So the evidence for the medival warming and little ice age is invalid?
What happened to global warming then?
- Thread starter Brandane
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
So the evidence for the medival warming and little ice age is invalid?
U
User482
Guest
Not at all. Look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
and here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Agreed - So why does it not appear in the Mann data
No I am not.
I am consistent from the beginning about not disputing unprecendented warming in last two decades of 20th century. But if you apply Mann's statistical treatment from MBH97 to random data, it produces a hockey stick shape. I cannot understand why anyone would want to associate themselves to that kind of research. Which is why all you ever hear about MBH98 from the authors is that they have moved on. You are saying the same thing. Fine, if you are happy with that, I don' really have a need to change your mind on it.
Obviouslly, User482 continues to insist that there's nothing wrong with MBH98, but you and I know different, right?
Really? You haven't pointed out any of them.
Your refutation is at wiki level. Just as a general guideline; wiki is at about 2/10 compared to principal components at 10/10. One level up from Daily Mail.
Note in margins: must try harder.
U
User482
Guest
Because the evidence suggests that the medieval warm period was localised, so wouldn't necessarily feature much in a global or hemisphere average. As I'm sure you're aware, as we go further back in time, uncertainties increase, and there is more variation amongst the various reconstructions. You may also know that Mann's later reconstruction (2006?) shows more variability.
Here's a pretty graph:
Attachments
U
User482
Guest
You are now reduced to falsely attributing things to me I have never said and don't believe to be true:
As I said earlier, your attempt to argue from authority doesn't work when you are unable to demonstrate any evidence or insight, or the ability to read what is written. You have failed to support your hypothesis, and your insistence on relying on a discredited, plagiarised report tells me all I need to know.
As contrarian trolls go, you're a pretty poor one.
Oh dear, I guess that you have not read MBH98 after all. One of the ways it differs from most similar papers is that it removes the MWP.
U
User482
Guest
Wrong. Removal is an act of commission. You must try harder.
Anyway, this is way OT: as Jonesy says, it's up to you to support your serious allegation, which has nothing to do with criticisms of method. So far, you've come up very short indeed.
I'm just hearing the same things over and over from you User482.
It surprises me that you continue to persevere with your line, given that you cannot muster sufficient interest in the subject to actually read any of the information pertaining to it. Or go beyond wiki for your 'opinion' on Wegman. And McIntyre.
However, you do score one important first! I haven't been called a contrarian troll before. And a poor one to boot. If I had any respect for your credentials, I might actually treasure that.
It surprises me that you continue to persevere with your line, given that you cannot muster sufficient interest in the subject to actually read any of the information pertaining to it. Or go beyond wiki for your 'opinion' on Wegman. And McIntyre.
However, you do score one important first! I haven't been called a contrarian troll before. And a poor one to boot. If I had any respect for your credentials, I might actually treasure that.
Get real. It's all about the method.
U
User482
Guest
Contradicting yourself isn't making you any more convincing.
U
User482
Guest
By contrast, it doesn't surprise me at all that you continue to repeat things that are untrue. It fits quite neatly with someone who makes a serious allegation on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
If the method is dishonest...
