Climate change humor and irony

[billgwx]

Forwarded to me by a buddy in AFWA. I'm a global warming proponent but these things are just too funny and ironic!

The temperature yesterday morning (December 7) in Cancun dropped to 51F, breaking the record low of 64 for the date set in 2000. It was also the coldest December morning ever in Cancun history (old record 52F). As you probably know, the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Cancun this week. Recall last year, the IPCC Copenhagen meeting was hit with a blizzard and frigid temperatures. The IPCC moved their meeting to Cancun to avoid another embarrassment and feel the global warmth (NOT).

Meanwhile in England, the UKMO's Dr. Vicky Pope was trapped at Gatwick airport by heavy snow on her way to a press event where she would announce that 2010 may be the warmest year on record. During the last week of November and first week in December the temperatures at the longest temperature record station anywhere on the globe (Central England Temperatures - CET) was the coldest for any two week period during the entire record going back to 1659 (the Little Ice Age).

[skierinvermont]

Forwarded to me by a buddy in AFWA. I'm a global warming proponent but these things are just too funny and ironic!

The temperature yesterday morning (December 7) in Cancun dropped to 51F, breaking the record low of 64 for the date set in 2000. It was also the coldest December morning ever in Cancun history (old record 52F). As you probably know, the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Cancun this week. Recall last year, the IPCC Copenhagen meeting was hit with a blizzard and frigid temperatures. The IPCC moved their meeting to Cancun to avoid another embarrassment and feel the global warmth (NOT).

Meanwhile in England, the UKMO's Dr. Vicky Pope was trapped at Gatwick airport by heavy snow on her way to a press event where she would announce that 2010 may be the warmest year on record. During the last week of November and first week in December the temperatures at the longest temperature record station anywhere on the globe (Central England Temperatures - CET) was the coldest for any two week period during the entire record going back to 1659 (the Little Ice Age).

I understand the science of AGW pretty well I think, but this is pretty funny and ironic.

[tacoman25]

Seems that "The Gore Effect" is alive and well.

[Ed Lizard]

[Hambone]

"According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet." --

[Hambone]

"Yesterday, a group of scientists warned that because of global warming, sea levels will rise so much that parts of New Jersey will be under water. The bad news? Parts of New Jersey won't be under water."

[Hambone]

"Barbra Streisand told Diane Sawyer that we're in a global warming crisis, and we can expect more and more intense storms, droughts and dust bowls. But before they act, weather experts say they're still waiting to hear from Celine Dion."

[Hambone]

[skierinvermont]

Great description of the pseudo-scientists like Willie Soon, Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts who just keep harping on the same disproven talking points. Meanwhile climate scientists understand the large range of uncertainty and are constantly using the latest evidence and methodology to try and reduce that uncertainty.

[tacoman25]

Great description of the pseudo-scientists like Willie Soon, Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts who just keep harping on the same disproven talking points. Meanwhile climate scientists understand the large range of uncertainty and are constantly using the latest evidence and methodology to try and reduce that uncertainty.

That's kind of a broad, assumptive statement. Scientists are people, too...they have biases, they think they know more than they really do sometimes, and they make many, many mistakes.

[skierinvermont]

That's kind of a broad, assumptive statement. Scientists are people, too...they have biases, they think they know more than they really do sometimes, and they make many, many mistakes.

Yes it's a generalization.. but that's why we have the peer-review process. And it's why D'Aleo and Soon can write as many articles as they want but they won't get published because they are full of errors.

[nzucker]

Meanwhile climate scientists understand the large range of uncertainty and are constantly using the latest evidence and methodology to try and reduce that uncertainty.

Yeah ok, James Hansen's understanding of the uncertainty really helped out with this 1988 and 1992 predictions.

As if Michael Mann isn't just as guilty as Joe D"Aleo of bias.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah ok, James Hansen's understanding of the uncertainty really helped out with this 1988 and 1992 predictions.

As if Michael Mann isn't just as guilty as Joe D"Aleo of bias.

Yeah actually he did understand the uncertainties.. maybe you should read more and spout off less.

Principal uncertainties in the predictions involve the equilibrium sensitivity of the model to climate forcing, the assumptions regarding heat uptake and transport by the ocean, and the omission of other less-certain climate forcings.

Hansen 1988

And no.. Mann, a respectable accomplished scientist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of climate science, is not remotely comparable to a crackpot like D'Aleo.

[tacoman25]

And no.. Mann, a respectable accomplished scientist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of climate science, is not remotely comparable to a crackpot like D'Aleo.

Name-calling aside, no matter how "respectable" or "accomplished" Mann is, his infamous Hockey Stick analysis was clearly flawed...and bias was a likely contributor to that. If you've looked into it at all.

[ORH_wxman]

Name-calling aside, no matter how "respectable" or "accomplished" Mann is, his infamous Hockey Stick analysis was clearly flawed...and bias was a likely contributor to that. If you've looked into it at all.

Mann is ridiculously biased. His criticism of the McShane and Wyner paper that totally discredited his "statistical analysis" of his proxies were laughable. He was essentially the pot calling the kettle black.

[skierinvermont]

Name-calling aside, no matter how "respectable" or "accomplished" Mann is, his infamous Hockey Stick analysis was clearly flawed...and bias was a likely contributor to that. If you've looked into it at all.

Would you care to explain what those flaws are? Considering the result has been replicated using the same original data that MBH used and the paper's main findings have been confirmed by the NAS and NRC I don't see much to complain about.

What people consistently fail to understand is the high degree of uncertainty present both in the text and the graphics of the MBH paper.

[tacoman25]

Would you care to explain what those flaws are? Considering the result has been replicated using the same original data that MBH used and the paper's main findings have been confirmed by the NAS and NRC I don't see much to complain about.

What people consistently fail to understand is the high degree of uncertainty present both in the text and the graphics of the MBH paper.

He used selective proxies to produce a certain result. The paper's main findings have been largely discredited and the IPCC even distanced itself from the original hockey stick analysis. I'm honestly shocked you seem unaware of this.

[skierinvermont]

He used selective proxies to produce a certain result. The paper's main findings have been largely discredited and the IPCC even distanced itself from the original hockey stick analysis. I'm honestly shocked you seem unaware of this.

Link to using selective proxies? Tree ring data was just coming out in 1998. M&M used selective proxies in their paper not Mann.

IPCC didn't "distance themselves" they are simply using the newer and better proxies created by individuals including Michael Mann.

Review reaffirming the original findings of MBH 1998:

Wahl and Ammann 2007

[tacoman25]

Just a sampling...

http://www.worldclim...-1998-2005-rip/

http://www.technolog...m/energy/13830/

http://www.uoguelph....-background.pdf

http://www.independe...cle.asp?id=1278

http://andyrussell.w...tick-evolution/

No matter what side you take or what source you choose to believe is the most accurate or least biased, it's clear that Mann's original hockey stick graph was flawed in some ways, and produced a result that was too extreme and not truly accurate. Many scientists continue to argue that the basic premise/conclusion was correct (that the 1990s were eaily warmer than any other decade in the past 1000+ years), but whether or not that is the case, the fact is still that the original hockey stick graph was statistically flawed and has been "toned down" since because it was clearly too extreme.

Doesn't it make you wonder just a little when warming estimates by "leading climate scientists" almost always end up erring on the too warm side? Does that not demonstrate some sort of bias likely present in the research?

[aslkahuna]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the HUMOR and irony seen in the subject and not the usual back and forth attacks.

Steve

[tacoman25]

This was the statement/salvo that led the thread astray. I blame skiier.

Great description of the pseudo-scientists like Willie Soon, Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts who just keep harping on the same disproven talking points. Meanwhile climate scientists understand the large range of uncertainty and are constantly using the latest evidence and methodology to try and reduce that uncertainty.

[nzucker]

Yeah actually he did understand the uncertainties.. maybe you should read more and spout off less.

And no.. Mann, a respectable accomplished scientist who has contributed greatly to our understanding of climate science, is not remotely comparable to a crackpot like D'Aleo.

If Hansen was so uncertain about how much the Earth would warm due to anthropogenic influence, then why didn't he make a more conservative prediction? He should have understood, if he was a true researcher dedicated to a comprehensive meteorological understanding of the planet's climate, that the +PDO and solar maximum had produced much of the warming. Given that these factors oscillate with time, he should have realized there would have to be a cooling period to offset some of the warming that had occurred since 1900. Instead of thinking about these natural cycles and making a more conservative prediction, he decided to leap to a conclusion condemning human activity and showing a future of horrible warming. Now, we are dealing with a climate that has barely warmed at all since 1998, winters that have become markedly more severe in the last three years, and a Dalton-like minimum that many predict will cause a significant cooling of the climate.

Also, Joe D'Aleo is not a crackpot; his theories about solar activity and its influence on the NAO are highly regarded in the meteorological field, and he has presented several times at the SNE weather conferences and is a prominent member of the American Meteorological Society. Perhaps your 09-10 winter forecast would have been better if you'd considered more carefully the connection between low solar activity and an extremely -NAO, one of the things D'Aleo has discussed many times. His theories about the solar maximum of 2001-02 influencing the Earth's geomagnetic field and causing the putrid winter we suffered, as well as his investigation into the dissolution of the Larsen B Ice Shelf and its connection to solar flares splitting the Antarctic summer vortex into two parts, are very interesting and merit further discussion and research. I agree that he sometimes goes a bit far on climate change but I feel he's just trying to counter these outlandish claims about brutal hurricane seasons, winter ending, all the arctic sea ice melting, etc. After all, Western Europe and North America have experienced very harsh winters in 08-09, 09-10, and now 10-11; hurricane activity globally was at a record low this year, the arctic sea ice has gained 500,000km2 since the 2007 minimum, etc. He must be frustrated with crackpots like Al Gore and James Hansen who go on and on about AGW while making erroneous predictions and not understanding that we are probably beginning a cooling/stable cycle. I'd be willing to bet global temperatures and arctic sea ice don't change much from now until 2030.

Just a sampling...

http://www.worldclim...-1998-2005-rip/

No matter what side you take or what source you choose to believe is the most accurate or least biased, it's clear that Mann's original hockey stick graph was flawed in some ways, and produced a result that was too extreme and not truly accurate. Many scientists continue to argue that the basic premise/conclusion was correct (that the 1990s were eaily warmer than any other decade in the past 1000+ years), but whether or not that is the case, the fact is still that the original hockey stick graph was statistically flawed and has been "toned down" since because it was clearly too extreme.

Doesn't it make you wonder just a little when warming estimates by "leading climate scientists" almost always end up erring on the too warm side? Does that not demonstrate some sort of bias likely present in the research?

"The first sign that something amiss with the “hockey stick” was published in 2003 by Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Soon and Baliunas performed a survey of the existing scientific literature concerning the climate of the past 1,000 years and compiled evidence for and against the existence of the MWP and the LIA. They found that overwhelmingly, within the scores of scientific articles that they reviewed, there was strong evidence to support the existence of these well-known climatic episodes that were largely absent from the “hockey stick” reconstruction. Apparently, the handle of the “hockey stick”—that part of it which represents natural variation—is too flat."-World Climate Report, 2005

Great quote. Mann deliberately tried to wash out natural variations in global temperature such as the MWP and LIA to prove that anthropogenic influence was the only significant factor affecting climate. There is consistently a warm bias wherever you look in the AGW crowd, as you say Taco...from Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, 2009 Arctic sea ice "Expert Panel,' An Inconvenient Truth, NWS temperature forecasts, etc. It's pretty glaring that people are trying to force us to believe the Earth is rapidly warming and will continue to do so at alarming rates.

[Hambone]

On not taking drastic action to correct global warming:

"Not doing it will be catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."

Ted Turner, noted stand up comedian and AGW proponent.

[skierinvermont]

Just a sampling...

http://www.worldclim...-1998-2005-rip/

http://www.technolog...m/energy/13830/

http://www.uoguelph....-background.pdf

http://www.independe...cle.asp?id=1278

http://andyrussell.w...tick-evolution/

No matter what side you take or what source you choose to believe is the most accurate or least biased, it's clear that Mann's original hockey stick graph was flawed in some ways, and produced a result that was too extreme and not truly accurate. Many scientists continue to argue that the basic premise/conclusion was correct (that the 1990s were eaily warmer than any other decade in the past 1000+ years), but whether or not that is the case, the fact is still that the original hockey stick graph was statistically flawed and has been "toned down" since because it was clearly too extreme.

Doesn't it make you wonder just a little when warming estimates by "leading climate scientists" almost always end up erring on the too warm side? Does that not demonstrate some sort of bias likely present in the research?

I don't think that MBH98 was on the warm side. No reconstruction to date is statistically different from MBH98. Claims to the contrary are based on a failure to account for the high degree of uncertainty contained in the MBH98 analysis (and hence the large confidence intervals). Even Moberg et al. 2005 falls within the MBH98 confidence interval. I would agree that graphs of MBH98 which omit the confidence intervals are abusive.

As for claims of flaws, the most significant in all your listed articles is the M&M criticism of the PCA used by MBH98. These claims have been thoroughly debunked.

Here

And Here

[BethesdaWX]

This thread has gone down the sh*thole. As far as I'm concerned, objective scientists are the ONLY ones who deserve the title "scientists".

Sorry Hansen, NYC turnpike is not under 20ft of water, and global anoms are averaging about 0.3C....OMG, what a crisis.

[skierinvermont]

If Hansen was so uncertain about how much the Earth would warm due to anthropogenic influence, then why didn't he make a more conservative prediction? He should have understood, if he was a true researcher dedicated to a comprehensive meteorological understanding of the planet's climate, that the +PDO and solar maximum had produced much of the warming. Given that these factors oscillate with time, he should have realized there would have to be a cooling period to offset some of the warming that had occurred since 1900. Instead of thinking about these natural cycles and making a more conservative prediction, he decided to leap to a conclusion condemning human activity and showing a future of horrible warming. Now, we are dealing with a climate that has barely warmed at all since 1998, winters that have become markedly more severe in the last three years, and a Dalton-like minimum that many predict will cause a significant cooling of the climate.

The paper specifically states that it was based on certain assumptions of ocean heat transport which may be incorrect. The PDO falls under that category.

He didn't "make the predictions" he made a model which made the predictions. The model used the best understanding of known climate variables at that time. The paper published detailing the model results clearly and explicitly stated where uncertainty exists for the variables involved. For its time, the model has proven to be remarkably accurate. Actual radiative forcing has been slightly below Scenario B, and thus for purposes of verification a Scenario slightly below Scenario B should be used. Such a scenario would be very close to observed global temperature (albeit only slightly too warm). He then published another paper after 20 years, detailing where and why the model has been improved upon and explaining that the climate sensitivity used in the model was likely slightly too high. This is true science at its best. Your rants against Hansen are completely unjustified and reveal a fundamental failure to understand how science is done.

Also, Joe D'Aleo is not a crackpot; his theories about solar activity and its influence on the NAO are highly regarded in the meteorological field, and he has presented several times at the SNE weather conferences and is a prominent member of the American Meteorological Society. Perhaps your 09-10 winter forecast would have been better if you'd considered more carefully the connection between low solar activity and an extremely -NAO, one of the things D'Aleo has discussed many times. His theories about the solar maximum of 2001-02 influencing the Earth's geomagnetic field and causing the putrid winter we suffered, as well as his investigation into the dissolution of the Larsen B Ice Shelf and its connection to solar flares splitting the Antarctic summer vortex into two parts, are very interesting and merit further discussion and research. I agree that he sometimes goes a bit far on climate change but I feel he's just trying to counter these outlandish claims about brutal hurricane seasons, winter ending, all the arctic sea ice melting, etc. After all, Western Europe and North America have experienced very harsh winters in 08-09, 09-10, and now 10-11; hurricane activity globally was at a record low this year, the arctic sea ice has gained 500,000km2 since the 2007 minimum, etc. He must be frustrated with crackpots like Al Gore and James Hansen who go on and on about AGW while making erroneous predictions and not understanding that we are probably beginning a cooling/stable cycle. I'd be willing to bet global temperatures and arctic sea ice don't change much from now until 2030.

Joe D'Aleo is a crackpot. He doesn't even understand what an anomaly is and has claimed that reducing the number of stations in GISS from 10,000 to 2,000 has created a warming bias. Such claims are at odds with 4th grade mathematics. The papers you reference on the NAO are not his papers by and large.. for the most part they are online summaries he has provided of other people's extensive work. To give him sole credit for this work is a disservice to the people who actually performed the rigorous modeling and statistical studies. Within 10 years we will all be laughing at your ridiculous prediction of arctic sea ice and global temperature not warming for the next 20 years.

"The first sign that something amiss with the “hockey stick” was published in 2003 by Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Soon and Baliunas performed a survey of the existing scientific literature concerning the climate of the past 1,000 years and compiled evidence for and against the existence of the MWP and the LIA. They found that overwhelmingly, within the scores of scientific articles that they reviewed, there was strong evidence to support the existence of these well-known climatic episodes that were largely absent from the “hockey stick” reconstruction. Apparently, the handle of the “hockey stick”—that part of it which represents natural variation—is too flat."-World Climate Report, 2005

Great quote. Mann deliberately tried to wash out natural variations in global temperature such as the MWP and LIA to prove that anthropogenic influence was the only significant factor affecting climate. There is consistently a warm bias wherever you look in the AGW crowd, as you say Taco...from Hansen 1988, IPCC 2007, 2009 Arctic sea ice "Expert Panel,' An Inconvenient Truth, NWS temperature forecasts, etc. It's pretty glaring that people are trying to force us to believe the Earth is rapidly warming and will continue to do so at alarming rates.

The paper you reference was funded by the oil industry, its authors salaries were paid by the Marshall Institute which is a conservative political lobbying group, and has been thoroughly discredited by virtually every source available. The publication of the paper prompted the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher. I am surprised you don't know this, but not the least bit surprised you fell for it hook line and sinker.

[nzucker]

[/font][/font]

The paper specifically states that it was based on certain assumptions of ocean heat transport which may be incorrect. The PDO falls under that category.

He didn't "make the predictions" he made a model which made the predictions. The model used the best understanding of known climate variables at that time. The paper published detailing the model results clearly and explicitly stated where uncertainty exists for the variables involved. For its time, the model has proven to be remarkably accurate. Actual radiative forcing has been slightly below Scenario B, and thus for purposes of verification a Scenario slightly below Scenario B should be used. Such a scenario would be very close to observed global temperature (albeit only slightly too warm). He then published another paper after 20 years, detailing where and why the model has been improved upon and explaining that the climate sensitivity used in the model was likely slightly too high. This is true science at its best. Your rants against Hansen are completely unjustified and reveal a fundamental failure to understand how science is done.

Joe D'Aleo is a crackpot. He doesn't even understand what an anomaly is and has claimed that reducing the number of stations in GISS from 10,000 to 2,000 has created a warming bias. Such claims are at odds with 4th grade mathematics. The papers you reference on the NAO are not his papers by and large.. for the most part they are online summaries he has provided of other people's extensive work. To give him sole credit for this work is a disservice to the people who actually performed the rigorous modeling and statistical studies. Within 10 years we will all be laughing at your ridiculous prediction of arctic sea ice and global temperature not warming for the next 20 years.

The paper you reference was funded by the oil industry, its authors salaries were paid by the Marshall Institute which is a conservative political lobbying group, and has been thoroughly discredited by virtually every source available. The publication of the paper prompted the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and the eventual repudiation of the paper by the publisher. I am surprised you don't know this, but not the least bit surprised you fell for it hook line and sinker.

Even if Hansen was driven to poor predictions by an ill-conceived model, he should have realized that modeling the global climate was likely to be an unsuccessful endeavor given the incomplete understanding of the PDO, changes in solar activity driving ENSO as well as global cloud cover, etc. I just think it's an act of hubris to make alarmist predictions that will have vast consequences on public policy and opinion without a full comprehension of the meteorology, even though I'm personally in Hansen's corner about reducing pollution/emissions. Even the IPCC 2007, using much more sophisticated modeling technology, is in danger of falling outside of the 95% confidence interval with the massive drop we're seeing in global temperatures (at least looking at AMSU Discover lately), something that should continue with the -PDO and La Niña in control of the pattern.

It's amazing how you continue to excoriate D'Aleo despite what other people on the board have told you about personal meetings and conference presentations on the part of D'Aleo. Although I believe he rants too much about climate change and sometimes stretches the truth to get there, he's really at the frontier of meteorology in believing that changes in solar activity ultimately drive most of the weather/climate patterns that we experience here on Earth. I think his approach will be vindicated as we continue with this research.

Why is it ridiculous to say global temperatures and sea ice won't be worse in 10 years? We're below Dalton Minimum standards for solar activity and have a massive -PDO/-ENSO pattern that you and I haven't seen in our entire lifetimes. This could easily overcome the effects of carbon dioxide in the short-term, as greenhouse emissions are more of a long-range factor and don't have much say in the year-to-year climate. It's easy to imagine cooling in the 2010s just as we did in the 1950s despite carbon emissions increasing, especially since we're expecting a similar spike in aerosols from the developing nations which may have been a factor in the 1950s cooling period. Also, the arctic sea ice tends to do better with a -NAO/-AO and La Niña/-PDO conditions, which is exactly what we're seeing. You even said yourself that we won't warm much this decade (perhaps .05C) and will probably see at least one year with a sea ice minimum over six million kilometers, so you're now contradicting your own posture on the issue. Typical.

I'm sure the paper I quoted is plenty biased as are most publications in a controversial field like global warming....I think the general point stands, however, that there has been an attempt to even out historic temperature variation in order to exaggerate the human influence. This is in the same vein as the Climategate e-mails which talk about high temperatures and SSTs in the 1940s as a "problem," as if the Earth were doing something inconvenient by warming on its own. It definitely sounds to me as if there's a bias towards AGW, which makes sense given that many careers and millions of dollars have been staked on the rapid warming argument.

[skierinvermont]

Even if Hansen was driven to poor predictions by an ill-conceived model, he should have realized that modeling the global climate was likely to be an unsuccessful endeavor given the incomplete understanding of the PDO, changes in solar activity driving ENSO as well as global cloud cover, etc. I just think it's an act of hubris to make alarmist predictions that will have vast consequences on public policy and opinion without a full comprehension of the meteorology, even though I'm personally in Hansen's corner about reducing pollution/emissions. Even the IPCC 2007, using much more sophisticated modeling technology, is in danger of falling outside of the 95% confidence interval with the massive drop we're seeing in global temperatures (at least looking at AMSU Discover lately), something that should continue with the -PDO and La Niña in control of the pattern.

It's amazing how you continue to excoriate D'Aleo despite what other people on the board have told you about personal meetings and conference presentations on the part of D'Aleo. Although I believe he rants too much about climate change and sometimes stretches the truth to get there, he's really at the frontier of meteorology in believing that changes in solar activity ultimately drive most of the weather/climate patterns that we experience here on Earth. I think his approach will be vindicated as we continue with this research.

Why is it ridiculous to say global temperatures and sea ice won't be worse in 10 years? We're below Dalton Minimum standards for solar activity and have a massive -PDO/-ENSO pattern that you and I haven't seen in our entire lifetimes. This could easily overcome the effects of carbon dioxide in the short-term, as greenhouse emissions are more of a long-range factor and don't have much say in the year-to-year climate. It's easy to imagine cooling in the 2010s just as we did in the 1950s despite carbon emissions increasing, especially since we're expecting a similar spike in aerosols from the developing nations which may have been a factor in the 1950s cooling period. Also, the arctic sea ice tends to do better with a -NAO/-AO and La Niña/-PDO conditions, which is exactly what we're seeing. You even said yourself that we won't warm much this decade (perhaps .05C) and will probably see at least one year with a sea ice minimum over six million kilometers, so you're now contradicting your own posture on the issue. Typical.

I'm sure the paper I quoted is plenty biased as are most publications in a controversial field like global warming....I think the general point stands, however, that there has been an attempt to even out historic temperature variation in order to exaggerate the human influence. This is in the same vein as the Climategate e-mails which talk about high temperatures and SSTs in the 1940s as a "problem," as if the Earth were doing something inconvenient by warming on its own. It definitely sounds to me as if there's a bias towards AGW, which makes sense given that many careers and millions of dollars have been staked on the rapid warming argument.

As I said before, it was not an ill-conceived model. It has been remarkably accurate. For purposes of verification a Scenario B2 should be used which is slightly lower than Scenario B. Actual temperatures would be fairly close to such a scenario. It's not surprising since that the model has performed fairly well since the largest most important variable's effect has been well understood for quite some time (CO2+water vapor feedback). The uncertainties relate to other feedbacks although these uncertainties are restrained within certain limits.

D'Aleo is a crackpot. Ryan agreed with me on this as well. He is fringe. He doesn't understand an anomaly. He manipulates his data. He uses selective endpoints and startpoints. His claims about a warming bias in global temperature data such as HadCRUT have been thoroughly refuted. He has never and could never publish in a peer reviewed journal on climate change because his papers are so elementary and full of errors.

There has not been an attempt to "even out" the MWP or LIA. Dozens of independent analyses all find similar results.

[tacoman25]

[/font][/font]

Joe D'Aleo is a crackpot. He doesn't even understand what an anomaly is and has claimed that reducing the number of stations in GISS from 10,000 to 2,000 has created a warming bias. Such claims are at odds with 4th grade mathematics. The papers you reference on the NAO are not his papers by and large.. for the most part they are online summaries he has provided of other people's extensive work. To give him sole credit for this work is a disservice to the people who actually performed the rigorous modeling and statistical studies. Within 10 years we will all be laughing at your ridiculous prediction of arctic sea ice and global temperature not warming for the next 20 years.

Wow.

It's presumptious statements like this that (based on the premise that "climate science has it all figured out") that really come across as arrogant and often make people end up looking like fools in the end.

[tacoman25]

I don't think that MBH98 was on the warm side. No reconstruction to date is statistically different from MBH98. Claims to the contrary are based on a failure to account for the high degree of uncertainty contained in the MBH98 analysis (and hence the large confidence intervals). Even Moberg et al. 2005 falls within the MBH98 confidence interval. I would agree that graphs of MBH98 which omit the confidence intervals are abusive.

As for claims of flaws, the most significant in all your listed articles is the M&M criticism of the PCA used by MBH98. These claims have been thoroughly debunked.

Here

And Here

Dude...Real Climate is about as far from an unbiased source as you are going to find. Gavin Schmidt is a joke. I speak from personal experience as someone who used to lurk/post on Real Climate a lot.

And how you define "statistically significant" is subjective. The original hockey stick graph was obviously too flat and therefore made the recent warming look more extreme. There is no denying this.

Again: face the facts. Almost every AGW scientist who has released a study or made a prediction has been too extreme or too warm. Logically, what does that tell you?