Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey...try this site for more information on the hockey stick graph and also some supplemtary proxy facts that tend to question it...The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science From this treatise... But by all means read on there are a lot of interesting facts which will no doubt suprise you?

Conclusion by the American National Academy of Science that was asked by the US Congress to assess the temperature reconstructions. Here is what they said

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Source
The NAS of America is one of the most respected scientific institutions in the world, if not the THE most definitive currently. Do you have any supportable reason to doubt their conclusion?
Quite simply, I'm sick of your lies and sick of your denial. I think it's time you grew some back bone and face the facts.

[xyzer]

I wish I had the resources for a long debate on the subject. Unfortunately space and time wont permit it Pooey.

The conclusions in your referenced study(Summary) reveal this.(From the Summary)."Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.(1999)that the 90s are likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in at least a millenium because of the uncertainties in temperature reconstruction...."

The Hockey Stick Graph is a product of Manns ressearch and hypothesis? If NAS scientists dont place any faith in it, how does that validate the graph?

Another quote from the summary of your reference...

Manns reconstruction.."attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any time during the past millenium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change"

As I have mentioned these alarming conclusions, emphasized by the hockey stick effect started a series of examinations of past temps and climate by using all sorts of proxy data (which NAS and you mention) in efforts to determine whether the revealed Northern Hemispher warming was global?

Even though NAS admits uncertainty in the use of proxy data,(proxy temperatures are not precisely dated) the movement has been one of correlation of proxy data (mentioned as relatively unreliable and spotty by NAS) used as causation for climate change. The NAS paper even limits any appreciable certainty in temperature proxies to the last 400 years. And almost rejects any accuracy to proxies older that 900 years. Yet the zealots keep on manufacturing more alarmist nonsense!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I wish I had the resources for a long debate on the subject. Unfortunately space and time wont permit it Pooey. The conclusions in your referenced study(Summary) reveal this.(From the Summary)."Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al.(1999)that the 90s are likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in at least a millenium because of the uncertainties in temperature reconstruction...."

Yes, that's correct but do you know what the word confidence means in science?
Of course, if we take those above words on their own, it may seem like they're pretty damning but if you look at the entire quote

"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

Which is fine because we're going talking about a graph stretching over a thousand years and the 1990s represent less than 0.1% of the length of the graph. Furthermore, they have not rejected the graph as flawed but merely pointed out about the uncertainties.

Quote by: xyzer The Hockey Stick Graph is a product of Manns ressearch and hypothesis? If NAS scientists dont place any faith in it, how does that validate the graph?

I'm sorry, what has faith got to do with scientific validity?

Quote by: xyzer Another quote from the summary of your reference... Manns reconstruction.."attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any time during the past millenium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change"

But did you read this part

"Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."

Now why would the NAS say something like that? They must be part of the conspiracy!

Quote by: xyzer As I have mentioned these alarming conclusions, emphasized by the hockey stick effect started a series of examinations of past temps and climate by using all sorts of proxy data (which NAS and you mention) in efforts to determine whether the revealed Northern Hemispher warming was global?

Do you have an alternate method of reconstructing past temperatures? Please do share with us and the scientific community, don't be shy!

Quote by: xyzer Even though NAS admits uncertainty in the use of proxy data,(proxy temperatures are not precisely dated) the movement has been one of correlation of proxy data (mentioned as relatively unreliable and spotty by NAS) used as causation for climate change.

There is uncertainty in all science. The question is, how large is that uncertainty and is it statistically significant enough to void it. So stop playing around with words.

Quote by: xyzer The NAS paper even limits any appreciable certainty in temperature proxies to the last 400 years. And almost rejects any accuracy to proxies older that 900 years. Yet the zealots keep on manufacturing more alarmist nonsense!

So now you speak on their behalf? It says and I quote

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900, primarily because of the scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence.

Which means we don't have the best resolved picture for that time period. This is completely consistent with the fact that the further you look back in time, the harder it is to reconstruct the past.

Now, you keep mentioning that the graph was flawed, so where is that evidence? And how would you go about reconstructing the past millenia's temperature with greater degree of confidence than these climatologists? I'm dying to find out.

[xyzer]

Hey Pooey, here is another aspect of "forcing" which may be of interest to you?Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just another aspect to the puzzle of global climate influences. What interests me about this whole matter is the plethora of approaches (and their ancillary effects)demonstrated by these studies. One theory even though it sounds plausible will be undermined by a new one. I conclude that we still just don't know how long this interglacial period will last?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Hey Pooey, here is another aspect of "forcing" which may be of interest to you?Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just another aspect to the puzzle of global climate influences. What interests me about this whole matter is the plethora of approaches (and their ancillary effects)demonstrated by these studies. One theory even though it sounds plausible will be undermined by a new one. I conclude that we still just don't know how long this interglacial period will last?

Obviously, the models still have much work to do but my question is, does it explain the temperature rise that we've seen over the 20th century that still continues today?