Please provide the data you refer to and how it was computed from what proxy sources? I look forward to your referenced scientific paper on this subject. Your temp claims are misleading at best. Show me your non regional information that takes in global averages over many locations and proxies or measurements. For example correlate to global average ocean temp measurements and proxies may be easier especially in later years on shorter time periods. These averages are more telling that any few local air references. As far as the graph provided, look again the variance is not more that .8 C (not 2c) and that was during the 1600 mini ice age and if you look at 1900-1950 you will see again a zero anomaly or basically no change from that peak you boys refer to. Also even if .1/yr since 1999, wouldn't make more than a .1 on that graph worth of difference!
Okay, first off, here's the modern graph, extended to 2009 (so far)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-im ... s_fig3.gif which comes from the "World Climate Report" web site, a decidely AGW leaning web site. Even they are admitting that there's no massive "Hockey Stick" in the graph any more.
Secondly. All the data I was talking about lies in the instrumental record, so I'll try to avoid using proxy series for that...
Third, even the surface instrumental record is suspect, since only 4% of the USHCN climate network even meets their own guidelines for siting and maintenance.
http://www.surfacestations.org If 96% of the "Cadillac of Climate Networks" is off by 1 degree C or more, I fail to see how you can hope to tease a 0.5 degree change out the data with any kind of certainty.
Fourth, the NOAA recently (June) identified a malfunctioning thermometer at one of the stations in Hawaii. It was reading between 2 and 4 degrees F higher than actual temperatures, yet they kept all of the data (including an amazing string of record highs) in the data set for that station.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/h ... perature-2 and
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/17/n ... -honolulu/ give an adequate description of that fiasco.
Mann's "Hockey Stick" and now the Briffa "Hockey Stick" that "rescued the IPCC" have both been shown to be fatally flawed, with Mann's based entirely on a small stand of Canadian Bristlecone Pine trees, and Briffa's entire stick based on a single tree in the Yamal river valley in Russia whose "proxy signal" does not even match the local instrumental temperature readings.
Both Briffa and Mann have now been found to use the Tiljander sediment proxy series, one which shows an extremely strong and large medieval warm period, upside-down to produce a hockey stick from the data that the Tiljander authors specifically said, "is poisoned by changes from modern agricultural methods and should not be considered as a valid part of the data series" after about 1900. Both Briffa and Mann jumped on this series, turned it upside down (Tiljander showed massive cooling in the 20th century) and claimed that this inverted graph now showed massive warming and the (now inverted) medieval "cold" period nicely canceled out the signal from their other, non-inverted, proxy series, which all show at least some medieval warm period. Mann (
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7662) and Briffa (
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7575).
Mann then went about the hand-waving of claiming that he can reproduce the graphs without a dendro contribution, so long as inverted Tiljander is included, and without Tiljander, so long as the dendros are included.
You've asked for proxy series that I take this grand statement from, and I can point to Tiljander, Yamal, and a dozen others (
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/02/w ... roxy-data/,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1165,
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=982 are a few more) that are all peer reviewed and accepted by the science community. There are, in fact, over 700 peer reviewed papers that agree on the MWP, including Huang et al (1998), Daansgard (1969), Schonweisse (1995), Tyson et al(2000), Noon et al(2003), Gupta et al(2005), and Esper and Scheingruber (2004). Even the IPCC's 1990 report included the Medieval Warm Period, until Mann managed to erase it with his first Hockey Stick in 1995. To deny the MWP, the Roman Warm Period, and other climate optimums prior to that, and claim that there has never been a change in temperature in the last 11,000 years borders on insanity, but it's what the AGW crowd would have us believe.
I am not saying that there's been no warming, because it's obvious there has been some shown in the satellite records, but I am saying that the proof that the cause of this warming being man-made is tenuous at best, and the likelihood that it is part of a natural variance, possibly with a tiny, tiny percentage of man-made effect, is far more likely.
Clearly, a single El Nino event in 1998 was enough to swamp any "signal" that humans added, and a single volcanic event in 1992 (Pinatubo) was enough to damp down any effect for two years.
We have to remember that the entirety of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from about 0.03% to 0.04%, over 150 years. Meanwhile, the water cycle, which accounts for about 85% of the greenhouse effect, is still poorly understood as to its overall feedback as temperature increases. All of the computer models (15/15) used in climate modeling say that the atmospheric feedback is positive, but a study by Lindzen & Choi (2009) of 20 years of satellite data on ERBE satellite data (emitted radiation back into space), peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in
Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union, has shown that the overall atmospheric feedback is net-negative, in other words, as temperatures go up, the formation of clouds and precipitation tends to
decrease the temperature, breaking all 15 climate models.
http://masterresource.org/?p=4307
And be careful pointing at proxy records of temperature, or you'll find that you're living in the coldest period in the history of the Earth, with the lowest CO2 readings, ever.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... igure7.gif
Sorry, that's only from the American Physical Society web page. I know that an organization of physicists doesn't carry the same weight as the head of the IPCC, who has a degree in, oh yeah, railroad engineering. Or maybe Al Gore, who flunked out of Divinty School and has his degree in, oh yeah, journalism. Maybe you'd prefer to go with Stanford's Climate Science department, who are fully behind Global Warming... of course, they also advocated seeding the ice caps with soot in 1975 because they were fully behind Global Cooling and the next Ice Age back then (and it's the same department head, so don't argue that, either.) Maybe you'll go with the poster boy of global warming, James Hansen at NASA, who unfortunately, while claiming people like me are working for oil companies (Hey, guys, if you're reading this, I'm still waiting for my first check!), received over $750,000 from guys like George Soros and the Sierra Club to "fund his global warming research."
I'm sure you're going to come back and flame me on this again, but I really could care less. Go read some literature not published by Michael Mann and the Real Climate "Hockey Team". Go out and look at the sad state of our "Cadillac of Climate Networks". Go realize that the entire "Instrumental Record" for South America comes from *FOUR* stations, three of which are in the center of big city urban heat islands. You scream at me to do research, I challenge you to do your own.
I helped a student with a science fair project, and he was a major AGW advocate. I pointed him at the USHCN data and the site reviews from SurfaceStations.org. I was very careful to
not give him any bias while I helped him (I was doing my own experiment to see if he would come, unaided, to the same conclusions I have.) He did all his own work, designing his own experiments, putting temperature sensors in the same kind of locations that were shown on the site, and putting a control thermometer, sited by USHCN guidelines nearby. He found up to a 7 degree centigrade variance caused by the siting of the thermometer.
By the end of his project he'd gone from an AGW advocate to a massive skeptic of the data that the USHCN has collected. If a single site can be off up to 13 degrees Fahrenheit, then how can we hope to have any chance of seeing a real signal in that mess. He also found that only one out of 20 tests gave him a negative bias, that being siting the thermometer over long, uncut grass. So, of 20 sites, 19 had a positive bias. How can you do this simple experiment and
not end up a skeptic?
He also found, by the way, that if you use only the data from the correctly sited stations, then "global warming" is less than half of what's claimed, which is a dangerous number, since even the AGW crowd is now admitting that "up to half of global warming is caused by natural variance."
Scientific consensus is 500 scientists in a room pointing at an animal and saying "That's a rabbit", and one scientist walking in and saying, "You idiots, that's my cat." That's the problem with "consensus" in science, it still can't change the truth.
I'll leave you with this, over the last 10 years, CO2 emissions by mankind have been larger than any time in history (by the way, the US emissions have remained largely flat for the last 40 years, while the rest of the world has more than quadrupled their former output, going from about 50% of total emissions to over 85%). So, with more CO2 then ever before pouring into the atmosphere over 10 years, the temperature
must have gone up...
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletter ... igure1.gif
