muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 11:29am:

Ajax wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 10:34am: Again you're using Mann & Co. Hockey shhhtick methods and models. Please tell me what happened to the medieval warm period and the mini ice age in that graph you keep posting....??? No. There have been at least 14 different independent studies since that original regional study was posted in the IPCC FAR.  Every one of them shows that the Medieval Warm period was cooler than the current decade. Do you suffer from short term memory loss?  The orginal study was over a much less extensive area. It relied heavily on tree ring data. There are far more accurate proxies available and a large number of proxies agree fairly closely. The Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Ages were probably regional events.  For the Hockey Stick Ancient history, read here and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy It's from Wikipedia, but the references are accurately reported.    I've already explained the issues with the first and last graph, but you choose to ignore it.

Michael Mann's hockey stick (Mann et al 1998,1999) seriously misrepresents our temperature, he conveniently left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Mann & co including Hansen all claim that todays temperatures are higher than the medieval warm period.

Well here are other scientific papers that claim the medieval warm period had higher temperatures than we do today.

I know who I'ld believe.

Medieval warm period warmer than today, verified by the following papers.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

http://i40.tinypic.com/jq23hj.jpg

I just checked out three at random. Vinther et al 2010 It was about temperatures in Greenland - a highly localised study. It doesn't negate anything in the other 14 studies.  Cook et al 2009 was about the 1930s dustbowl in the US. Totally irrelevant. Grinsted et al 2006 - The Medieval Warm Period in Svalbard, Norway - another highly regionalised study.

Australian temperatures over the last 1000 years:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//GergisFigure4-1024x461.jpg

It wasn't a global phenomenon.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html#.Uj0EoHgR-R0

Quote:

Warm blast This pressure difference in turn revealed that the medieval period must have experienced a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent. The idea to use growth rings to work out past climate change is not new, but Trouet's team is the first to look back beyond 1400 in the European record. They found that the strongly positive NAO lasted for about 350 years from 1050 to 1400. By combining their data with information from other regions of the world during medieval times and plugging it into different models, the researchers have also come up with a hypothesis of what made the warm winds so persistent. "It turns out that in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal," says Trouet.

Ajax, is the crack boring yet?? ...the worlds loneliest drug is what the climate change deniers love... lol  ;D ;D

p!ssing against the wind again.........FFS.....boys your going to get it on your pants.....LOL.....!!!!!!!

Wow you really walk with blind faith don't you...???

Hey muso did you read all those papers or only the abstracts....????

Do you know exactly what there about and why they have been selected to represent evidence that the medieval warm period was indeed just as hot OR hotter than today.

Your fanaticism based on faith and dodgy science is exactly why the rest of us should fight so hard to get rid of the disease that has inflicted the minority of the earth's population.

If indeed the medieval warm period was a regional event, which by the way it wasn't......!!!

Why then wouldn't it be a regional event today.....!!!!!!

This is going to be good.......!!!!!!!

Many papers showing medieval warm period was indeed global see below

Medieval Warm Period (Antarctica) -- Summary
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php

Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 1:44pm:

If indeed the medieval warm period was a regional event, which by the way it wasn't......!!! Why then wouldn't it be a regional event today.....!!!!!! This is going to be good.......!!!!!!!

We have the measurements to show that it's not a regional event. We also have the proxy measurements to show that the Medieval Warm period was regional. Do you reject those data? Why do you accept the proxy data that showed the Medieval Warm period in the first place?

You do realise that paleotemperatures are the result of a model?  Why do you trust that particular model?


Quote:

Hey muso did you read all those papers or only the abstracts....????

I took a random sample of three as I said. I explained what the papers were about in a previous post. Did you check them out yourself? Obviously not.

If the Medieval Warm period was global, how do you explain the Australian temperatures? No sign of it.  The same goes for the 14 independent (not regional) studies. Are you going to reject everything and cling to that one 1990 tree ring study? 

Ajax wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:18pm:

muso wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 11:29am: Ajax wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 10:34am: [b]Again you're using Mann & Co. Hockey shhhtick methods and models. Please tell me what happened to the medieval warm period and the mini ice age in that graph you keep posting....??? No. There have been at least 14 different independent studies since that original regional study was posted in the IPCC FAR.  Every one of them shows that the Medieval Warm period was cooler than the current decade. Do you suffer from short term memory loss?  The orginal study was over a much less extensive area. It relied heavily on tree ring data. There are far more accurate proxies available and a large number of proxies agree fairly closely. The Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Ages were probably regional events.  For the Hockey Stick Ancient history, read here and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy It's from Wikipedia, but the references are accurately reported.    I've already explained the issues with the first and last graph, but you choose to ignore it. Michael Mann's hockey stick (Mann et al 1998,1999) seriously misrepresents our temperature, he conveniently left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

Do you know what an "error bar" is?

Seriously dude.  You are an idiot.

Yes, but you can't say that on here.

Ajax,

You seem to be struggling in here at the moment.

You do realise that paleotemperatures are the result of a model?  Why do you trust that particular model?

got him bad there: and there I am dilly-dallying around trying to remind him economics uses modelling but the poor bloke probably can't bring himself to make the crack work along such lines of enquiry !!

Where is that face-palm emoticon when you need it??  :D

oh noes,... what have we discovered here?? rabbitoh seems to have unveiled that Ajax doesn't realise all good science has error value!

I mean i could just copy and paste that sentence to myself in my own document for hours before I stopped laughing............................ and you all know I'm not joking!  :-? :-?

... and why would i not be joking: because I have a heart, as do many, and will stick it to the climate change deniers on behalf of the unborn!

OI OI OI

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 4:26pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 21st, 2013 at 1:44pm: If indeed the medieval warm period was a regional event, which by the way it wasn't......!!! Why then wouldn't it be a regional event today.....!!!!!! This is going to be good.......!!!!!!! We have the measurements to show that it's not a regional event. We also have the proxy measurements to show that the Medieval Warm period was regional. Do you reject those data? Why do you accept the proxy data that showed the Medieval Warm period in the first place? You do realise that paleotemperatures are the result of a model?  Why do you trust that particular model? Quote: Hey muso did you read all those papers or only the abstracts....???? I took a random sample of three as I said. I explained what the papers were about in a previous post. Did you check them out yourself? Obviously not. If the Medieval Warm period was global, how do you explain the Australian temperatures? No sign of it.  The same goes for the 14 independent (not regional) studies. Are you going to reject everything and cling to that one 1990 tree ring study?

Methinks Ajax is just coming to grips with the uncertainty principle about ,well,... maybe after the next drinkypoos and/or other?!!?  ;D ;D

The Medieval Warm period is irrelevant anyway. The mechanism for the regional warming have been explained. Nobody in their right minds would claim that every single  independent paleotemperature study has been doctored in some way.

Esper et al 2012 - The study estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden.  The record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August.

This paper was misreported on Fox news. The research team repudiated the claims as follows :

Quote:

Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures, so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct

This whole climate change debate is so silly.

How can we humans put billions of tons of CO2 & other gases
into our atmosphere & expect nothing to happen?

Science says for every action there is an effect.

Billions of tons of stinking coal have to do something!

This is a composite graph of temperature and CO2 going back 20,000 years.

It shows the temperature record from the Vostok ice core (dark blue), together with CO2 (red) from the Vostok ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The dramatic increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is the first thing that you notice.  The graph is a few years old. Current CO2 concentration is around 400ppm.

---

muso wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:50am:

This is a composite graph of temperature and CO2 going back 20,000 years. It shows the temperature record from the Vostok ice core (dark blue), together with CO2 (red) from the Vostok ice core, the Law Dome ice core, and from the Mauna Loa monitoring station in Hawaii. The dramatic increase in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution is the first thing that you notice.  The graph is a few years old. Current CO2 concentration is around 400ppm.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/20000yearsbig.gif

Good post Muso,

we're doomed!

On that graph you posted muso, CO2 hockey sticks at the far right yet temperature remain relatively flat.

Once again proving the trace gas CO2 has no correlation to temperature.

Or has it ever driven temperature here on Earth.

On a closer scale below.........

http://i40.tinypic.com/501h1z.gif

Ajax wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 10:12am:

On that graph you posted muso, CO2 hockey sticks at the far right yet temperature remain relatively flat. Once again proving the trace gas CO2 has no correlation to temperature. Or has it ever driven temperature here on Earth. On a closer scale below.........

It is a question of scale as you say, but you really need to use global temperature in the graph of the last 50 years.  Using Greenland air temperature as you have done doesn't cut it. If you want to be honest, use a graph of global temperatures. (Like this one) This one shows temperature CO2 and solar irradiance (sources shown in key):

Tell me what you can conclude from this graph.

---

The graph shows keeling's curve with respect to CO2 rise in the atmosphere.

It also shows that temperature has been rising from the various data bases from satellites.

It also shows the solar irradiance is declining.

Now I have been saying all along that the experts tell us for the next few decades the sun's influence will decline.

And viola the temperature seems to have stalled as you guys put it.

If the temperature now starts to drop, in your opinion is this proof enough that AGW is not the ONLY driver for temperature increasing.

I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't contribute to the to warming.

What i'm disputing is HOW MUCH..........???????

Ajax wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 10:51am:

The graph shows keeling's curve with respect to CO2 rise in the atmosphere. It also shows that temperature has been rising from the various data bases from satellites. It also shows the solar irradiance is declining. Now I have been saying all along that the experts tell us for the next few decades the sun's influence will decline. And viola the temperature seems to have stalled as you guys put it. If the temperature now starts to drop, in your opinion is this proof enough that AGW is not the ONLY driver for temperature increasing.

How many times do I have to repeat this?

CO2 is not the only driver. Nobody is claiming that it is. Look at the graph again. It's a good illustration. Look at the peaks in solar irradiance. Can you see corresponding peaks in the temperature plot?

Now mentally subtract those peaks from the temperature plot and compare CO2 against temperature. Make sense? 

Solar influence is declining? Well it depends on the trend and which reconstruction you use, but overall for the period of that graph, solar influence is declining slightly or close to neutral. Over a shorter timescale, we see the peaks that correspond to solar maxima.

muso wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 11:00am:

How many times do I have to repeat this? CO2 is not the only driver. Nobody is claiming that it is

The IPCC say with 95% confidence that manmade CO2 emissions are responsible for nearly all the warming we have observed in the last 60 odd years or so......????

Do you agree with them........?????.......or not.....!!!!!


Quote:

. Look at the graph again. It's a good illustration. Look at the peaks in solar irradiance. Can you see corresponding peaks in the temperature plot?

Yes I can......!!!!


Quote:

Now mentally subtract those peaks from the temperature plot and compare CO2 against temperature. Make sense?

 

Are you saying that where the sun fails to have an effect on the temperature CO2 takes over.......?????

No I cant agree with that, if that's your case.


Quote:

Solar influence is declining? Well it depends on the trend and which reconstruction you use, but overall for the period of that graph, solar influence is declining slightly or close to neutral. Over a shorter timescale, we see the peaks that correspond to solar maxima.

Overall its too short a time scale to decipher any meaningful trends.

Ajax wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

muso wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 11:00am: How many times do I have to repeat this? CO2 is not the only driver. Nobody is claiming that it is The IPCC say with 95% confidence that manmade CO2 emissions are responsible for nearly all the warming we have observed in the last 60 odd years or so......???? Do you agree with them........?????.......or not.....!!!!!

I do, but let's talk about why:


Quote:

[quote]. Look at the graph again. It's a good illustration. Look at the peaks in solar irradiance. Can you see corresponding peaks in the temperature plot?

Yes I can......!!!!


Quote:

Now mentally subtract those peaks from the temperature plot and compare CO2 against temperature. Make sense?

 

Are you saying that where the sun fails to have an effect on the temperature CO2 takes over.......?????

No I cant agree with that, if that's your case.
[/quote]

It's additive. Both the sun and CO2 have an effect on global temperature. It's not a question of taking over. The sun goes up and down a bit over the years, but if anything, it's a slight falling trend. 

The sun provides the heat input that warms the surface of the Eath. The Earth radiates that heat at a different wavelength (Long Wave Infrared). Greenhouse gases absorb that and reradiate it in all directions, so less of it escapes to space.  They reduce the heat output. Capiche?

Quote:

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming Where We Stand on the Issue C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels.  There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2.  Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena. A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention.  However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history. The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other.  To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect.  Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect. In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years!  There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose.  Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming. read the rest here http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

I don't have time to pull apart the Idso family's self published "paper".

Can you understand the position from my post? if the solar irradiance trend is reducing slightly or neutral and the temperature is rising, there is no long term correlation between solar input and temperature over that period.

The causation for CO2 is well established. It relates to very basic physics. You'd have to go back to Svante Arrhenius way back at the turn of the 19th century for that. You can measure the effect of CO2 on Infrared radiation directly using a long path FTIR. That part is uncontroversial.

At least you agree that the increase in CO2 is manmade.

Ok,

the Idsos say this:


Quote:

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.

Have a look at this website. It describes how carbon dioxide is measured in the atmosphere.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html#infrared

Quote:

Infrared absorption. How does the CO2 analyzer work? Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light. More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector. We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.

Nothing theoretical about it. That is how atmospheric CO2 is measured. Would you regard that as causation? Justify your answer.  Tell me what you can deduce from that website.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

I would love to see some more papers done on how the drivers interact and effect each other.
Looks like they've been focusing mainly on single drivers then trying to add them together after the fact.

Vuk11 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

I would love to see some more papers done on how the drivers interact and effect each other. Looks like they've been focusing mainly on single drivers then trying to add them together after the fact.

Did you read the AR4 WG1 report?

Read Chapters 1 to 4, particularly Chapter 2.


Quote:

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

Quote:

Contents2 Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing Executive Summary 2.1 Introduction and Scope 2.2 Concept of Radiative Forcing FAQ 2.1 How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences? 2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases 2.3.1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 2.3.2 Atmospheric Methane 2.3.3 Other Kyoto Protocol Gases 2.3.4 Montreal Protocol Gases 2.3.5 Trends in the Hydroxyl Free Radical 2.3.6 Ozone 2.3.7 Stratospheric Water Vapour 2.3.8 Observations of Long-Lived Greenhouse Gas Radiative Effects 2.4 Aerosols 2.4.1 Introduction and Summary of the Third Assessment Report 2.4.2 Developments Related to Aerosol Observations 2.4.3 Advances in Modelling the Aerosol Direct Effect 2.4.4 Estimates of Aerosol Direct Radiative Forcing 2.4.5 Aerosol Influence on Clouds (Cloud Albedo Effect) 2.5 Anthropogenic Changes in Surface Albedo and the Surface Energy Budget 2.5.1 Introduction 2.5.2 Changes in Land Cover Since 1750 2.5.4 Radiative Forcing by Anthropogenic Surface Albedo Change: Black Carbon in Snow and Ice 2.5.5 Other Effects of Anthropogenic Changes in Land Cover 2.5.6 Tropospheric Water Vapour from Anthropogenic Sources 2.5.7 Anthropogenic Heat Release 2.5.8 Effects of Carbon Dioxide Changes on Climate via Plant Physiology: ‘Physiological Forcing’ 2.6 Contrails and Aircraft-Induced Cloudiness 2.6.1 Introduction 2.6.2 Radiative Forcing Estimates for Persistent Line-Shaped Contrails 2.6.3 Radiative Forcing Estimates for Aviation- Induced Cloudiness 2.6.4 Aviation Aerosols 2.7 Natural Forcings 2.7.1 Solar Variability 2.7.2 Explosive Volcanic Activity 2.8 Utility of Radiative Forcing 2.8.1 Vertical Forcing Patterns and Surface Energy Balance Changes 2.8.2 Spatial Patterns of Radiative Forcing 2.8.3 Alternative Methods of Calculating Radiative Forcing 2.8.4 Linearity of the Forcing-Response Relationship 2.8.5 Efficacy and Effective Radiative Forcing 2.8.6 Efficacy and the Forcing-Response Relationship 2.9 Synthesis 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing 2.9.2 Global Mean Radiative Forcing 2.9.3 Global Mean Radiative Forcing by Emission Precursor 2.9.4 Future Climate Impact of Current Emissions 2.9.5 Time Evolution of Radiative Forcing and Surface Forcing 2.9.6 Spatial Patterns of Radiative Forcing and Surface Forcing 2.10 Global Warming Potentials and Other Metrics for Comparing Different Emissions 2.10.1 Definition of an Emission Metric and the Global Warming Potential 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials 2.10.3 Indirect GWPs 2.10.4 New Alternative Metrics for Assessing Emissions

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

There have been recent pictures on the topic of mixed gas interactions, but have you seen the original studies? 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/1991/chapters/chapter7.pdf

http://go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Myhre_1998_New%20eatimates%20of%20radiative%20forcing%20due%20to%20well%20mixed%20greenhouse%20gasses.pdf

A more recent paper:
http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~jldufres/publi/2006/Collins.Ramaswamy.ea-jgr-2006.pdf

I'll read both the fourth and fifth report in time of course, cheers for that specific section.

Though 1991,98,2006. I'm more inclined to wonder what's been happening in the last 7 years though, how different of a perspective compared to then. I will definitely hunt around some time for recent papers for this.

Somebody somewhere asked about carbon fluxes. There are so many damned threads going, I can't find it. Ocean uptake is increasing in mass, but decreasing in proportion to atmospheric accumulation. The unknown flux is a combination of factors including ocean phytoplankton and other microbiota.

A figure of around 40% is often quoted, but it's decreasing with time. I hope that helps to clarify. 

Source of graph:

http://www.whrc.org/about/index.html

---

One other factor is the fact that ozone depletents are slowly reducing in concentration - some faster than others.

The "Ozone layer" is recovering slowly. This will also have a net negative effect on global warming. 

muso wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 12:33pm:

I just checked out three at random. Vinther et al 2010 It was about temperatures in Greenland - a highly localised study. It doesn't negate anything in the other 14 studies.  Cook et al 2009 was about the 1930s dustbowl in the US. Totally irrelevant. Grinsted et al 2006 - The Medieval Warm Period in Svalbard, Norway - another highly regionalised study. Australian temperatures over the last 1000 years: http://www.realclimate.org/images//GergisFigure4-1024x461.jpg It wasn't a global phenomenon. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16892-natural-mechanism-for-medieval-warming-discovered.html#.Uj0EoHgR-R0 Quote: Warm blast This pressure difference in turn revealed that the medieval period must have experienced a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent. The idea to use growth rings to work out past climate change is not new, but Trouet's team is the first to look back beyond 1400 in the European record. They found that the strongly positive NAO lasted for about 350 years from 1050 to 1400. By combining their data with information from other regions of the world during medieval times and plugging it into different models, the researchers have also come up with a hypothesis of what made the warm winds so persistent. "It turns out that in the tropical Pacific, the El Niño system was in a negative La Niña mode, meaning it was colder than normal," says Trouet.

Ive heard this explanation before that the MWP was just a regional event.  I find that the most ridiculous claim I've heard in years.  You expect people to believe that for a 300 year period temperatures were several degrees warmer but only in a few select locations but not others?  apart from the highly unlikely hood of such a  scenario don't you find it peculiar that the places that apparently DIDNT have the MVP are all places that don't have recorded history and all the places that DO have the MVP have extensive historical recording of this event?  ditto for the little ice age.

it is an absurdity to believe this highly convenient explanation which has no proof.  And remember, the first explanation for the absence of the MWP was that it was a MYTH and that the MWP never occurred at all.  It was only after the massive evidence supporting both MWP and little ice age were thrown at then did they concede but then claim that it was only local.

The Hockey Stick long ago ceased being merely bad science and has moved clearly into the fraud category.

muso wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 8:21am:

The Medieval Warm period is irrelevant anyway. The mechanism for the regional warming have been explained. Nobody in their right minds would claim that every single  independent paleotemperature study has been doctored in some way. Esper et al 2012 - The study estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden.  The record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August. This paper was misreported on Fox news. The research team repudiated the claims as follows : Quote: Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures, so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct

you should really read the studies on the tree ring data used by Mann.  he uses large amounts of trees that have been concluslively shown to have no temperature correlation.  He has actually MADE UP some data and inverted others.  Tree ring data is extremely controversial and his statistical studies into correlation actually show that temperature and tree ring data has a very very low correlation ie statistically non-existent.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

muso wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:21am: The Medieval Warm period is irrelevant anyway. The mechanism for the regional warming have been explained. Nobody in their right minds would claim that every single  independent paleotemperature study has been doctored in some way. Esper et al 2012 - The study estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden.  The record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August. This paper was misreported on Fox news. The research team repudiated the claims as follows : Quote: Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures, so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct Tree ring data is extremely controversial and his statistical studies into correlation actually show that temperature and tree ring data has a very very low correlation ie statistically non-existent.

So do you think those studies can be discounted? There are plenty of better proxies, such as lacustrine varve studies.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 10:22am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 9:53am: muso wrote on Sep 22nd, 2013 at 8:21am: The Medieval Warm period is irrelevant anyway. The mechanism for the regional warming have been explained. Nobody in their right minds would claim that every single  independent paleotemperature study has been doctored in some way. Esper et al 2012 - The study estimated temperatures going back 2,000 years by analyzing the density of tree rings taken only from northern Finland and Sweden.  The record they produced only reflects temperatures between June and August. This paper was misreported on Fox news. The research team repudiated the claims as follows : Quote: Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures, so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct Tree ring data is extremely controversial and his statistical studies into correlation actually show that temperature and tree ring data has a very very low correlation ie statistically non-existent. So do you think those studies can be discounted? There are plenty of better proxies, such as lacustrine varve studies.

a better question is why you don't join the chorus of condemnation of the hockey stick graph which is fraudulent.  If you believe you have better sources of proof of your hypothesis then go ahead and condemn it.  it is APPALLING science and the fact that it has been accepted and continues to be so by many is evidence of the 'pre-determine outcome' belief.

I used to think ACC was simply wrong.  Now I see it is more than that.  It is a balief system of which the science is generally very unsupportive.

I can see that the denialist blogosphere is huge, so I'm not surprised that the layman tends to go with the easier to understand arguments.

If you read the story behind Mann's study it becomes apparent that he was up against the establishment of the day, but was still vidicated by at least 16 subsequent independant studies.

You need to read through the account of the whole fiasco to understand this.

Any minor issues in the statistical treatment  had no effect on the final data.

Apart from that, even if there was a global event that was warmer than the temperatures of 1999, it wouldn't be significant, because the underlying cause of the current warming is well established.

Which part do you particularly disagree with?

1. Do you disagree that the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning, cement production and change of land use?

2. Do you disagree with the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

3. Do you disagree with the climate sensitivity? In other words, do you believe that the moisture feedback, albino, cloud feedback etc combines  is negative or low?

If you have an honest position on that, I'm sure that you won't mind sharing it with us.

Spare me the crap muso.

If the hockey stick was correct and based on real science the IPCC wouldn't have taken it out of their bullsh!t assessment reports.

http://i41.tinypic.com/311on6t.jpg

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

I can see that the denialist blogosphere is huge, so I'm not surprised that the layman tends to go with the easier to understand arguments. If you read the story behind Mann's study it becomes apparent that he was up against the establishment of the day, but was still vidicated by at least 16 subsequent independant studies. You need to read through the account of the whole fiasco to understand this. Any minor issues in the statistical treatment  had no effect on the final data. Apart from that, even if there was a global event that was warmer than the temperatures of 1999, it wouldn't be significant, because the underlying cause of the current warming is well established. Which part do you particularly disagree with? 1. Do you disagree that the increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning, cement production and change of land use? 2. Do you disagree with the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? 3. Do you disagree with the climate sensitivity? In other words, do you believe that the moisture feedback, albino, cloud feedback etc combines  is negative or low? If you have an honest position on that, I'm sure that you won't mind sharing it with us.

I have read the entire account and it is quite clear that you have not.  His statistical analysis has been utterly debunked by no less that the worlds leading expert in principal component analysis.  the MWP and little ice age were completely absent despite being proven experiences in history.  the argument that they occurred only regionally is absurd especially when you consider that the regions where they apparently didn't occur all have no recorded history!

Do you realise that Mann's 2000 version hockey stick graph was considered to be so bad that one of his previous major supporters and climate scientist researcher wanted his name taken off the report because it was so appalling?  Most of the supposed 'supporting reconstructions' used the same data and the same methodolology??  where is the surprise that they came to the same wrong answer?

Do you know that, contrary to government rules and established research doctrine, that Mann refused (and still refuses) to release his data or his methodology and it has all had to be reverse-engineered and in some cases obtained via sideways means?  Do you know that one of Manns sidekiicks actually proudly admitted to a senate enquiry that 'cherry-picking of data' was an acceptable scientific method?

But I ask you again to explain why the MWP and Little Ice age - which are indisputable events - do not appear on his graph?  If you can believe that conveniently inhabited parts of the world could be hotter for 300 years but the rest of the uninhabited/primitive worlds was not then frankly, you will believe anything.  That is quite simply, not credible.  But it is at least consistent with the IPCC claim that their climate models were 100% accurate... as long as you take out all the stuff we didn't know, couldn't predict or got wrong.

Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ claims of the MWP and LIA being local were refuted years before it was published

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/17/manns-hockey-stick-refuted-10-years-before-it-was-published/

That's Anthony Watt's account of events.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

That's Anthony Watt's account of events.

No its not, have a read, its scientists and their data that he's bringing to the fore.......??????

You make it sound as though its Anthony's opinion, NO its not its scientific papers by scientists.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:41pm:

But I ask you again to explain why the MWP and Little Ice age - which are indisputable events - do not appear on his graph?  If you can believe that conveniently inhabited parts of the world could be hotter for 300 years but the rest of the uninhabited/primitive worlds was not then frankly, you will believe anything.  That is quite simply, not credible.  But it is at least consistent with the IPCC claim that their climate models were 100% accurate... as long as you take out all the stuff we didn't know, couldn't predict or got wrong.

You really think that the highlighted part is relevant, don't you. Why is it in the slightest bit relevant when similar temperature proxies were used in all studies, not just in Europe. Anecdotal evidence is totally irrelevant.

There was no technology anywhere during this period for the accurate measurement of temperature. Are you claiming that during the medieval period, that the Vikings were more advanced than the Arabs or the Chinese?

Your argument borders on the ridiculous.

muso wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25th, 2013 at 8:41pm: But I ask you again to explain why the MWP and Little Ice age - which are indisputable events - do not appear on his graph?  If you can believe that conveniently inhabited parts of the world could be hotter for 300 years but the rest of the uninhabited/primitive worlds was not then frankly, you will believe anything.  That is quite simply, not credible.  But it is at least consistent with the IPCC claim that their climate models were 100% accurate... as long as you take out all the stuff we didn't know, couldn't predict or got wrong. You really think that the highlighted part is relevant, don't you. Why is it in the slightest bit relevant when similar temperature proxies were used in all studies, not just in Europe. Anecdotal evidence is totally irrelevant. There was no technology anywhere during this period for the accurate measurement of temperature. Are you claiming that during the medieval period, that the Vikings were more advanced than the Arabs or the Chinese? Your argument borders on the ridiculous.

The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered.  Northern Greenland cemeteries are located in what is now perma-frost.  that kind of evidence demands a verdict.

NOw the little ice age - also denied by Mann...  during the American civil ware troops dragged artillery pieces over frozen rivers that now barely freeze over at all and then only a couple inches.    The Little Ice age is even more provable and global yet Man denies that as well.  I find that curious.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered.  Northern Greenland cemeteries are located in what is now perma-frost.  that kind of evidence demands a verdict.

OK, I thought I knew about the Viking settlements in Greenland as I've read all the sagas in Norse. Please provide evidence that they sailed North of Greenland, and evidence of Northern Greenland cemetaries.

I'd love to see what you come up with, especially considering that the Vikings cremated their dead. 

Just admit it muso.......????

You don't know whether your Arthur or Martha......!!!!

That's what happens when you believe in junk science like the IPCC serve up to you......!!!!

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 11:29am: The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered.  Northern Greenland cemeteries are located in what is now perma-frost.  that kind of evidence demands a verdict. OK, I thought I knew about the Viking settlements in Greenland as I've read all the sagas in Norse. Please provide evidence that they sailed North of Greenland, and evidence of Northern Greenland cemetaries. I'd love to see what you come up with, especially considering that the Vikings cremated their dead.

it wasn't Vikings burial but locals.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 11:45am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 11:29am: The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered.  Northern Greenland cemeteries are located in what is now perma-frost.  that kind of evidence demands a verdict. OK, I thought I knew about the Viking settlements in Greenland as I've read all the sagas in Norse. Please provide evidence that they sailed North of Greenland, and evidence of Northern Greenland cemeteries. I'd love to see what you come up with, especially considering that the Vikings cremated their dead.  it wasn't Vikings burial but locals.

Locals? that would be Inuits? right?

Quote:

When the Inuit still lived in camps or as nomads, they had no special tomb sites, much less cemeteries. Before burial, the women of the camp washed the body of the deceased and adjusted the hair; on dead women they braided the hair starting at the forehead. Then they wrapped the body in a large blanket of caribou hide or wool and laid it down far out in the tundra, face up. They stacked cairns on top, to protect the body from being eaten by animals. Nevertheless, scattered human bones can be found throughout the tundra, testifying to the work of carnivores.

http://www.ansgar-walk.de/uploads/html/abriss.htm

So that claim is looking very suss. (Maybe it's pining for the fjords)  What about the other claim?


Quote:

The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered

Is that also from a Christopher Monckton website dedicated to Uranus and Gaia?

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 4:54pm: muso wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 11:45am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 11:29am: The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered.  Northern Greenland cemeteries are located in what is now perma-frost.  that kind of evidence demands a verdict. OK, I thought I knew about the Viking settlements in Greenland as I've read all the sagas in Norse. Please provide evidence that they sailed North of Greenland, and evidence of Northern Greenland cemeteries. I'd love to see what you come up with, especially considering that the Vikings cremated their dead.  it wasn't Vikings burial but locals. Locals? that would be Inuits? right? Quote: When the Inuit still lived in camps or as nomads, they had no special tomb sites, much less cemeteries. Before burial, the women of the camp washed the body of the deceased and adjusted the hair; on dead women they braided the hair starting at the forehead. Then they wrapped the body in a large blanket of caribou hide or wool and laid it down far out in the tundra, face up. They stacked cairns on top, to protect the body from being eaten by animals. Nevertheless, scattered human bones can be found throughout the tundra, testifying to the work of carnivores. http://www.ansgar-walk.de/uploads/html/abriss.htm So that claim is looking very suss. (Maybe it's pining for the fjords)  What about the other claim? [quote] The Vikings sailed NORTH of Greenland which is currently ice-covered

Is that also from a Christopher Monckton website dedicated to Uranus and Gaia? [/quote]

don't be a dick muso.  I don't quote monkton coz he is a moron.  This was an archeological report regarding permafrost graveyards.  Facts don't evaporate because an internet link isn't given any more than facts disappear because the consensus is to believe otherwise.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:

don't be a dick muso.  I don't quote monkton coz he is a moron.  This was an archeological report regarding permafrost graveyards.  Facts don't evaporate because an internet link isn't given any more than facts disappear because the consensus is to believe otherwise.

(Highlighted) Sorry. I've been speaking to Ajax too much. I know that you have more sense than believe Monckton.

If they were Inuit graveyards in the permafrost,  they were probably surface or near surface graves. I doubt if they were in Northern Greenland, but I'm quite prepared to be proven wrong. You need to provide a link.

The Vikings never sailed North of Greenland.

Either way, although there was a localised warming of temperatures near Greenland, the current temperatures are considerably warmer than that period.

So far you haven't provided evidence to support your assertions. 

Was it this report?

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

That's about Brattahlíð on the Southern tip of Greenland.

Michael 'Hockey Stick" Mann is suing Steyn for saying the hockey stick - remember that? - was a load of bollocks. A dozen years later the justice system finally gets the case to court in DC.




"I have no difficulty standing on the truth. The truth of what I wrote, the truth about what happened at a famous American institution, the truth about this man."

"In my world, I can write something, Mr Simberg can write something, and Mr Mann can write something – and you're free to read all or none, and decide what weight to attach to all or none. But, in Mr Mann's world, there's his take – and everyone else has to be hockey-sticked into submission and silence."

"He's a classic example of the guy who can dish it out but can't take it."

"'Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize' – that's a direct quote from the then Director of the Nobel Institute in Norway, Geir Lundestad... He's not a Nobel Prize recipient. A decade after he was told to cut it out by the actual winner of the Nobel prize, [Mann] continues to promote one of the most brazen of scientific frauds – that he is of the same rank as Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Francis Crick or my fellow Canadian Sir Frederick Banting, the discoverer of insulin and its use in treating diabetes. How big a fraud do you have to be to keeping putting yourself up there with Einstein and Sir Frederick and Madam Curie when the Nobel Institute itself has told you you're not?"

"I play the ball, not the man." (Mark then quoted Eleanor Roosevelt, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people," to drive home the point.)

https://www.steynonline.com/14029/injustice-anywhere-is-a-threat-to-justice

Sore Enc is discussing people {Oops!}

I thought Monk was banned from Environment?
You should report him Bobby, for breaking the ban.

{Oops!}

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/pcsht44.gif

Mann's proxies and weightings. The size of the dot is the weightings given. And such a large set of proxies. ;)

Jasin wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 6:19pm:

I thought Monk was banned from Environment? You should report him Bobby, for breaking the ban.

Yes I should dob him in but I won't.

You see I once posted by mistake at his MRB while I was banned.
Monk dobbed me in to Vic and I got banned from the entire forum for one week.

I want to show that I'm a better man than Monk and not so petty and vindictive -
but -
he better not do it again.

After I forgave Monk -
instead of thanking me - he started a whole new thread denigrating me with lies:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1705656784

He must surely have ASPD.

You're weak as piss Bobby.
No wonder no-one takes you seriously.
Monk bends you over time and again and makes you his bi_tch!

Jasin wrote on Jan 20^th, 2024 at 5:22pm:

You're weak as piss Bobby. No wonder no-one takes you seriously. Monk bends you over time and again and makes you his bi_tch!

No - I'm not petty and vindictive like many other people on this site.

You just enjoy their company instead.
Its an attention thing, eh? ;)

Jasin wrote on Jan 20^th, 2024 at 9:29pm:

You just enjoy their company instead. Its an attention thing, eh? ;)

Actually I probably would.
Every day before logging on to here I have to
wonder what lies Monk has said about me now.   ;D

Quote:

Michael Mann's hockey stick

Wasn't that about 1980 ?

Some may never get over it.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 20^th, 2024 at 9:47pm:

Quote: Michael Mann's hockey stick Wasn't that about 1980 ? Some may never get over it.

Dunno -  1999?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_%28global_temperature%29


The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-795px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

After 12 years, the Mann v Steyn trial started in Washington DC law week.  The Steyn post in the Canadian National Review that launched the lawsuit.




Football and Hockey

By MARK STEYN
July 15, 2012 10:22 PM

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:


I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.



Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke. 
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn/



Pro-Steyn commentary https://www.steynonline.com/

Pro-Mann https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/19/michael-mann-mark-steyn-rand-simberg-climate-science-defamation-trial/

Climate Change on Trial is a daily podcast on one of the most significant court cases in America.
It reveals the truth about Climate Change and asks: "Is there really Free Speech in America?"


https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/climate-change-on-trial/id1713827256

Dr. Wyner is a professor, statistician, and, oh, chair of the undergraduate program in statistics and data science. His specialty is probability models. He has worked with ESPN (Money Ball anyone?) and has received grants from the National Science Foundation, the very same NSF of which we've heard so much about the two last weeks.

Dr. Wyner knows numbers.

As a special project (because it intrigued him), Dr. Wyner reviewed the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, and guess what? All is not what the Plaintiff claims. Shocker.

Here is a sample of just some of Dr. Wyner's testimony over the past two days (emphasis added):

Question: "Dr. Wyner, do you have an opinion as to whether the techniques used in Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick research are manipulative?"

Answer: "Yes."

Question: "What is your opinion?"

Answer: "It's my opinion that the techniques used by Dr. Mann in his earliest work (98/99), and to some degrees in his later works, are manipulative."

And a few minutes later:

Question: "How complex is [a] statistical problem reconstructing historical [sic] from proxy data over the last thousand years?"

Answer: "In my opinion, one of the reasons I was drawn to the problem is it's easily one of the most complex problems I've ever seen statistically. The data is multidimensional, very big, and the data is extremely interconnected... I was convinced there was a lot new to say here."

Question: "How does this complexity impact how a scientist must approach the data to avoid improperly manipulating it?"

Answer: "So this is really, I think, the essence of the story here. A data analysis, data that's complex like this, it just doesn't unfold easily. I have a colleague at Columbia... He describes a complicated statistical task like this one is like taking a walk... Every time you get to a fork, you have to make a decision. You go right, you go left. Then you make the decision and you head down and come to another fork. You go right or you go left. And the idea is that these small decisions, they seem irrelevant. But they can make all the difference. And that in particular, if you kind of see where you want to go with the answer, you can lead yourself into a conclusion that would be very different if someone made a different set of decisions and walked down a different set of paths.

"And so what happened is, and what happens today in statistical analysis as we move from calling it statistics to data science is... we're in a crisis. A crisis of trust and replication because so many results that were thought to be true and correct have now gone back [sic] and looked at or attempted to be replicated and they didn't work. Lots of things we thought were true turned out to be not true. It's a crisis. A problem [my colleague] has identified is due to really bad statistical sets of methods that allow you to get away with choices that would — would produce a very different result if you did it differently.

"And it requires a certain skill and an awareness and attention to affect all the details to get a solution, which is reliable. That's what you might call manipulation, the idea I will manipulate the set of paths I'm going through to get the result at the end of the day that is ultimately not reliable. In some cases, wrong or misleading."

Hmmm. Manipulation. Wrong. Misleading.

Before the day ended, Defense counsel called Dr. Judith Curry. Yep, the same Judith Curry of Michael Mann email fame. In real life (and not in Mann's inbox), Dr. Curry is a world-renowned climatologist who has taught at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Purdue, and Penn State. She has worked with NASA and NOAA and built her own company to advise private enterprise on how to mitigate climate risk. In Dr. Curry's world (which is also our world), "there are real consequences." If you're wrong with your analysis and data, in, say, advising a utility company on the probability of long duration winds in a certain region, the entire company — and all those who depend upon it — are at risk. The real world has real consequences. Those who live their lives in the ivory towers of academia in our nation, as this case has demonstrated, don't have to contend with those same consequences.

The trial resumes Monday morning, pending the judge's ruling on a flurry of motions filed over the past two days. This includes Mark's motion that the Court exclude all evidence regarding the Plaintiff's decline in grant monies as that information, as demonstrated earlier this week, was false. Stay tuned!

Press Roundup

Power Line's John Hinderaker is in DC to support Mark — thank you John! If you aren't listening every morning to Phelim and Ann, you are missing out — Paul Bedard agrees. The Daily Sceptic has an excellent summary of the case here. And the Patriot Post has this ever-important moral takeaway from the case, "the right of the people to say what's on their minds, especially when it comes to public policy and political issues. Steyn, Simberg, and anyone else writing online has this right, even if they're conservative and the Big Tech censors work to silence them."
https://www.steynonline.com/14065/the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense

And despite all that Steyn being a member of the media, Mann's lies, Mann's distortions - Steyn was found guilty. Penalty $1 million.

Of course Mann wanted $8m for economic losses, which was later pared down because he grossly overstated his losses. What did he lose? Less than $1m, a job at a better class of uni. You have to fell sorry for the slob. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 12:03pm:

And despite all that Steyn being a member of the media, Mann's lies, Mann's distortions - Steyn was found guilty. Penalty $1 million. Of course Mann wanted $8m for economic losses, which was later pared down because he grossly overstated his losses. What did he lose? Less than $1m, a job at a better class of uni. You have to fell sorry for the slob. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

A Washington, DC jury today found the Defendants (Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg) liable for defamatory speech and reckless disregard of provable facts. Putting aside the monetary damages, the real damage done by this case is to every American who still believes in the First Amendment.

The precedent set today, and as alluded to by Justice Alito when the case was petitioned before the U.S. Supreme Court, means that disagreement and/or criticism of a matter of public policy — the founding principle of this country — is now in doubt. And should you choose to give voice to any dissent, you can brought before a jury, held responsible, and fined.

Think this is just rhetoric? Consider, Mark Steyn is a member of the media. As such, he is supposedly afforded First Amendment protections. If a member of the media is no longer protected, what do you think that means for every day citizens? And it doesn't matter if you are in DC or Montana — anyone can file in the jurisdiction of his or her choosing.
https://www.steynonline.com/14085/a-bad-day-for-america

Oops, sorry.

Apparently there is some breathing room. It appears that it has been deemed unconstitutional to award punitive damages of that amount.

"Courts have signaled that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process."

Constitutional Limits of Punitive Damages Awards

https://www.thompsoncoe.com/resources/publications/constitutional-limits-of-punitive-damages-awards/

$1 dollar compensatory and $1 million punitive far exceeds the single digit ratio.

Poor JM


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 1:16pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379729924/65#65 Frank thinks members of the media be allowed to defame people. I think not.

Let's see his own statistician said it was very unreliable what he did. That was why he truncated the treemometer data and replaced it with thermometer readings. It didn't agree at all. That was called "Mike's Nature Trick". So now poor JM  says he was defamed for saying it was fraudulent. What was it then?

Of course in JM's world it may be "when the facts disagree with the theory change the facts".

JM just can't help himself -


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 1:45pm:

lee to the rescue—now you are really in trouble. Tree rings started to indicate a decline in temperature (“Hide the decline” remember?) despite measured temperatures showing a rise. Looks like dendrochronology needs to take density of the wood in the rings into consideration as well as thickness of the rings.

So apparently, he agrees that he hid the decline.

Dendrochronology has many flaws. At least ONE is the use of some species of trees. Another is trees rely on temperature and water as well as CO2. Trees generally don't grow well in winter.

Now all  he has to do is point out the defamation. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course Mann can SEE climate change happening.

"In 2016, Mann testified before the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee that actual data didn’t really matter because we could actually see climate change happening."

"Mr. Mann told the panel that “the signal of climate change is no longer subtle, it is obvious,” citing hurricanes, flooding in Texas and South Carolina, the California drought and “record heat” in Arizona."

https://climatechangedispatch.com/michael-mann-tree-ring-circus/

And the reason he left Adelaide was AGW.

"Adelaide      -0.1      0.0      0.0      6.49      4.65"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/02/urban-heat-island-studies-do-pristine-weather-stations-even-exist-part-two-hide-the-incline/

Urban Heat Island Studies.

Give up while you're behind Monk.  ;D
Stick to Cats & Critters like you're supposed to in your Board.

More from JM


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 2:22pm:

lee REALLY fucked up: Quote: Dendrochronology has many flaws. At least ONE is the use of some species of trees. Another is trees rely on temperature and water as well as CO2. Trees generally don't grow well in winter. Dear oh dear. Seasonal variation in rain, temperature etc is how rings are formed in growing trees. {Oops!} CO2 is irrelevant here.

Dear oh Dear. Seasonal variation is indeed how tree rings are produced. Some species of trees are more reliable indicators than others. Something JM apparently doesn't want to countenance.

CO2 is irrelevant? Oh dear now he denies CO2 is plant food. ::)

"The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262

Poor JM. Just can't help himself.


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 2:58pm:

CO2 was irrelevant to the 20th century dendrochronology. CO2 greening? Really? Not more areas farmed? Your paper did state “land management.”

What part of GLOBAL don't you understand? 

India and China are stated for land management. They are not global.

"We further calculated the dominant drivers of LAI trend in each grid, and we found that CO2 dominated the LAI trend of 75.63% of the globe, and temperature and soil moisture only could reach 11.34% and 7.30% respectively, which were mainly concentrated in the high latitude areas of the northern Hemisphere and western Australia. However, other meteorological factors could only dominate LAI trend in a few areas (Fig. 3a)."

High latitude is generally accepted as >=60º. ;)

CO2 was irrelevant for the entire 20th century? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 2:55pm:

Did the court not say defamation was proved?

So you can't explain the alleged defamation. Merely relying on jurors. ::)

Frank wrote on Feb 9^th, 2024 at 12:07pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2024 at 12:03pm: And despite all that Steyn being a member of the media, Mann's lies, Mann's distortions - Steyn was found guilty. Penalty $1 million. Of course Mann wanted $8m for economic losses, which was later pared down because he grossly overstated his losses. What did he lose? Less than $1m, a job at a better class of uni. You have to fell sorry for the slob. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D A Washington, DC jury today found the Defendants (Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg) liable for defamatory speech and reckless disregard of provable facts. Putting aside the monetary damages, the real damage done by this case is to every American who still believes in the First Amendment. The precedent set today, and as alluded to by Justice Alito when the case was petitioned before the U.S. Supreme Court, means that disagreement and/or criticism of a matter of public policy — the founding principle of this country — is now in doubt. And should you choose to give voice to any dissent, you can brought before a jury, held responsible, and fined. Think this is just rhetoric? Consider, Mark Steyn is a member of the media. As such, he is supposedly afforded First Amendment protections. If a member of the media is no longer protected, what do you think that means for every day citizens? And it doesn't matter if you are in DC or Montana — anyone can file in the jurisdiction of his or her choosing. https://www.steynonline.com/14085/a-bad-day-for-america

Ai Washington, DC jury ordered him to pay $1 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages to global warm-monger Michael E Mann. And that verdict certainly looms large in his mind.

The latter number will likely get overturned at the United States Supreme Court, which generally reckons that "in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process" - and that's when "the defamatory statements do not involve matters of public concern". A "single-digit ratio" means four-to-one, five-to-one punitive-to-compensatory. Steyn's jurors just set a record - a million-to-one ratio.

So, under the Supreme Court guidelines, the punitive damages of $1,000,000 could in theory be reduced to, er, four dollars. Mark may likewise be reduced, somewhat mortifyingly, to waving that US constitution around. Whether his health will hold out long enough to get him before Chief Justice John Roberts and the rest of the gang is a different question. Also: American justice has gotten a lot more capricious than it was when this case started twelve years ago.
Ibid.

....


While Mann prevailed at trial, the proceedings also unearthed some slimy conduct on his part, including his disparagement of scientists with whom he disagrees and behind-the-scenes efforts to suppress articles by scientists he does not like.

This long-running litigation may not be over. Steyn's camp has indicated they intend to challenge the punitive damages award (if not other aspects of the decision). Mann's attorney also told the NYT they still plan to appeal the prior decisions that had removed CEI and National Review from the case: "Asked about Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review, John Williams said, 'They're next.'"
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/09/climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-defamation-suit-against-mark-steyn-and-rand-simberg/
....

Climate Science Gatekeeping
New Evidence Shows Michael Mann Seeking to Manipulate Peer Review

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff7797073-f7e7-42fc-9716-9d645a0fdcb9_585x585.png
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-science-gatekeeping