a fact in the real data…”

    However, I find it ironic that you admit that a perfectly natural explanation exists but that you still want to put so much credence into an alternate explanation. After all, you guys are always claiming that if the current warmth is not unusual in the recent historical context, then there is no reason to invoke the AGW because the “null hypothesis” of natural variability can explain it.

    Now, you turn around and say essentially, “Well, yes, it may be demonstrably true that a (synthetic) series that we know has an underlying linear trend plus random noise behaves in the same way as the actual data, but I want to believe that in this case it is really due to something different.” You guys seem extremely flexible in when you choose to invoke the null hypothesis!

    [And, just to anticipate the argument that I simply do the same thing in the other direction: In the case of AGW, (1) We have evidence that the current warmth is in fact unusual in the recent historical context, although that evidence is based admittedly on imperfect temperature proxies. But, more importantly, (2) We have mechanistic understanding of how the climate system behaves involving basic physics concepts like conservation of energy, so we are not just concluding greenhouse gases are causing warming because we see temperatures rising.]

  444. joeldshore says:

    (snip. As a mod who is fed up with tamino’s ugly comments regarding Anthony Watts and this site, you will understand if I delete your free advertising. Readers can find tamino on their own if they are interested. ~mod)

    He has lots of posts, so how are they supposed to track down the particular two to which I am referring? Can I at least suggest searching on the word “steps” and that they date from January 2012? Geez!

  445. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From joeldshore on November 1, 2012 at 9:59 am:

    First of all, this recovery since the LIA meme is just about as useful as saying “God did it.” You know that any such recovery won’t continue forever.

    Exactly. The Climatic Optimums have been reaching subsequently smaller maximum temperatures. Through Holocene to Minoran to Roman to Medieval, this interglacial has been cooling off. The modern warm period is now about the maximum to be expected from the long-term trends. The cooling may well be started.

    And, in fact, from what we understand about the possible volcanic and solar forcings involved (and the latter is somewhat limited by ambiguities in the record before the satellite era), there is no reason to expect that the natural trend would have been for rising temperatures in the second half of the 20th century. In fact, if anything, there should have been a small negative trend.

    As shown by Willis Eschenbach in multiple posts, the forcing effects of volcanoes are poorly understood. Start here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/volcanic-corroboration/
    He references a paper in press, draft copy found here:
    http://www.uib.no/People/ngfhd/EarthClim/Publications/Papers/Driscoll_etal_2012.pdf
    From the in-press listing:

    Key Points

    * Large volcanic eruptions cause a major dynamical response in the atmosphere
    * CMIP5 models are assessed for their ability to simulate this response
    * No models in the CMIP5 database sufficiently represent this response

    At the end of that post is a list of his previous posts. Volcanoes may cause cooling or warming, going by the temperature records. BEST tried to tie eruptions to cooling episodes, except the cooling they were noting actually occurred before or after the eruption, etc.

    To summarize, volcanoes are noise, with negligible effects more than a few years out, with negligible to no influence on long-term trends. At least in “modern” geological times with relatively limited vulcanism, of course.

    As to solar forcings, the common perception was there has been a modern Grand Maximum, and TSI has had a marked increase since the early 20th century, which would not yield cooling. But if you’ve been following the work of Dr. Leif Svalgaard, you would know that Grand Maximum has gone away, and TSI may have rose slightly at the beginning of the 20th but was pretty much level for the rest of the century, which wouldn’t be yielding cooling.

    We are due for cooling, but I do not see how cooling of the second half of the 20th century would have followed from the volcanic and solar forcings.

    Second of all, I don’t understand your logic here: So, you’ve divided things up into gently rising “steps” and then jumps…but you can’t just then ignore the jumps as if they don’t exist: They are part of the long term trend.

    Exactly. We see an apparent charge and discharge/hold pattern, summing to a rising trend. We have entered discharge/hold.

    And, this division of the data into gentle steps and jumps is really most likely just seeing patterns in noise. (…) People have poor intuition with noisy data and it is easy to get them to find patterns of that sort where we know for a fact that none exist.

    But there are known patterns like the PDO that do match the temperature record, thus we know there are patterns in there.

    From joeldshore on November 1, 2012 at 10:49 am:

    richard: In the synthetic data, we do know for a fact that the patterns found do not actually exist because we know how the data was created.

    That data is created on a computer, and as many common “random” number generators will repeat when starting with the same seed, and with simple biases like the method of rounding numbers and the specific programming of math routines, patterns may be generated that do exist. To simply say they cannot possibly be in there without verification is embracing ignorance.

  446. joeldshore says:

    Gunga Din says:

    Did the Medivial Warm Period happen or not?

    I’ve already given my opinion on this up-thread, which in a nutshell is this: Nobody that I know of is really disputing whether the MWP happened…That is a “red herring”. There is general agreement that lots of temperature proxies from different locations show a warm period sometime during the period from 900 AD to 1400 AD and even that this warmth is, in some places, as pronounced as the modern warmth. The issue, however, is that the exact period of warmth seems to vary from one location to the next, that is, they are not synchronous: some show warmth right around 1000 AD, some around 1200 AD and so forth. As a result of this, when a global or hemispheric temperature reconstruction is performed, this lack of synchronicity leads to a broad, diffuse warm bump that is not as pronounced as the current warming when the warming is happening with greater synchronicity from place to the next.

  447. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “…lack of synchronicity leads to a broad, diffuse warm bump that is not as pronounced as the current warming when the warming is happening with greater synchronicity from place to the next.”

    Wrong. Exactly the same thing is happening in the modern [naturally] warm period:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013486e5c5e6970c-pi

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GT14.jpg

    There were also several episodes of even warmer temperatures throughout the Holocene. But joelshore ignores those, because they deconstruct his alarmist narrative.

    Nothing happening now is unprecedented or unusual. It is normal and natural. It has all happened repeatedly before, and the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.

  448. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    November 1, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    He’s doing you a favor, Joel. Every time you reference that hack, your credibility declines here.

  449. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    At November 1, 2012 at 12:30 pm you say to me

    However, I find it ironic that you admit that a perfectly natural explanation exists but that you still want to put so much credence into an alternate explanation.

    As usual, you completely miss the point.

    Nobody claims the long term global temperature trend is a purely random effect.
    It is mostly recovery from the LIA. And we do not know the cause(s) and/or mechanism(s) which created the LIA or recovery from it.

    We observe recovery from the LIA.
    We also observe various cycles some of which we can describe but do not understand (e.g. PDO, ENSO, AMO, etc.) imposed on that recovery.
    We observe a fluctuation in the temperature time series of recovery from the LIA.
    Is that fluctuation an indication of one of the cycles? Probably.
    Is that fluctuation a random effect? Possibly.
    Is that fluctuation a result of AGW? No, it is in the wrong direction.
    Indeed, that fluctuation indicates that AGW is insignificant as a contribution to the fluctuations in recovery from the LIA.

    It is NOT science to adopt a chosen one among all possibilities then to ignore the other possibilities. Indeed, that is the error of warmunists: scientists don’t do it.

    Richard

  450. Gunga Din says:

    “Mann’s hockey stick disappears – and CRU’s Briffa helps make the MWP live again by pointing out bias in the data”

    joeldshore says:
    November 1, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    Gunga Din says:

    Did the Medivial Warm Period happen or not?

    I’ve already given my opinion on this up-thread, which in a nutshell is this: Nobody that I know of is really disputing whether the MWP happened…That is a “red herring”.
    ===========================================================
    So even Mann admits his Hockey Stick has disappeared? Does he now also admit to the Little Ice Age?
    Does he admit he lost the Hockey Stick War?
    (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just don’t know him.)

  451. joeldshore says:

    Gunga Din:

    So even Mann admits his Hockey Stick has disappeared?

    No.

    Does he now also admit to the Little Ice Age?

    You’ve really bought into a lot of myths that are circulating around here. The people who have told you that Mann says there was no MWP or LIA are creating a “strawman” that they can then proceed to knock down. Here is what Mann et al. said in their 1999 paper (which was the first of their work to reconstruct back 1000 years, i.e., far enough to get to the MWP):

    Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in themillennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age sensu lato.

    ( http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf )

    Before you can criticize something intelligently, you have to understand it. However, if, for ideological reasons, you want to tear it down by using false arguments against it, the first thing that you have to do is mischaracterize. This helps explain why you have apparently been told a lot of falsehoods about exactly what it is that Mann et al. say.

  452. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    Wrong. Exactly the same thing is happening in the modern [naturally] warm period:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013486e5c5e6970c-pi

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GT14.jpg

    As usual, the only links you provide are to pictures created by ideologues who have an agenda…And, you don’t even provide enough information so that one can even research how the data was created! Hence, you are only illustrating the fact that you are a “fake skeptic” who will believe anything that they see if it supports their point of view.

    In terms of specifics: The first link may have been created using data that was not corrected for known biases such as time-of-measurment bias. The second link is completely irrelevant as it is looking at trends over small regions over short timescales, so the noise is going to be huge.

    At any rate, the current warming has certainly not been completely uniform but it has been much more synchronous than the warm periods experienced seen in proxies from different places during the loosely-defined “Medieval warm period” that spans about 500 years!

    There were also several episodes of even warmer temperatures throughout the Holocene. But joelshore ignores those, because they deconstruct his alarmist narrative.

    So, are you going to provide us with the first hemispherical or global temperature reconstruction going back more than 2000 years? That would certainly be impressive! (Also, as one goes back further in the Holocene, there are known reasons why, for example, summers would be warmer at high Northern latitudes due to the Milankovitch oscillations, so your point becomes increasingly irrelevant. Yes, there are other forcings that can produce increases in temperature on such timescales.)

  453. joeldshore says:

    richardscourtney says:

    It is NOT science to adopt a chosen one among all possibilities then to ignore the other possibilities.

    That is exactly what science is. It allows us to choose among the infinite explanatory possibilities on the basis of sound scientific exploration.

    And, it is the method of those on the losing side of the scientific debate (particularly when the debate involves strongly-held ideological positions) to claim that the scientists have colluded against their point-of-view and unfairly excluded it. The same arguments are made by all those fighting against science, whether they be those who fight against the theory of evolution or what have you.

  454. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “…it is the method of those on the losing side of the scientific debate (particularly when the debate involves strongly-held ideological positions) to claim that the scientists have colluded against their point-of-view and unfairly excluded it.”

    As the resident expert on losing the debate, and the most ideological commenter here by far, I should remind joelshore that the only reason alarmist scientists are colluding to exclude skeptics [and they certainly are, as shown in the Climategate emails], is due to the immense amounts of taxpayer loot handed out. They know if they enter into real debates they will lose, and thus their gravy train will be derailed.

    The fact that the alarmist side refuses to engage in open and fair debate also shows that they do not have the courage of their convictions. They are simply running a scam on the public, and joelshore is their enabler. If joelshore doesn’t see that, it is because he is blinded by his anti-science ideology. Science is about openness and transparency — qualities that are anathema to shore and his ilk.

    And as usual, joelshore finds fault with every chart I have ever posted. They are all wrong, every one of them… according to joelshore. What are the odds, eh? Out of more than a thousand charts I’ve posted, from hundreds of different sources, joelshore cannot bring himself to agree with a single one of them. That’s ideology for you. And that is why those on joelshore’s side are losing the debate.

  455. richardscourtney says:

    joeldshore:

    At November 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm you write

    richardscourtney says:

    It is NOT science to adopt a chosen one among all possibilities then to ignore the other possibilities.

    That is exactly what science is. It allows us to choose among the infinite explanatory possibilities on the basis of sound scientific exploration.

    Thus you condemn yourself by your own words as being a pseudoscientist.

    Science
    consists of seeking the closest approximation to ‘truth’ by attempting to find evidence which refutes an existing understanding and amending the understanding in the light of the evidence.

    Pseudoscience
    consists of adopting an understanding as ‘truth’ and attempting to find evidence which supports it while ignoring information which refutes it.

    Hence,
    science NEVER ignores any possibility
    while
    pseudoscience adopts one possibility and ignores others.

    Richard

    PS I will not be able to answer any reply because in a few hours I am to leave for one of my regular absences for one to two weeks. Sorry.

  456. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Joel, sensu lato means “in a broad sense”. Thus the statement is actually ‘…while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age in a broad sense.’

    This is practically legalistic language, used when a possibility cannot be explicitly rejected but the remoteness of the possibility is being noted. Like if a lawyer said in court “Yes, my client’s blowing of his nose could be viewed as the initial cause of the traffic accident in a broad sense…”

    Meanwhile we can look at the hockey stick graph from Mann 1999:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/mann2.jpg
    Found here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci1000.html

    After 1400 is a little dip around 1450. Temperatures recover to basically a flat line from 1500 onward, until the “unprecedented” 20th century warming.

    Where is the LIA? There are small variations of tenths of a degree at most, usually hundredths, essentially a straight line from beginning until the “unprecedented” warming. What “could be viewed” sensu lato as the LIA is a small brief dip.

    We know what we see. That we understand. And we know what that statement really said.

  457. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    November 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    “That is exactly what science is.”

    No, that is exactly what primitive superstition is. That is the sort of rush to judgment which resulted in leeches, burning “witches” at the stake, and ritual human sacrifice. You are advocating a return to the Dark Ages.

    In Science, you need to have both a mechanism, and data which confirm the mechanism. Right now, you have a mechanism, and you have data, but the data do not confirm the mechanism. Failing to dis-confirm it is not enough.

    It is not enough that you have a possibility. There are all kinds of possibilities for dire things to happen. We can’t live our lives in fear, especially when the proffered cure is worse than the disease.

  458. D Böehm says:

    kadaka says:

    “Where is the LIA?”

    Exactly. The LIA was the second coldest event of the Holocene. Mann tried to erase most of it, just like he tried to erase most of the MWP. He did that by excluding a large data set from his proxy ["censored"]. The Mann is simply dishonest.

  459. Bart says:

    Bart says:
    November 1, 2012 at 11:56 am

    I was going to mention with regard to the above post, using such a statistical model to determine significance is akin using a herring to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest. It’s the wrong tool, and it’s not going to do the job.

    This is really what aggravates me the most about the whole debate – that those who are quickest to claim that they have “science” on their side typically have no actual idea about what they are doing or why. It isn’t science. It is a mockery of science. It is cargo cult science.

  460. D Böehm says:

    Most of the time the planet is in an ice house phase. In this chart we see the short interstadials, which are most beneficial to the biosphere. We are currently in a warm period, but as you can see it is not as warm as past interstadials.

    We could use a couple more degrees of global warming. But according to the alarmist crowd, every change is bad.

  461. stefanthedenier says:

    D Böehm says: “Where is the LIA?” Exactly. The LIA was the second coldest event of the Holocene. Mann tried to erase most of it, just like he tried to erase most of the MWP.’

    I never thought that I will be defending Mann – but I have to; so hopefully you can see how ignorant the Fake Skeptics are: LIA was colder in Europe, North America – at that same time – S/H had much ”HOTTER” days = LAWS OF PHYSICS say so; Your pagan believes are giving oxygen to Mann. Hansen. b] during the MWP was ”MILDER” climate in Europe / North Africa, Middle East, NOT GLOBAL warming! It was milder, because Sahara still had some vegetation / lakes with permanent water -> it was producing LESS dry heat – less dry heat, was destroying LESS humidity created in the Mediterranean = humid = milder, not hotter. Milder means: cooler days / warmer nights.

    You are using IGNORANT lies, accumulated for the previous 150y, by swindlers, Mann WAS one of them; he knows the reliability of the ”pagan beliefs” + he knows that he is smarter liars, than the Fakes like you – therefore, he can entertain and change any lie; having bigots for opponents like you. Apart of me, nobody takes in consideration: what human did to the climate, by inventing ARTIFICIAL CREATION of fire. Man erasing LIA + MWP, was the only honest thing that he ever did. Which proves that: people like you are bigger prolific liars, with a smaller common sense. You have to get read of the pagan beliefs, if you want Warmist to take you seriously. Warmings / coolings are NEVER GLOBAL – universe is NOT spinning around the earth. ,

  462. D Böehm says:

    stefan,

    What’s with all the flaming hatred?? I doubt you have many friends.

    Note that MBH98/99 proxies were in Siberia, not in the Southern Hemisphere. Sheesh, you go off the deep end over things you don’t even understand. Chill out.

  463. stefanthedenier says:

    richardscourtney says: ” And we do not know the cause(s) and/or mechanism(s) which created the LIA or recovery from it”

    Yes, we do! Your pagan beliefs don’t permit you to know. LIA wasn’t GLOBAL cooling; but colder in Europe, north America – because Arctic ocean had less ice cover -> was releasing more heat / was accumulating -> radiating + spreading more coldness – currents were taking that extra coldness to Mexican gulf – then to the Mediterranean – because Sahara was increasing creation of dry heat and evaporating extra water in the Mediterranean – to top up the deficit – gulf stream was faster / that was melting more ice on arctic also as chain reaction – Because Mediterranean doesn’t have enough tributaries, to compensate for the evaporation deficit.

    Then ”working people dug Suez Canal – some water started coming into Mediterranean from red sea – small, but accumulative effect!!! Human can change the climate, but cannot produce GLOBAL warming! The moon is spinning around the earth, but the universe is not!!! Bigots like you, that use outdated pagan beliefs are giving oxygen to Mann, Hansen, For every change, there is a real reason and there is the outdated pagan crap – apart from me, nobody takes in consideration what human invention of artificial fire did to ”LOCALIZED climates” instead, is used as phony GLOBAL warmings / coolings, shame shame Richard & Co:: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/midi-ice-age-can-be-avoided/

    [Dial back the name calling. — mod.]

  464. stefanthedenier says:

    D Böehm says: ”stefan, Note that MBH98/99 proxies were in Siberia, not in the Southern Hemisphere.

    Mate, ”proxy” is accumulation of the biggest crap ever!!! They were more cherry-picking, by shonky climatologist; than now – because was no scrutiny.

    2] in Siberia they still find woolly mammoth flash that is good enough the dogs to eat it – if there was any phony GLOBAL warming for few weeks, for real ; wouldn’t be the case. If you can comprehend the damages you guys are doing to the truth; by your GLOBAL temp going up and down as a yo-yo -> you wouldn’t be going outside without brown paper bag over your heads! reason you are scared to read my posts.

  465. D Böehm says:

    stefan says:

    “reason you are scared to read my posts.”

    I am not scared to read your posts, as you can see. I look at them with the same fascination I would have looking at a train wreck.

  466. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    joeldshore says:
    October 30, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Bart says:

    ” The human brain is an amazing pattern recognition device which can generally, sometimes with the aid of some basic filtering/smoothing, cut through the clutter and identify what is truly happening.”

    …The problem in this case is that the human brain is too good a pattern recognition device. It often sees patterns in random data when the patterns aren’t really there. ‘

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    What the man who thinks there’s no way mankind can check for elevating infrared spectra in the atmosphere described for us is called Anthropogenic Climate Change.

  467. What Did I Tell You!? says:

    Claim to see warmth when entire countries meteorological organizations are saying, “that’s not the data we sent those government employees, ours is posted raw, online.”

  468. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    I’m starting to think certain “skeptics” are dispatched to reinforce the “crazy denier” meme whenever real skeptics are talking calm and logically and decisively making their points. Gotta prove those angry anti-science raving loonies are the real “normal” on those skeptic sites, eh?

    [it's a fine line, sometimes, between ignorance and false flag postings but we do try to make the distinction . . mod]

  469. joeldshore says:

    kadaka says:

    That data is created on a computer, and as many common “random” number generators will repeat when starting with the same seed, and with simple biases like the method of rounding numbers and the specific programming of math routines, patterns may be generated that do exist. To simply say they cannot possibly be in there without verification is embracing ignorance.

    Give me a break! You will go to any lengths to deny things that are inconvenient. We are in the 21st century…Pseudorandom number generators have gotten pretty damn good! And, a lot of people have seen basically the same sort of things in a lot of different contexts using a lot of different random number generators. I imagine there has probably even been some theoretical analysis on this sort of stuff too.

    Joel, sensu lato means “in a broad sense”. Thus the statement is actually ‘…while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age in a broad sense.’

    This is practically legalistic language, used when a possibility cannot be explicitly rejected but the remoteness of the possibility is being noted. Like if a lawyer said in court “Yes, my client’s blowing of his nose could be viewed as the initial cause of the traffic accident in a broad sense…”

    You are spinning your own interpretation on it.

    Where is the LIA? There are small variations of tenths of a degree at most, usually hundredths, essentially a straight line from beginning until the “unprecedented” warming. What “could be viewed” sensu lato as the LIA is a small brief dip.

    As I have explained, the point of Mann’s work was that when you average things together from around the hemisphere, the lack of synchronicity in the MWP (and presumably the LIA too) leads to a broad diffuse MWP and a broad and diffuse LIA. They don’t disappear altogether.

    Hence, just collecting a bunch of graphs from different places that show some warmth somewhere between 900 and 1400 AD (as CO2science has done) and/or some coolness somewhere between ~1400 AD and 1850 AD does not demonstrate that Mann is wrong. Some other reconstructions since Mann’s 1999 work have found a more distinct and cooler LIA…although not generally a warmer MWP…and hence a somewhat bumpier “blade” than that of Mann et al.

  470. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    And as usual, joelshore finds fault with every chart I have ever posted. They are all wrong, every one of them… according to joelshore. What are the odds, eh?

    When you never go to scientific sources but to sources with zero scientific credibility who have passed your ideological screening test…and furthermore, when you never give anything more than the chart itself without any of the accompanying explanation…then the odds are very good that what you have posted is completely useless to the discussion. A real skeptic would understand this; a fake skeptic like yourself can’t even conceive of questioning a source that shows you what you want to believe.

  471. joeldshore says:

    I should add something to my last post to kadaka, which is just to mention that I myself have some personal experience with simulating random systems where people see patterns in the noise: At Kodak, as part of modeling an experimental system, I did some simulations of random arrays of red, green, and blue discs in the plane. Even when the discs were in completely random configurations, it looked to most observers (including myself) that there was some clumping of the colors going on (i.e., preference for discs of the same color to clump together). If you put on a repulsive force so that two discs of the same color did not want to be close together, then you’d see results that were more like what you intuitively expected random to be, even though these were now definitely not completely random. It was an interesting illusion.

  472. D Böehm says:

    joelshore says:

    “When you never go to scientific sources but to sources with zero scientific credibility who have passed your ideological screening test…and furthermore, when you never give anything more than the chart itself without any of the accompanying explanation…then the odds are very good that what you have posted is completely useless to the discussion.”

    Wrong again. This is getting to be a habit with you. I’ve already thoroughly debunked your synchronicity nonsense, so no need to repeat. But you are flat wrong that the charts I post have “zero scientific credibility”. You only say that because they refute your alarmist sales pitch. Explain how that is “never” going to credible sources. Take your time.

    The fact is that most of the charts I post are either from peer reviewed publications, or plotted from data taken from peer reviewed publications or verifiable empirical observations, or they are from government sources. So you can admit you way overstepped on your provably false statement, or you can be a whiny chump.

    And quit being a jerk and putting quotation marks around the word skeptic. A skeptic questions, and we are questioning your evidence-free beliefs. Thus, we are true scientific skeptics. You should try it some time.

  473. Bart says:

    joeldshore says:
    November 2, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Must I repeat myself?

    People using inappropriate tools (like linear trends on data with long term correlations) and assuming statistical models which do not apply in the particular case are even worse at finding patterns where none exist. Because, not only do they find them, but they have unwarranted confidence in their spurious conclusions.

    The claims for statistical significance of the slope from 1975 to 1997 are bunkum. The data are long term, cyclically correlated, and the tests for significance by the claimants have not been scientifically rigorous.

  474. joeldshore says:

    D Boehm says:

    The fact is that most of the charts I post are either from peer reviewed publications, or plotted from data taken from peer reviewed publications or verifiable empirical observations, or they are from government sources.

    Your graphs are from extremely biased individuals who cherry-pick data. Yes, the data itself might be from a reasonable source but it is carefully selected and it is almost never explained. In fact, I often have to explain the data since I almost always seem to know more about the details of it than you do.

    And, of course the two graphs you posted here are both examples of that. One is from ICECAP and the other is from some unknown source but the caption below it says in part: “This is entirely inconsistent with the AGW CO2 hypothesis.” Do you think this is the sort of caption typical of peer-reviewed paper? (You may not know any better since I doubt you’ve read many of those.)

    And quit being a jerk and putting quotation marks around the word skeptic. A skeptic questions, and we are questioning your evidence-free beliefs. Thus, we are true scientific skeptics. You should try it some time.

    No…It is not being skeptical to not accept any evidence that disagrees with your ideological worldview and to accept anything that does no matter how ridiculous. You aren’t anything close to a skeptic. That you consider yourself one is no less ridiculous than Joseph Stalin considering himself a humanitarian.

  475. D Böehm says:

    Joel Shore says:

    “”When you never go to scientific sources but to sources with zero scientific credibility who have passed your ideological screening test…”

    “Never”?? Once again the coprophagic joel shore falsely asserts that none of the 1,000+ charts I have posted are valid. Could Joel Shore have any less credibility? Shore is not a real scientist. He is Michael Mann’s lickspittle.

  476. Gunga Din says:

    joeldshore says:
    November 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm
    To me, Gunga Din:
    Before you can criticize something intelligently, you have to understand it. However, if, for ideological reasons, you want to tear it down by using false arguments against it, the first thing that you have to do is mischaracterize. This helps explain why you have apparently been told a lot of falsehoods about exactly what it is that Mann et al. say.
    ===========================================================

    I know that there are a lot of things I don’t understand. Ignorance of one thing or another is universal and universally shared, whether some will admit to being a part of that “universe” or not.
    I had noticed the talk of “Global Warming” sometime ago. When Al Gore entered the scene, it got my attention.(BTW, I assume that Australia and New Zealand no longer have a problem with wild rabbits since the Ozone Hole has made them all blind. Tough to find a mate when you can’t see them.) What I did back in 2007 was copy the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe into Excel. I found out that over 60+% of the record highs were set before 1950 and over 60+% of the record lows were set after 1950. Inconvient.
    I did it again in 2009 and April of 2012. Similar results even though some of the old records had been “adjusted”. I know that my little spot on the globe isn’t the whole globe. But why didn’t “Global Warming” didn’t show up here if it really is “global”? Or are more “adjustments” needed?
    You don’t have to be an intellectual to recognize sh*t from shinola.

Comments are closed.