@TMTisFree

Quote:

I see that your manner is at the level of your scientific understanding, pathetically low. I guess the latter complements correctly the former.

I just wanted to point out something about the units. If the result of something ends up with the wrong unit for the physical measure in question, either there was a mistake in the calculation or the algebra itself. If the calculations on that paper *indeed* end up with the wrong unit, then they are incorrect and Umisef is right. If however Umisef's algebra was incorrect then you are correct. It'd be worth having a third party redo the calculations.

_________________

Oh, and one thing, as a moderator this time: While I find the thread interesting, if you want to continue it drop the personal attacks. ALL of you.

Last edited by Zardoz on 08-Apr-2009 at 03:38 PM.

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

I went back and searched for 700 through this thread and did not find a link to the 700 articles from you. Please provide me the post # in this thread and I'll gladly jump back there.

Very strange because you don't know these papers but found that "many of these reconstructions [they] appear to not have error bars around their calculations" some 100 posts ago in this very thread in reply to my initial post linking to the ~700 papers demonstrating MWP. Now you claim you went back and find nothing? In the next post I gave once again many links. Don't you remember you are the one complaining about Idso funded by Big Oil? Very recently, 3 pages ago in this post, I linked again to the MWP project page (to our beloved but drunk drosophila which falls once more randomly in the thread and crashed badly, as usual). You are neither truthful nor trustful.

Quote:

It's fair to fault me agreeing with the scientific consensus on Global Warming

I really don't care you agree with the AGW ecoterrorism doctrine, believe in ID or think that your shower drains differently in the northern or southern hemisphere. What is interesting is pointing out why all 3 are wrong.

Quote:

Heck I even agree there is evidence for the MWP.

You initially disagree based on Mann's papers, then rejected the ~700 papers for spurious reasons, then trivially pretended, when I presented Dr Trouet's paper with Mann self debunking, that Science advances, then tried to save the face (I pointed here), then operated the failed Wikipedia tentative, then tried a miserable I-need-some-guidance to end with "I went back and searched for 700 through this thread and did not find a link to the 700 articles". You are not serious.

Quote:

I asked the science to be tightened up so we can understand better exactly what the years are, what the duration is, and how this is a world wide phenomena.

Sure, everyone wants the Science to be precise and fast available; that is why the current devious paradigm in climate science is modelling: fast, precise but non provable. But who cares about proofs when one can obtain the result one wants?

Quote:

They demonstrate the world wide phenomena appears at different times.

So MWP phenomenon is worldwide now? You are changing your mind faster than a weather vane.

Quote:

Many of these times overlap. Often the times have different durations.

They all agree reasonably well between 800 and 1300 given their respective incertitudes. You do not expect a 10 years duration between 995-1005, precisely, no?

Quote:

The link there for Antartica is to the core sample that shows the significant cooling dip at 1000AD in the middle of the MWP. If it's a global warm period why do we see a significant drop in one part of the globe?

Antartica Peninsula exhibits the MWP and LIA. Coastal Antartica at Law Dome also shows a warming in the MWP and before:

Quote:

The late Holocene records clearly identify Neoglacial events of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear in the MS record, suggesting intrinsically unstable climatic conditions during the late Holocene in the Bransfield Basin of Antarctic Peninsula:

Other interior location does not show any trend (past or current) in the whole record:

It has been suggested (by Fisher) that there might be less variability at some of the coldest, most remote sites (also in Greenland). It has also be suggested that Greenland and Antartica ice accumulations are always out of phase (controlled by different amounts of local summer insolation paced by precession. Model-based, so to take with care. Raymo 2006).
Let see now how Wikipedia really treats the problem (instead of your misquote): Quote:

The core shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000–1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term[citation needed], and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.

So there is a claim not supported by any citation followed by a triviality that there exists cold and warm periods: an impressive unscientific claim.

Overall, it has to be noticed that, contrary to what you tend to imply with your/this unproven quote, the whole Wikipedia article perfectly demonstrates the worldwide occurence of MWP and LIA (until an alarmist edits it to better reflect the AGW dogma).

Quote:

Hiding your insults by reguritating the cleverness of others is a false sense of security.

Do you mean that I have to worry about an imminent US attacks with nuclear weapons or something because of massive-insulting-claims no one has even found?

Edit: forgot some words in ()

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-Apr-2009 at 06:44 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Zardoz

Quote:

I just wanted to point out something about the units. If the result of something ends up with the wrong unit for the physical measure in question, either there was a mistake in the calculation or the algebra itself. If the calculations on that paper *indeed* end up with the wrong unit, then they are incorrect and Umisef is right. If however Umisef's algebra was incorrect then you are correct. It'd be worth having a third party redo the calculations.

The ms unit is correct because it is expressed per unit of frequency interval, which is equivalent to expressed it in m; but in this unit you lose the radiation field information.

Quote:

Oh, and one thing, as a moderator this time: While I find the thread interesting, if you want to continue it drop the personal attacks. ALL of you.

Sure. But trying to called me name somewhat not so very 'cleverly' than the previous one is not acceptable either.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-Apr-2009 at 07:02 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Thread

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised in the United States by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

(From the wikipedia)


And in other news;


"Last month over 2,000 climate experts convened in Copenhagen with a common cause — to provide a scientific update to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 assessment on global warming. They also shared a common concern that despite the gathering pace of climate change, their message is simply failing to permeate through to policymakers and the public." Link (2 April 2009)

"Instrumental temperature record" Link

"Arctic ice shows winter thinning" Link (7 April 2009)

"Satellites Show Arctic Literally On Thin Ice" Link (Apr 08, 2009)

"Satellite Snow Maps Help Reindeer Herders Adapt To A Changing Arctic" Link (Apr 04, 2009)

"Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic" Link (5 April 2009)

"North American tree deaths accelerate" Link (22 January 2009)

"Radar image reveals damage to ice shelf." Link (7 April 2009)

"Climate Change To Spur Rapid Shifts In Wildfire Hotspots, Analysis Finds" Link (Apr. 8, 2009)

"Fragility Of World's Coral Is Revealed Through Study Of Northwestern Hawaiian Islands" Link (Apr. 8, 2009)

(I tried to provide a variety of sources, Some from mass news media, some from wikipedia, some from science journals. I didn't go for headlines, rather I went for substance within the articles. In one case I didn't use the more sensational headline but instead used the tagline as it had more relevance to the subject within the article
Edit: I've since snipped the article since it was an identical story to one already better reported in a science journal)

Edit 3: I began my post with that quote because people seem to be more wrapped up in fine statisical details than trying to argue their origional points. I know I'm no expert at sticking to a single subject and go off on whild tangents (I'm doing it now), but I felt things have become a bit too personal and narrowminded given the enormity of the subject. This applies to all sides equally.

Edit 4: Added dates to links to show how current the information is.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 08-Apr-2009 at 08:25 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 08-Apr-2009 at 05:09 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 08-Apr-2009 at 05:02 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 08-Apr-2009 at 05:00 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@Interesting

Quote:

thx but what I'm looking for is a seismic map to tell me the number of seismic "events" is growing based on info today vs years ago.

Google Earth had (I've not used it in a while) the ability to show global seismic activity on a yearly basis. I don't recall if it was a plug-in or part of the googlemaps program itself. You could play them in sequence forwards and backwards which was very interesting as you could see the shift in stress move around the whole plate.

It went back quite far into the past, though I couldn't tell you if it extended into the distant past or not. It was mostly based on modern seismic data stations which updated in realtime, but I recall the Krakatoa eruption in 1883 was there and I'm fairly certian they didn't have realtime digital reporting stations wire to google back then.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I already quoted it in this thread and the first one, I think. But thanks to pile on.

Quote:

"Last month over 2,000 climate experts convened in Copenhagen with a common cause — to provide a scientific update to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 assessment on global warming. They also shared a common concern that despite the gathering pace of climate change, their message is simply failing to permeate through to policymakers and the public."

We are still waiting for the scientific output of this political conference debunked by Pr Mike Hulme (environmental science, University of East Anglia) who attended the conference.

Quote:

"Instrumental...bla bla bla

Thanks again, but there are discussions of that redundant 'climate changes' locution ad nauseam since about 1000 posts now, so you fall here a little late. Check the 3 threads and you will get a current state of discussion about the Science together with a debunking of most of your links.

Quote:

I'm no expert at sticking to a single subject and go off on whild tangents (I'm doing it now)

Why throwing all that links when only thing to show is that increasing CO² is the causative effect of a very small increase of temperature in the 90'? All the rest depends upon this currently absent proof and is thus marginally interesting (but some like to discuss it to death to avoid the impossible demonstration underlined above). Good luck.

Quote:

This applies to all sides equally.

Welcome in then!

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Check the 3 threads and you will get a current state of discussion about the Science together with a debunking of most of your links.

Woah, hold on there horsie. Most of these links are only a few days old (And contain data that has only just come into the public domain) and your use of the word "debunking" is highly misleading.

debunk
"To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of"

How exactly does one debunk a radar or satellite image or historical data concerning the instrumental temperature record which dates back to 1659 which do not provide opinion or make claim? There are just sources of data. You could try to debunk a conclusion reached by an interpretation of that data, but not the data itself.

You could have made the claim that some of the information is disputed, but debunked? Did you actually visit any of the links I provided or did you base your claims on the titles alone? If so, shame on you. I went out of my way to provide as broad a range of samples which would have been useful to persons from both sides of the argument.

I provided the mass media view, the scientific view and raw data.

If thats the standard of debate on this thread, then I realise my mistake in returning. I bid you good day and now realise why these threads have become less about science and more about personality. No wonder its reached 3 threads with no forward movement. I'm off back to the religious threads, there is far more tolerance and open minds there!


Edit: I've added the dates to the links.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 08-Apr-2009 at 08:34 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 08-Apr-2009 at 08:25 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Most of these links are only a few days old (And contain data that has only just come into the public domain) and your use of the word "debunking" is highly misleading.

Sorry for the clearly exaggerated 'debunk' word.

Quote:

How exactly does one debunk a radar or satellite image or historical data concerning the instrumental temperature record which dates back to 1659 which do not provide opinion or make claim?

It is really easy. Apply some sort of homogenization algorithm to the cooling raw data for them to fit better, check for biases but invert the correction, invent or pervert a statistical method that gives the results you want, etc. There are plenty of methods. Heh, this is climate science where political achievement is more important that scientific integrity.

Quote:

Did you actually visit any of the links I provided

Yes. I don't visit the I-edited-this-article-myself-Wikipedia for obvious reasons (except when BrianK wants to be corrected). The ice thinning is all over the web right now (AGW believers have to find another hype/scare since ice extend is normal). The tree deaths, while interesting, are not really related to AGW, aren't they?. Isn't it summer time in Antartica? The reefs and fires studies are interesting for predictive ecology (modelling) but somewhat irrelevant to AGW ("threats like marine debris, pollution from shipping, climate change effects and alien species", "climate change will increase the risk of conditions conducive to such devastating wildfires").

Quote:

I provided the mass media view, the scientific view and raw data.

Mass media are usually partisan and distort scientific result to their own agenda, so you can skip them safely. Raw data? Where? Just keep the scientific papers because there are some in this thread who only want the real, hard data (a plot is misleading).

Quote:

there is far more tolerance and open minds there!

This is because BigD is not there with his fervent words...

Overall I agree there are a few sharks here, but I can at least reassure you that most have lost teeth long ago or keep turning in circle.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The ms unit is correct because it is expressed per unit of frequency interval, which is equivalent to expressed it in m; but in this unit you lose the radiation field information.

Meaningless babble from someone who doesn't understand what he is saying, but hopes that nobody will catch on.

Again I ask you to explain what is so special about the unit "second" (or, if you prefer, "Hertz") that allows dropping it --- what applies to "second" (or "Hertz") that does not apply to "year" (or "per annum")?

If you cannot answer that question (and I know you cannot :), you cannot possibly argue that it is OK to drop the second (or Hertz) from "your result".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Sure. But trying to called me name somewhat not so very 'cleverly' than the previous one is not acceptable either.

Many insults have been thrown around, many reports have been filed, from everyone to everyone else. I am afraid that it is plainly not possible to find out who started what and all that, so I think that to ask *everyone* to bury the hatchet and discuss things in a civilised manner is a pretty reasonable request to make.

_________________

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Very strange because you don't know these papers

TMT you make this so hard. If you read what I wrote I searched for 700. Neither of the links you provided had 700 in them. You make it sound someone asking for help makes Sisyphus cry.


The link is at CO2science.org. Certainly you question the motives of government funding in science and manipulation, for example RealScience. I think it fair to note that this team has links to Exxon. So are '700' are all the articles that exist? I noticed in Antarctica I know of other studies which this map doesn't cover. So did this group fairly widdle down all studies or is there cherry picking going on? It's a fair question that we wouldn't know the answer too without much more data.

Going a bit off the cherry picking concept the reason I find it hard to prove or disprove is that they don't actually provide the articles. They provide a citation of the article so we know name, date, year, persons etc. Then there is a description which appears to be the info they gleaned. It'd been nice if they provided the actual conclusions at least. As many sites, goes for GW too, their descriptions of articles must be seen as questionable until we break out the true science and see if they did a just job. I wish they'd instead have used the Summary of the articles.


But still looking at the site let's look at one of my worries. That is the actual date of a worldwide MWP effect. The date for North Atlantic is generally considered 800-1300 AD. Let's look first at your graph above from Antartica. MWP is on there but no boundary lines are drawn so a bit hard to be exact. Seems to me to be 500-900AD. There's a significant dip down at 1000AD, as I indicated from another study. We've seen you claim with the 1998-2000 drop that clearly we're not in a warm period. If we accept your answer as true why would it not be true for an even larger delta in the MWP?

Now let's go to CO2science.org. Tierra del Fuego, Argentina lists the warm period as 960AD-1020AD. Later start, earlier end, and shorter than NA. Tropical Andes 500AD to 1000AD. Earlier start, earlier end, the same time frame. Alfonso Basin, Gulf of California, Mexico 900AD-1000AD. Later start, earlier end, and shorter timeframe. Siberia 1000AD-1400AD a much later start, a later end, and a shorter timeframe.

Right now I'm not going to bother with my other worries as this post is going to be long enough as it.

As I said before, and always, there is evidence of the MWP in Europe. I fairly conveyed my thoughs by my comment that if it's a worldwide phenomena then why is it occuring at different lengths and different times around the globe. I personally want to see science continue to study this period and define how long was this period as a worldwide trend and how much was that rise during the trend.


Quote:

Sure, everyone wants the Science to be precise and fast available

IMO science should be precise but take the time to ensure correctness. MWP on a definitive date across the globe at once and the temp during this time seems to be an area that needs better definition, even if we limit scope to your 700 included articles.


Quote:

So there is a claim not supported by any citation

I have to disagree with you. In the case of the scientific claims in this sentence it is superscripted and footnoted as #21

@TMTisFree

Quote:

The ice thinning is all over the web right now (AGW believers have to find another hype/scare since ice extend is normal).

Though I do want to note that I linked to the article. There was no hyper scare from me. In fact I noted this was the first of a study on volume or depth of the ice. I like to see those large unanswered question, change of volume, see some work towards defining the unanswered.

Quote:

The tree deaths, while interesting, are not really related to AGW, aren't they?.

When climates change moisture conditions change. In addition, the weather here in MN does a job killing off various bugs. If those bugs don't die off over the winter then they are going to change the foliage. Here's one news article talking about a study that looked over 30 years and sees changes in the climate killing trees at an increasing rate. LINK

Quote:

Mass media are usually partisan and distort scientific result to their own agenda, so you can skip them safely

On this we agree. For example Fox News in the US unduly covers anti-gw more frequently then the ratio of scientific work or scientific consensus conveys.

Quote:

really don't care you agree with the AGW ecoterrorism doctrine, believe in ID or think that your shower drains differently in the northern or southern hemisphere.

You claimed I wasn't open to science. Yet actually with accepting GW in total I would be accepting the majority of articles and majority of scientific opinion. If you don't truly care please don't make undue accusations. Reference Zardoz...

@umisef

Quote:

Meaningless babble from someone who doesn't understand what he is saying, but hopes that nobody will catch on.

Still flying around? I am not the one questioning because he does not understand here.

Quote:

Again I ask you to explain what is so special about the unit "second" (or, if you prefer, "Hertz") that allows dropping it --- what applies to "second" (or "Hertz") that does not apply to "year" (or "per annum")?

Already done at least 2 times to you, plus 1 time to Zardoz just above. If you don't understand what means 'per unit frequency interval', you should have no problem asking to someone more knowledgeable (read less m*r*n!c) around you.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Neither of the links you provided had 700 in them...

You wrote 700. I always wrote almost, or about or ~700. And I gave the link 4 times you just appear to know:Quote:

The link is at CO2science.org

and where one can read if he knows how to click with a mouse: Quote:

Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 690 individual scientists from 404 separate research institutions in 40 different countries ... and counting!

How difficult.

Quote:

I noticed in Antarctica I know of other studies which this map doesn't cover.

Go back to the site and check again. Btw I gave you 3 others in Antartica also quoted in the Wikipedia article. When one does not want to see.

Quote:

this team has links to Exxon.

The rather misleading "circumstantial evidence" is not a proof of your claim. Btw, it is like saying a pharmaco-scientist is devoided by pharmaceutical business because he has had a contractual work. Big Pharma propose contract because he is independent, not submissive. So that is plainly stupid to take it backwards. That is not to say submissive scientists do not exists. That is to say submission has to be *really* proved to exist. This is far from being the case here. And you always can find the papers and see for yourself if you want to.

Quote:

I find it hard to prove or disprove is that they don't actually provide the articles.

They provide a succinct description and résumé of the ~700 papers and you still complain. Why not asking them to provide you a free copy of all papers when you are at it (remember they are money funded by Big Oil). If you really want the original papers, search for them yourself as everybody else.

Quote:

But still looking...

A clear demonstration of a worldwide MWP by you.

Quote:

We've seen you claim with the 1998-2000 drop that clearly we're not in a warm period.

Not a claim, a mathematical proof (trend) that temperature decreases since 1998 or 2001. Did you find the definition in the dictionary?

Quote:

If we accept your answer as true why would it not be true for an even larger delta in the MWP?

What would be true? That climate changed/s/will change? Really no surprise.

Quote:

IMO science should be precise but take the time to ensure correctness.

Like Mann wrong statistics?

Quote:

I have to disagree with you. In the case of the scientific claims in this sentence it is superscripted and footnoted as #21

Nothing new in you disagreeing when the evidence (Wikipedia's claim): Quote:

neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term[citation needed]

demonstrates the contrary.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

There was no hyper scare from me.

My comment was a general one.

Quote:

When climates change moisture conditions change.

Sure. And? When sun shines more, temperature changes and there are more monokinis on the beaches. So What? I have no problem with adaptive or prospective policies dealing with real ecology when properly done ie based on sound science. I am also for reducing pollution, cheap energy and energy independence. So what have these trees to do with the AGW scam? Btw, I already embed this picture in the first thread:


Quote:

Here's one news article talking about a study that looked over 30 years and sees changes in the climate killing trees at an increasing rate. LINK

What is that? A google news funded by Big Enviro: everybody knows the 2 Google's funders are pro-environementalists. No thanks, gimme the real think. You see how stupid it is. The only valid reason for rejecting research funded by [put here whatever you want] is because the research is flawed. In that case, the issue is the incorrect science, not the funding.

Quote:

For example Fox News in the US.

We here have this kind of porno cartoon at the main private TV news channel:

when the public TV channels do a quite good job (relatively to the public level, not on an absolute scale).

Quote:

If you don't truly care please don't make undue accusations. Reference Zardoz..

Which accusations of me have not been clearly put in light and in front of your behaviour? Ah, the appeal to authority argument...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

If you don't understand what means 'per unit frequency interval',

I understand that "per annum" is a perfectly good frequency unit, just like the Hertz.

So why is this "unit frequency interval" you keep harping on about exactly 1 Hz? Why not "1 per annum"? Why not "1 per gigasecond"?

You cannot answer the question, because your understanding does not go beyond simply reciting something written by some misguided former academic who has no expertise in the field we are talking about (no, antenna design is not about molecular absorption), and who is currently trying to sell agricultural software for a living.

And every time you fail to answer the question, you make it ever clearer that your whole "be critical" and "follow the science" is just so much smokescreen for "I know what I would like to believe, so anything that agrees with me is great, and anything that does not is evil, fake and corrupt".


BTW, I notice that you also ignored the Huon Pines on Mount Read in Tassie --- guess if a tree falls in the woods which did record a complete absence of a MWP, it doesn't make a sound you can hear...

@TMTisFree

Quote:

So what have these trees to do with the AGW scam? Btw, I already embed this picture in the first thread:

Of course, a more honest (and more complete) presentation would note that while the overall volume of timber has increased by roughly 40%, the timber mortality (i.e. the volume of timber dying per unit time) has increased by over 60% during the same time.

And an even more honest presentation would mention that the spectacular increase in timber volume is primarily due to the skewed age distribution in US forest, which resulted from, and I quote here, the "intensive logging and regeneration in the late 19th century, and again in the mid 20th century". In other words, in 1952 (when the graph starts), the ratio between mature forests and infant forests was heavily biased towards the infant ones (not unlike the ratio in humans, of course, what with loss of mature ones in the war, and the post-war baby boom...). Then there were the massive plantings of the sixties. And since then, it has been pretty much maturing towards a more natural equilibrium.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 690 individual scientists from 404 separate research institutions in 40 different countries ... and counting! How difficult

I don't believe you accept your own arguements. If the case that 600+ scientists and 400+ articles means we should accept this is true was really what you believe this topic would have been 3 threads long. As you would have accepted thousands of scientists and thousands of articles which all state we're going through a period of GW as true.

Even at this site of 700 articles what I find is in the site summarized views the periods are not a perfect match with each other. So when did this supposed worldwide occurrance truly start and truly end?


Quote:

Quote: noticed in Antarctica I know of other studies which this map doesn't cover. Go back to the site and check again. Btw I gave you 3 others in Antartica

Yup checked the site again and I know of some articles that the site does not link to. And you gave us more. You missed the point. The point is this site does not contain all MWP records. My statement was an example of the missing data. The question should be asked -- why were some articles excluded?

Quote:

Btw, it is like saying a pharmaco-scientist is devoided by pharmaceutical business because he has had a contractual work. Big Pharma propose contract because he is independent, not submissive. So that is plainly stupid to take it backwards. That is not to say submissive scientists do not exists. That is to say submission has to be *really* proved to exist.

Interestingly enough we see you claim submission and without proof. Quote:

google news funded by Big Enviro: everybody knows the 2 Google's funders are pro-environementalists. No thanks, gimme the real think.

In the base our arguements are the same -- look at some of the funding sources. Our treatment is different. I say view them carefully and verify. You simply discard them outright before the science is even reviewed.

Quote:

They provide a succinct description and résumé of the ~700 papers and you still complain.

I was expecting 700 papers I could read. Perhaps next time you could make it clearer that it's just a site created summary and we'd have to track down the papers elsewhere to verify if the site is right or wrong in their claimed succinct descriptions.

Quote:

Not a claim, a mathematical proof (trend) that temperature decreases since 1998 or 2001

If we averaged we see a decrease. If we view the actual temps we see increases and decreases between the years. IMO, the 1998 is cherry picked by anti-gw due to the 1 year El Nino effect causing significant spike. If we take a larger swath of time we see 1998 as a statistical outlier. And of course we went over how climatologists use 30 years to define a trend and be less subject to natural variability within the system.

Let's give you the 10 years you want to use to disprove GW, simply for arguement sake. Certainly if a 10 year trend disproves the globe is warming then the a 100 year down trend or 0 evidence from Huon Trees provide us a stronger disproof of a global MWP.

Quote:

BrianK said -- I have to disagree with you. In the case of the scientific claims in this sentence it is superscripted and footnoted as #21 TMTiFree said -- Nothing new in you disagreeing when the evidence (Wikipedia's claim): Quote: "neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term[citation needed] " demonstrates the contrary

You're looking for scientific evidence in an interpretation of the scientific evidence. If you go back to my statement you will see that I clearly state the scientific claims of that line are supported by research.


Quote:

So what have these trees to do with the AGW scam?

Changing effects of climate have impact in different ways on our environment. While the net forests may be increasing there are areas being blighted, says the science, due to effects of GW. While your graph is interesting it doesn't answer why the increase. I'd be the large forestation projects undertaken by people play a very large role in North America.

Quote:

Ah, the appeal to authority argument

So now you're looking down on your own question? The accusation was that I was not open-minded and didn't accept the science. The science you are talking about comes from authories. So yes I agree your question was an appeal to authority.

@umisef

Quote:

So why is this "unit frequency interval" you keep harping on about exactly 1 Hz?

Yes, why? Oh don't know. Weren't you the one bragging degrees in this or that (MEE, CS)? Funny.

Quote:

some misguided former academic who has no expertise in the field we are talking about (no, antenna design is not about molecular absorption), and who is currently trying to sell agricultural software for a living.

What an argument: shooting the messenger rather than focusing on the message.

Quote:

BTW, I notice that you also ignored the Huon Pines on Mount Read in Tassie --- guess if a tree falls in the woods which did record a complete absence of a MWP, it doesn't make a sound you can hear...

You notice wrongly. I provided a picture in this post that illustrates your point. But why using these pines (together with the Tornetrask trees, the Gaspé cedar, the Bristlecones pines, etc) as temperature dendroproxies is wrong has been demonstrated to death in the peer-reviewed literature and so many years ago that I will not bother to respond. Why not updating your facts instead?

Do consider the fact that I no longer discuss "your" questions with you as a form of indication that I do believe you are not worth the effort.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".