Ugh I know this is probably pointless, But I am bored.
Instead of being bored, try being a little skeptical. You keep going back to the poisoned well.
First of all about the hockey stick not showing the little ice age and medievel warming period. this is an interesting page on temperature reconstructions.
cce.890m.com/temperature-reconstructions/
I recommend reading it critically. It uses the same flawed logic and tainted sources as pointed out before.
And a recent post on skeptical science
skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html So what evidence we do have still suggests that while in there was a warm period in certain areas of the world and a cold period aftrer in certain parts of the world neither seems to have been a global phenomenon.
Your link actually quotes a Mann study!! Too funny.
You have to stop going to the poisoned well!
Mann uses one proxy (with strong MWP and LIA signatures) that is actually inverted in hs compilation. The net effect is that it cancels out the MWP and LIA signatures of the other proxies.
Shameless.
In contrast to the deeply flawed paper by the tainted Mann, many
studies outside the AGW circle show the the MWP and the LIA were
global phenomena.
Summaries of 21 published papers that provide evidence of warming during the MWP. (Europe, North Atlantic, and elsewhere on the planet.)
Graphic shows 43 independent studies (i.e., not funded by anti-capitalism statists or flogged by a PR firm for leftists causes behind realclimate) that have found global evidence of the Medieval Warming Period (i.e., it was not a geographically-isolated event). And
they show the late 20th century temps as non-unique and cooler then the MWP. The real “consensus” is that there is
no unusual GW now, let alone AGW.
I have also provided you with
video evidence.
I have also shown you how the arguments of global MWP deniers are logically flawed and in turn can be used to disprove AGW. Even the CRU researchers were aware of it. But it didn’t fit into their narrative. Could it be that global MWP and LIA means no AGW research grants?
Another post by skeptical science on the tree ring divergence problem.
skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-divergence-problem.html
Several things are wrong with this summary. There is not a universal linear relationshp between tree rings (width and/or density) and temperature. Many factors affect it. Certain trees are better than others. Many of the tree series used by the “hockey team” are particularly flawed. Their techniques for showing a relationship are flawed. That is why Briffa’s proxies diverged from reality once they left the “calibration” period. No amount of re-calibration will fixed the flawed methodology.
As to the issue of did the scientists at the university of East Anglia dump a bunch of raw temperature data.
littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35233_Did_Climate_Scientists_Destroy_Data_A-_No
I thought this was the most relevant part though.
The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”
I take it you’ve never dealt with large data sets. Read the comments of the UEA/CRU computer guys.
First, the storage of the data could have been handled by at most a handful of tapes. There was no lack of storage space. I would have found it much more plausible if Jones had said he had just lost them in the move or they were accidentally tossed. Jones’ statements appear to be specious.
Second, the data sets that they did keep are hopelessly compromised. Their internal comments say they’ve merged, purged, sliced, diced, and adjusted data sets so often they had no idea what is what. “Hopeless state” is how it was described.
Third, they made so many data changes that they cannot reconstruct their data manipulation pathways. It is impossible for them to reconstruct an original working data set. The data sets are too big, the changes too complex, and the methodologies completely undocumented and unverified. They must start from scratch.
Fourth, while the national data sets are still available, they in turn have also been adjusted in the interim. A reconstruction of original CRU data would necessarily involve deconstructing those data sets (which in turn have been shown to be flawed by outside studies).
It is
completely impossible to reconstruct original work, let alone validate it. They’ll have to start from scratch.
As with many data sets, the “global warming” signature in the data is due almost entirely to manual adjustments. Oddly, older thermometers are adjudged to report too hot and so must be adjusted down. New thermometers are deemed to report too cold and must be adjusted up. They would have us believe newer thermometer technology became less reliable, leading to ever increasing needs to adjust it. And voila, AGW is the result.
As Ender stated to you earlier: “This challenge should be simple to disprove.” Yet NIWA hasn’t. Skepticism is the smart stance to take at this point.
