Thread: Another hockey stick found in the southern hemisphere

Originally Posted by gmb92

Hilarious. You're confusing Greenland with New Zealand now. They aren't even in the same hemisphere. Given how poorly the NZ stalagmite data matches with Greenland data 1100-1400, one might be a little skeptical of your claim

[

I'm not comparing temperatures in New Zealand and Greenland just providing historical reference to the time frame of the medieval warm period. The tail end is considered the time that the vikings colonized Greenland. You are like a little dog that thinks it has a hold of something when it is just really the cars bumper.

You went from All to Most. That is progress, but still essentially wrong.

While their data hasn't been released I'm going to assume that like most Australian coral samples they only go back about 400 or so years, after that time coral loses any meaningful resolution, and show a strong little ice age and their reliance beyond that point to the ever critical medieval warm period is entirely based on tree rings and maybe a coupe of upside down lake sediments.

Someone comparing a single stalgmite data point from New Zealand from a 1979 study with ice cores in Greenland shouldn't really be talking about apples and oranges.

Brake your tooth on the bumper yet. I'm not talking about ice cores in Greenland. Just the historical perspective on what is considered the MWP. You however are engaging in Loki's wager. Since we cant exactly define when the medieval warm period was we cannot discuss it. This isn't a logical fallacy for no reason. It is one of the most classic.

At any rate, peak MWP periods don't match. Challenge to you, Windbag: calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.

3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

I'm not a dwarf. I'm not going to play a stupid Loki's wager with you. You aren't that smart and your games are absolutely transparent.

Originally Posted by Windigo

[

I'm not comparing temperatures in New Zealand and Greenland just providing historical reference to the time frame of the medieval warm period. The tail end is considered the time that the vikings colonized Greenland. You are like a little dog that thinks it has a hold of something when it is just really the cars bumper.

Your limited intellectual capacity seems to preclude you from being able to understand that the magnitude and timing of temperatures vary between regions. Sad.

While their data hasn't been released I'm going to assume that like most Australian coral samples they only go back about 400 or so years and show a strong little ice age and their reliance beyond that point to the ever critical midieval warm period is entirely based on tree rings.

That would be wrong too. They can go back at for several thousand years

Brake your tooth on the bumper yet. I'm not talking about ice cores in greenland. Just the historical prespective on what is considred teh midiveal warm period. You however are engaging in Loki's wager. Since we cant percicly define when the midieval warm period is we cannot discuss it. This isn't a logical fallacy for no reason. It is one of the most classic.

That would be a red herring and strawman fallacy. You are claiming that NZ temperature back to 1000 must have been much warmer than its 1100 estimate, because Greenland was. That is fallacious to begin with, as they are entirely different regiions. It's also highly naive given that Greenland and NZ data show a very different MWP from 1100 to the late 1300s.

I'm not a dwarf. I'm not going to play a stupid Loki's wager with you. You aren't that smart and your games are absolutely transparent.

What is "my game" and if it's transparent, what is it?

Calculate averages for these 11 sets of 3 numbers. Don't be a coward.

3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

Originally Posted by gmb92

Your limited intellectual capacity seems to preclude you from being able to understand that the magnitude and timing of temperatures vary between regions. Sad.

I think that the timing has more to do with the precision of the proxy than the region itself. He have many proxies of the same regions that give different times so your argument does not follow.

That would be wrong too. They can go back at for several thousand years

At limited resolution. That is why most of them only go back a few hundred years. Past that point the resolution doesn't allow a good comparison. One of the reason that warmmongers wish that tree rings were a viable temperature proxy is because the nature of tree rings gives great resolution. And while the resolution may be very good they are still not reliable temperature proxies.

You are claiming that NZ temperature back to 1000 must have been much warmer than its 1100 estimate, because Greenland was. That is fallacious to begin with, as they are entirely different regiions. It's also highly naive given that Greenland and NZ data show a very different MWP from 1100 to the late 1300s.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I only said that it was the same time the Vikings populated Greenland which is still considered to be within the medieval warm period. YOu are the one engaging in a strawman. Perhaps you don't understand that the medieval warm period id defined by history not temperature proxies. So I'm not playing your game.

What is "my game" and if it's transparent, what is it?

Calculate averages for these 11 sets of 3 numbers. Don't be a coward.

I already told you to buzz off. You are trying to play Loki's wager arguing that since we cannot define where the medieval warm period began and ended precisely that we cannot discuss it. However, we can easily define it since it was a historical period defined by dated events like the vikings settling Greenland. No amount of disagreement between proxy reconstructions changes the historical dating of the medieval warm period.

Originally Posted by Windigo

I think that the timing has more to do with the precision of the proxy than the region itself. He have many proxies of the same regions that give different times so your argument does not follow.


At limited resolution. That is why most of them only go back a few hundred years. Past that point the resolution doesn't allow a good comparison. One of the reason that warmmongers wish that tree rings were a viable temperature proxy is because the nature of tree rings gives great resolution. And while the resolution may be very good they are still not reliable temperature proxies.

[/quote]


You think a lot of things that have no scientific basis. 300 years is not a timing precision issue.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort. I only said that it was the same time the Vikings populated Greenland which is still considered to be within the medieval warm period.

Nice try. Here was your argument:

It only captures the tail end of the MWP around the time the Vikings colonized Greenland. The peak must have been even higher.

Your logic: The Vikings colonized Greenland (the very southern part to be more accurate). Therefore, the peak in the New Zealand temperatures must have been higher than shown in the graph derived from Wilson 1979, which would be the late 1300's. So foolish on so many levels.

YOu are the one engaging in a strawman. Perhaps you don't understand that the medieval warm period id defined by history not temperature proxies. So I'm not playing your game.

Pick any time period you'd like. The evidence is still the same. Note that if you only use "history" as a guide, then the MWP can never be global. Historical accounts are far less precise. We have the Vikings showing up on the southern tip of Greenland, and some grapes in England, similar to today. You have evidence of LIA being colder than MWP in many locations, but again, no magnitude. Those are very poor proxies, and don't indicate the magnitude and spatial extent. You end up a MWP denier that way.

I already told you to buzz off. You are trying to play Loki's wager arguing that since we cannot define where the medieval warm period began and ended precisely that we cannot discuss it. However, we can easily define it since it was a historical period defined by dated events like the vikings settling Greenland. No amount of disagreement between proxy reconstructions changes the historical dating of the medieval warm period.

I'll keep presenting the same question to you. It's easy.


Calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.


3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

Originally Posted by gmb92

You think a lot of things that have no scientific basis. 300 years is not a timing precision issue.

Actually its called resolution. Too far in the past and corals lose resolution. Most proxies lose resolution the further back in time you go. Ice cores are a good example. That is why trees would be a very nice proxy if they actually measured temperature. Tree rings give very good resolution. I'm sorry if you dont understand this.

Your logic: The Vikings colonized Greenland (the very southern part to be more accurate). Therefore, the peak in the New Zealand temperatures must have been higher than shown in the graph derived from Wilson 1979, which would be the late 1300's. So foolish on so many levels.

Actually I'm basing my argument on science actually I was simply pointing out the historic context of the midieval warm period and how we define it. But if you want to put words in my mouth lets go over your ridiculous words.

There is no scientific premiss for your argument that the medieval warm period was this random warming that popped up like waldo all over the global at random times in the given window.

You see the proxies which don't do a good job temporally pinning down exactly when the medieval warm was and you jump to the conclusion that the medieval warm was a random event all over the world at different times.

Unfortunately there is no known event or any hypothesized event that can cause this. You are ignoring science and putting all of your faith in the proxies.

When it comes to proxies we skeptics apply a much simpler analysis, proxies simply aren't' very accurate temporally. Differences in timing is simply a problem with the approach and doesn't' represent anything that really happened.

Pick any time period you'd like. The evidence is still the same. Note that if you only use "history" as a guide, then the MWP can never be global. Historical accounts are far less precise. We have the Vikings showing up on the southern tip of Greenland, and some grapes in England, similar to today. You have evidence of LIA being colder than MWP in many locations, but again, no magnitude. Those are very poor proxies, and don't indicate the magnitude and spatial extent. You end up a MWP denier that way.

The medieval warm period is a historic event. Its time period is set by history not later proxy analysis that confirmed or refuted.

Calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.

Seriously buzz off! I'm not playing Loki's wager.

Originally Posted by Windigo

Actually its called resolution. Too far in the past and corals lose resolution.

Most proxies lose resolution the further back in time you go. Ice cores are a good example. That is why trees would be a very nice proxy if they actually measured temperature. Tree rings give very good resolution. I'm sorry if you dont understand this.
[/quote]
The coral proxies used in the study go back to the 1100's and have good resolution. Tree rings are a good proxy for temperature. False on 2 counts.

Actually I'm basing my argument on science actually I was simply pointing out the historic context of the midieval warm period and how we define it.

The "historic context" doesn't have anything to do with hard science. How one defines the MWP is arbitrary.
Spin away, but you can't delete this:

It only captures the tail end of the MWP around the time the Vikings colonized Greenland. The peak must have been even higher.

You are using the Vikings in southern Greenland as a rationale for New Zealand being warmer than their late 1300's peak prior to 1100. Wrong on so many levels.

But if you want to put words in my mouth lets go over your ridiculous words.
There is no scientific premiss for your argument that the medieval warm period was this random warming that popped up like waldo all over the global at random times in the given window.

Don't lie. Those aren't my words, nor has anything I've written resemble that argument.

You see the proxies which don't do a good job temporally pinning down exactly when the medieval warm was and you jump to the conclusion that the medieval warm was a random event all over the world at different times.

All climate proxies used in multiproxy studies do a nice job of capturing relative warm and cool periods in each individual proxy. Multiproxy studies can constrain them on larger scales. Your 2nd argument assumes that all warm periods at a given location must be replicated in magnitude in other location in the world and be perfectly in sync in magnitude. You are a regional variation denier. One of the characteristics of the MWP was a tendency towards long-term cooler tropical Pacific (la Nina-like) conditions, for example, which would likely result in large variation in different regions. Coral records date far back in the tropical Pacific and indicate cooler conditions there. The following study even dubs it the "Medieval Cool Period".

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/i.../022025-1.html

Moot point, but irrational also is the assumption that the data must be wrong because you don't know of something specific that would result in the measured values. That would be equivalent to a doctor dismissing a patient's symptoms, when the root cause is not specifically determined.

When it comes to proxies we skeptics apply a much simpler analysis, proxies simply aren't' very accurate temporally. Differences in timing is simply a problem with the approach and doesn't' represent anything that really happened.

Deniers do apply a simplistic analysis when it suits them, dismissing the hard data when it's inconvenient.

The medieval warm period is a historic event. Its time period is set by history not later proxy analysis that confirmed or refuted.

Looks like you need a history lesson. Hint: start with origins of the term "Medieval Warm Period". Do your best not to ignore the word "proxy".

Seriously buzz off! I'm not playing Loki's wager.

Elementary school children could solve this problem. Why can't you? Don't be such a coward.

Calculate the average of each of these groups (11 sets of 3). Report your results.

3,2,4
2,3,3
4,2,2
2,4,1
2,3,1
2,2,2
1,2,2
2,1,2
2,2,2
2,3,2
4,4,3

Originally Posted by Windigo

You quote John Cook an unemployed cartoonist and call Idso a hack. Please your source has no credibility what so ever. He makes the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) argument that the correction of Loehle 2008 is somehow significant. It wasn't you notice that no warmmonger like Cook actually says what the correction was. The reason he doesn't is because cook is an unemployed lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*).

While the above is entirely a useless ad hominen argument, I think it's worth pointing out that Windbag can't even tell the truth when hurling ad hominens.

1. John Cook is employed, and not in cartoon writing.

http://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/john-cook-3280

2. The source I cited was not even written by Cook.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval_project.html

It was written by Jonsson (moniker hoskibui), a geologist in Iceland. Windbag might have figured that out by clicking on the link, which seems beyond the reaches of his/her intellectual capacity.

Originally Posted by Windigo

Trees dont have a linear relationship to temperature. They have an optimum growing temperature which produces a parabolic relationship to temperature at best. They cannot be used as temperature proxies.

Citation for this? Or are you just making stuff up again?

UPDATE!!!

Well that didn't take long.

Climateaudit totally destroyed the paper here.

http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/06/gergis-significance/

And of course I was right it was yet another treeometer. It even had its own upside down proxy. I so love being right. Its nice to see how all the geniuses were talking about the corals yet the corals were clearly thrown out and the tree rings dominated the reconstruction. Who could have guessed.


The paper has since diapered from the AMS website.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/0...s-fatal-flaws/

It is officially "on hold"
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/g...l-put-on-hold/

Skeptic Blogs 1 - Peer Review 0

My, McIntyre certainly is a legend in his own mind, isn't he? The funniest part is how he's raging how awful it was that everyone won't instantly send him their proprietary data, and the lack of doing so proves they're hiding something. Normal people would call that conspiracy theory lunacy, but these are denialists. Which is the correct term for them. Skeptics are rational and don't constantly make crap up, so denialists are the direct opposite of skeptics.

Back in the real world, Gergis was one of multiple studies showing a similar thing, and the results of the calculation error in it probably won't change it much. But if denialists want to claim that the peer review process working properly proves the great conspiracy, they're free to publicly look like idiots.

Oh, note the difference in how the two sides act. Gergis graciously thanks McIntyre for looking over the paper. McIntyre snarls, proclaims Gergis is lying, then adds an insult directed at Gavin Schmidt. Real scientists do ... science. Political hacks rely on innuendo and insinuation (coughcoughSteveMcIntyre).