A century ago, Ellesmere Island was covered with one continuous, massive ice shelf up to 70 metres thick and extending 500 km along its coastlines. Since then, about 90 per cent of the former “Ellesmere Island Ice Sheet” has disappeared - much of it during a warming period in the 1930s and ’40s.

http://www.canada.com/ story.html?id=c5b6edcf-b38d-43ee-ac83-890644071d06

Good bye cold world your leaving me today this year!

Who cares? Of course they will attack anything that shines light on their discredited ideology.

What society is doing now is not rehashing old, tired, discredited arguments (hint: the denialist fringe is not ’society’), but instead debating the direction to go in. Currently the ship of society is on a course between 125º and 135º (denialists want 235º), and the discussions today - and on this site - are whether 125 is better than 135.

Nowhere in these directioning discussions are debates about the Hockey Stick. The debates are about the grid holding up, corn for ethanol, drilling, insulation. There is no room in these debates for denialist drivel.

Best,

D

The chirruping from CA is audible from across the pond!!

I particularly like the flicking proxy graphs… with their implied message that you can define 1,700a of global trends by eye! Obviously, it’s something the whole family can do!

Everyone who is given an opportunity to comment publicly about this needs to start by reading it completely, be sure to understand it, and then when the denier shows up on the other side of the panel, start out with the question: did you read the entire report?

“The debates are about the grid holding up, corn for ethanol, drilling, insulation”

How right you are! Whether you are an alarmist, a denier or anywhere in between, the focus should be on deployment, infrastructure and efficiency.

it matters only if you treat it as a “debate”. Change the tone.

Treat it as ‘the same ol’ same ol’. Or ‘why beat this dead horse again’. Or ‘asked and answered long ago. Why must we revisit this same discredited argument yet again?’.

The well-emplaced noise machine is breaking down - you know, the noise machine that is tuned to drown out relevant facts. Look at what is happening today in science, economics, politics. Time to start choosing relevant talking points to be in front of the issue, instead of reacting to their framing.

Look at my first comment: who cares what they will say? We’ve moved on. Not ‘gosh, we’re still debating this’. No we’re not. We’ve moved on.

Best,

D

D

How is the 0 degree level set? To me it looks like the Y axis for Temperature Anomaly is high by .4 degrees C

Does one set the zero level by the entire data set? Or just the latest? Or the last few hundred years?

To my eye the zero line should be way lower.

what information do you have that any of the authors are lacking in statistics knowledge?

Or are you simply spreading FUD without checking on the credentials of the authors?

That is: your FUD doesn’t work here. Try somewhere that has gullibles as readers.

Best,

D

If I had a refrigerator with an anomaly of only .4 degrees on paper… but most of my goods would feel a temperature change of over 1 full degree C.

I shall look in the links for my answer. My question will be from an observation that the zero line seems to be the mid point between the highest and lowest.

Where someone could put the zero through an average of the data and it would be much lower.

Visually to me this appears that the temperature anomaly has already gone over 1 full degree C.

The short answer: AMAZINGLY anomalous. The technical answer: I’m willing to bet p values for how truly anomalous that value is ranges in the .95 to .99 range.

Again, no math, just eyeballing. But that much is what I can make educated guesses on just using my memory of my intro-stats college course.

Thank you in advance.

Best,

D

http://news.softpedia.com/ news/ Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-7-000-Years-Old-Fossil-Forest-69719.shtm

http://news.softpedia.com/ news/ Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-7-000-Years-Old-Fossil-Forest-69719.shtml

If you look only at the lines ofthe graph that correspond to proxies, you will see nothing strange or unprecedented in modern times.

This was a joke, but perhaps there are some more energy experts who took it seriously. To be serious, don´t elect idiots to destroy us all.

The squiggly line thingie recently is mo’ closah toward the top of the chart doo-hickey on the right than the squiggly thingie toward the left. This is glaringly apparent unless you are a denialist - in which case, your brain is doing convulsions to avoid the information and you can’t see it.

HTH.

Best,

D

Here is one for the Alps and 5500 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 7580294.stm

Ah. So the casual observer went to a school that didn’t teach its students how to read charts and maps.

There is a thing called a key (the thingy occupying the upper 20% of some graphics, 40% of others) that describes the colors. I see they had some graphics assistance, as the colors are the same and have the same placement and arrangement throughout the three series to lessen confusion.

Its incorrect to suggest you can compare this directly with proxy data.

I look forward to your letter in PNAS explaining why this line is problematic. Let us know if it gets accepted.

Otherwise, the instrument-proxy analysis can be found in the paper, pp 13253 and 255, in the Data and Results section. Else the wider paleoproxy literature explains this, specifically the portion of the literature that reconciles proxy data to instrumental data, and explains why the red line sits where it does wrt the proxy lines.

Best,

D

If the temp record is inaccurate, send a letter to PNAS and show us how you are Galileo.

Spare us your patently transparent tactic. Only the gullible dupes believe it, and they don’t get access, so why are you bothering?

Best,

D

I guess this is the best the denialists can do.

Best,

D

This sounds very strange. We are asked to accept that the proxy data represent a reliable record of the past. Yet, the paper admits that it cannot accurately represent the present, and further, cannot explain why.

This is a perfectly serious observation which I’m interested in seeing a serious response to. (Don’t bother replying Dano unless you have something grown up to say).

You have an obligation to society to tell us your perfectly serious observation. It is not spread to society in blog comment threads. It is spread to society via the literature. It is up to you to stop the madness that your perfectly serious observation will shed light on.

Let us know if your letter is accepted so we can watch the journal for this event.

Best,

D

Perhaps you were confused by the false assertion that I didn’t answer the question & that led to your restatement.

Best,

D

It would have helped a lot if they had continued the EIV plot into the 20th century. I asked about this same issue on Realclimate and was told ‘it’s the plotting’ and was invited to plot the EIV data into the 20th century myself.

I’m not a denialist; just had a denialist break my balls on this very question in another forum.

NOT personal attacks (NOT ad hom): you are wrong because of A, B, C, and by the way, you are an idiot.

Your rhetoric needs work. A lot of work. Write the authors and tell them they are wrong. Write PNAS and tell them too. Let us know how that turns out.

———

Mark Z:

I read the exchange you refer to and in the page numbers I give above and explain, the issues with datasets and calibration that I mention and gavin talks around is generally known as the _divergence problem_, discussed in the paper.

Mann has effectively said - in my view - this is our analysis (second author is a stats guy), this is what we came up with, there are the data. It sounds like (I haven’t corresponded with any of the authors) other things are in the works and rehashing old ideas is being put to bed. As the paper has lots of links to data and the datasets are on line, if folks want to do more work, they can have it. Hence the tenor of my responses above.

There are many more things to do that take importance over rehashing old ideas. Folks with natural science degrees (I am one multiple times) see many signs that cause great concern. Anyone visiting a decent Uni library and spending a day in the journal stacks sees the same thing.

That said, adding more data to allow us to better map scenarios for adaptive management is a good thing. The world’s militaries are already doing this.

But the point is: we have moved beyond this quibble. We are trying to figure out what to do in a warming world. Nailing down precisely how much man contributes to this (most of it) is helpful to craft good policy. But it is not helpful to get society going, which is what needs to be done now, so the details about abatement can be accepted. Without acceptance, nothing gets done. This is how it works. Folks quibbling about details of minor importance don’t want the societal discussion to happen at all. That is what we see here. And on the other thread, with that snowblind character, you see the effect of how the game is played to delay the discussion - it’s to the point where you don’t know if this is a gullible dupe or a misinformation campaign to create a false sense of a grass-roots movement - believe me, that is the main thing in the way of decision-making, not a question about the science.

Best,

D

I would do this if I had the ability; can you point me to where I might get the program to download and display the data Gavin directed me to?

Take the difference between instrumental and proxy for the most recent time: approx 0.7 deg C. Then add this to the highest proxy result in the MWP (0.2 degC). If there were relaible thermometers then, it is perfectly possible that they would have recorded up to 0.9 degC (on the given scale). Of course there is no proof, just a possibilty.

It is therefore difficult for an idiot to see how Mann et al draw their conclusion “that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are LIKELY anomalous in a long-term context.”

the hockeystik ist nonsens, completely wrong. everbody should know about temperatures during lia and the warmer periodes.
what you show, is dramatically in pulling down the warm times and useless uprising in the lia temperatures.
i do not talk to peoples any more, how do not understand simple climatologie at all. this is only dramatik fiction, no sience.

your,

m.kuen

you mean like in this chart from this same site that shows the MWP at a higher temp than today.

http://climateprogress.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2008/ 08/ sweet-spot.jpg