Climate Departure and Cities to be Hit First

reply to post by Phage

Except that we continue to see more record high temperatures set and fewer low temperature records. en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia on Climate is run by Connelly and nothing that disagrees with CAGW is allowed to remain on Wiki. He got booted off during the edit wars but is now back in control.

Of course we see more high records. It is called the Heat Island Effect. Heat from human activity in cities and airports which is a very minor part of the earth. Heck 70% is ocean and the data for oceans is crappy.

Most significant was the thermometer drop out. The number of stations worldwide went from 7000 stations down to about 1000. A disproportionate number of stations that were left after the purge were at airports know to be bias hot. If you actually want to know the real climate you should look only at actual rural stations.

Just in case you think this is not on purpose.... Gavin on How to Lie with Statistics.

Subject: Re: Your Reply to: GISS Temperature Correction Problem?
From: Gavin Schmidt [email protected]
Date: 19 Feb 2008 14:38:47 -0500
To: [email protected]

I had a look at the data, and this whole business seems to be related to the infilling of seasonal and annual means. There is no evidence for any step change in any of the individual months.

The only anomalous point (which matches nearby deltas) is for Set 2005. Given the large amount of missing data in lampasas this gets propagated to the annual (D-N) mean – I think – with a little more weight then in the nearby stations. The other factor might be that lampasas is overall cooling, if we use climatology to infill in recent years, that might give a warm bias. But I’m not sure on how the filling-in happens.


Gavin

Seems the Russians are not happy with how the data has been mangled.

...the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration....
en.ria.ru...

And if you REALLY want to get into the whole mess see: GEOstatistics: From human error to scientific fraud. A website on Krigging in the field of geology where it has been tested against reality. Krigging is also the method used to grid temperature data. www.geostatscam.com...

As I said I have been reading on the subject until my eyeball fall out. CAGW is an artifact of data manipulation.

reply to post by dlbott

...The climate is changing and with it the weather, you can live in LA LA land if you want to, but allot of us are actually already being affected by the changes. Here is the real problem, the one percent does no want there to be climate change, it will cost them money. They don't care about the consequences because they know they won't be alive....

Hate to tell you but the data shows tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low. If the IPCC has geven up on the extreme weather propaganda because it is too easy to disprove. Also the rate of change in sea level is also at a low compared to the rest of this interglacial.

Thing about it. Do you actually want the sea level to FALL??? That means the glaciers are increasing and we are back in a Little Ice Age or the BIG ONE.

Sorry no thanks. The earth has dealt with warming just fine. Besides with a 9% decrease in Solar Insolation since the Holocene max. majopr warming just isn't going to happen. All CO2 can do is keep the earth from cooling quite so fast. According to some CO2 just might be enough to KEEP US OUT OF GLACIATION!

Lilroanie
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

I have a question, isn't part of agenda 21 to get rid of the cattle herds because it "isn't sustainable"? If I read that right what do you guys think about that?

Lil

First the buffalo herds in the USA were wiped out and replaced by cattle so no real change.

Second ask yourself WHY the elite are pushing Animal rights, Veganism.... (Wouldn't you want a nice docile herd of bovine like human workers?)

The reason for pushing Veganism is we are predators. Our brain growth depends on the concentrated food value found in meat. Predators spend a lot of time lazing around. Herbivores have to spend most of their time eating. More important brain development neonatal and in the first years is very dependent on certain nutrition only animal derived.

The extreme case is the Koala bear.

..The fact that eucalyptus gum leaves were low in nutrition, almost indigestibly fibrous, and contained toxic compounds meant that very few animals consumed them, allowing eucalyptus forests to thrive and spread over much of what would become southern and eastern Australia. Koalas gradually adapted to fill an ecological niche by taking advantage of this plentiful—if low quality—food source...

...physiological adaptations allowed the eucalyptus tree to become the koala’s sole food source, the poor quality of this diet means that koalas must spend over five hours a day eating up to two and a half pounds of the tough leaves. They spend the remainder of each day virtually motionless, sleeping and dozing high in the trees. This lethargic behavior once inspired speculation that koalas were actually drugged by narcotic toxins in their eucalyptus diet, but we now understand that their behavior is a means of energy conservation required by a very slow metabolism. Indeed, the extreme inactivity of the modern koala has had a uniquely unfortunate effect on the size of its brain: it has shrunk dramatically, now filling only 40% of a cranial capacity which once held a much larger brain of the type required by a more active animal.... www.pbs.org...

If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?

John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution....

He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” If our brain keeps dwindling at that rate over the next 20,000 years, it will start to approach the size of that found in Homo erectus...

Recent studies of human fossils suggest the brain shrank more quickly than the body in near-modern times.....

Another popular theory attributes the decrease to the advent of agriculture, which, paradoxically, had the initial effect of worsening nutrition. Quite simply, the first farmers were not very successful at eking out a living from the land, and their grain-heavy diet was deficient in protein and vitamins—critical for fueling growth of the body and brain. In response to chronic malnutrition, our body and brain might have shrunk...

discovermagazine.com...

Role of red meat in the diet for children and adolescents.

....Over the first few years of postnatal life, an infant's body undergoes dramatic changes not only in physical attributes, but also in developmental milestones. By three years of age, an infant's head circumference and hence brain size will have reached 80% of what it will potentially achieve in adulthood, and its length will also have doubled in size. Therefore, it is not surprising that any adverse events occurring during these periods may have a negative impact upon psychomotor development.

In 1968, Dobbing (1) suggested that there were vulnerable periods of neurological development that coincided with times of maximal brain growth. These periods begin during foetal development at around the 25th week of gestation and continue for the first two years of postnatal life. Nutrient deficiencies occurring during these vulnerable periods may well have an impact upon brain growth and, hence, neurological and psychomotor development. (1) These nutrient deficits have subsequently been shown to result in more functional deficiencies rather than physical abnormalities. Not only is optimal nutrition essential for achieving optimal physical and psychosocial development, but it also appears to have significant disease implications for later in adult life.....

....Their retrospective, epidemiological report has been supported by several studies on the Netherlands famine during World War II, which affected women during early, mid and late stages of gestation. (3,4) Subsequently, animal and prospective human studies have suggested that either under- or over-nutrition in utero can be associated with epigenetic changes as well as intrauterine adverse programming of organ function. (5)

Development of functional activity may be associated with myelination. Many nerve fibres are covered with a whitish, fatty, segmented sheath called the myelin sheath. Myelin protects and electrically insulates fibres from one another and increases the speed of transmission of the nerve impulses. Myelinated fibres conduct nerve impulses rapidly, whereas unmyelinated fibres tend to conduct quite slowly. This acceleration of nerve conduction is essential for the function of the body and survival.....

However there is hope. Environmental disasters like GLACIATION cause major increases in Human brain size.

Strange, all these high temperatures, yet north and south pole ice keeps increasing, or so I read at the blog 'climate depot', the daily updates do make really interesting reading, especially all the 'debunkers on, which apier to be high standing scientists, lord Monkton sure has a lot to say on the matter.

reply to post by pikestaff

yet north and south pole ice keeps increasing

In some areas of the Antarctic sea ice is increasing, something the deniers are very fond of pointing out. Overall, the amount of ice is decreasing, something the deniers tend to ignore.


Arctic sea ice is decreasing. The extent of summer ice this year was greater than that of the previous year. That also happened in 1995. It does not mean that it "keeps on increasing".

reply to post by Kali74


The proof is in the emails sent by the offending British scientists omitting inconvenient data. You need to get more informed on the misdeeds that negated their credibility in the first place. Even in the latest UN report key data was eliminated because it didn't fit the agenda. The climate model's low end warming projections were way over the actuals. Now why do think that is so? It's because they inflated the data used in the models (That's a FACT). Anthropogenic global warming, ie climate change is a manufactured hoax.

reply to post by bladerunner44


I've done a lot of research on these emails. Did you know that they are posted online in their entirety? Context matters you know. Also, despite several investigations... legal and scientific no one involved was found having done anything wrong. So again prove it, or stop making outrageous claims.

reply to post by Kali74


I would say your research is suspect. When you eliminate ( chose not to use) data from viable reporting locations that contravene your preconceived position, I would say that is doing something wrong. Let's assume for argument sake that the data approximates a normal distribution. If you want to skew that data just eliminate the data points on the tail (outliers ) that don't match the outcome you're looking for. That is what they did. My claims are only outrageous if you want to ignore the manipulation.

reply to post by Phage

In some areas of the Antarctic sea ice is increasing, something the deniers are very fond of pointing out. Overall, the amount of ice is decreasing, something the deniers tend to ignore.

You really should check your facts before spouting nonsense.

Skeptics do not 'ignore' the area of the Antarctic that has decreasing Ice. They are well aware there are active volcanoes in the area. Actually there are active volcanoes under the Arctic sea also.
National Geographic News:
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths

Buried under thick ice and frigid water, volcanic explosions are shaking the Arctic Ocean floor at depths previously thought impossible, according to a new study.

Using robot-operated submarines, researchers have found deposits of glassy rock—evidence of eruptions—scattered over more than 5 square miles (15 square kilometers) of the seabed.

Explosive volcanic eruptions were not thought to be possible at depths below the critical pressure for steam formation, or 2 miles (3,000 meters).....

Hydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean (January 23, 2003)

Hotbed of Volcanic Activity Found Beneath Arctic Ocean (June 25, 2003)

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh F. J. Corr and David G. Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica. For Antarctica, “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet,” Dr. Vaughan said.
www.nytimes.com...

First Evidence Of Under-Ice Volcanic Eruption In Antarctica
Jan. 22, 2008 — The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica's most rapidly changing ice sheet has been reported. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active....

However even with the volcanism the Antarctic Sea Ice broke record highs this year.

According to recent data published by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), situated in Boulder, Colorado, the sea ice levels around the Antarctica reached a record high in August...

With September marking the end of the Antarctica’s winter, experts believe that the ice pack will have expanded even further during this month. The last record was broken during September of 2012. According to the NSIDC report, the Antarctica sea ice was determined to be 7.53 million square miles by Sept. 14, 2013, smashing the previous year’s record (7.51 million square miles)....
Guardian UK

reply to post by crimvelvet

I guess I'm missing your point.
Are you trying to say that volcanic activity is causing the reduction in land ice in Antarctica?

However even with the volcanism the Antarctic Sea Ice broke record highs this year.

Yes. I said sea ice has increased in some areas of Antarctica. But the mass of ice in the entire Antarctic has been decreasing. The extent of ice is not the same as the total mass of ice.

Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively.

www.sciencemag.org...
The ice mass in East Antarctica increased by 14 gigatons. The ice mass in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Penninsula decreased by a total of 85 gigatons. A net loss of 71 gigatons.

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (see above) range from losing 100 gigatons/year to over 300 gigatons/year. Because 360 gigatons/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.

www.wunderground.com...

reply to post by Phage




There is a rather interesting point about the Arctic/Antarctic ice. The Antarctic Ice will increase as the Arctic ice decreases. This is called the Bi-polar Seesaw.

A paper that came out about a year ago deals with the Bipolar-Seesaw: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?


The key phrase is

ABSTRACT
...Here we propose that the interval between the terminal oscillation of the bipolar seesaw and three thousand years (kyr) before its first major reactivation provides an estimate that approximates the length of the sea-level high- stand, a measure of interglacial duration...

We are at the tail end of the Holocene and we see the reactivation of the bi-polar seesaw. In other words the melting of the Arctic ice may not mean what you think it means.

In the body of the paper you have.

We thus estimate interglacial duration as the interval between the terminal occurrence of bipolar-seesaw variability and 3 kyr before its first major reactivation.

They go on to describe the factors they have identified:

One aspect common to MIS 11c, 13a and 17 is that precession and obliquity are nearly opposite in phase, with the obliquity maximum post-dating the first precession minimum by 11–13 kyr and preceding the second preces- sion minimum by 8–10 kyr. This means that the first summer insolation minimum occurred at the time of maximum obliquity. A low value of obliquity is important in determining ice accumulation in high latitudes, by leading to an intensified equator-to-pole insolation gradient and increased pole-ward transport of moisture, and by delaying the spring melt season (Raymo and Nisancioglu, 2003; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2004)....

The start of interglacials is in line with the canonical view of Milankovitch forcing dictating the broad timing of interglacials (Milankovitch, 1941; Hays et al., 1976). More specifically, insolation/precession changes pace the timing of terminations, although the actual mechanisms controlling terminations may be related to the critical size of ice sheets and also to bipolar-seesaw variability and its influence on CO2 concentrations, combined with insolation forcing and ice-albedo feedbacks (e.g. Raymo, 1997; Paillard, 2001; Wolff et al., 2009; Denton et al., 2010; Barker et al., 2011). Glacial inception always takes place when obliquity is decreasing....

The rather nasty conclusion they reach is:

...A corollary of all this is that we should also be able to predict the duration of the current interglacial in the absence of anthropogenic interference. The phasing of precession and obliquity (precession minimum/insolation maximum at 11 kyr BP; obliquity maximum at 10 kyr BP) would point to a short duration, although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012).

Lets hope that CO2 is the magical gas the alarmists think. It may be all that is keeping us out of the ice box.

reply to post by bladerunner44


Show us then.

reply to post by crimvelvet

There is a rather interesting point about the Arctic/Antarctic ice. The Antarctic Ice will increase as the Arctic ice decreases. This is called the Bi-polar Seesaw.

The mass of both Antarctic and Arctic ice is decreasing. What is that called?

A paper that came out about a year ago deals with the Bipolar-Seesaw: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?

And the answer is, they don't know if they can.

While more precise chronologies are still required, especially for the interval 400–800 kyr BP, the systematic estimation of interglacial length represents a step towards the development of a theoretical framework to account for first-order differences in interglacial durations in the Middle and Late Pleistocene. Second-order differences may be more difficult to predict (why is MIS 5e longer than MIS 19c?), especially if stochasticity in the climate system and small variations in context and feedbacks lead to differences in the timing of inception. Although contextual differences (e.g. residual ice volume) may not be easy to reconstruct from proxy records especially for earlier interglacials, experiments with Earth
System models may provide useful insights into their relative importance.

But it is an interesting idea on refining apparent correlations with glaciation and the Milankovitch cycle.

This requires ice sheets large enough to extend to coastlines and produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the meridional overturning circulation (MOC), leading to rapid cooling of the North Atlantic and gradual warming of Antarctica.

Is the North Atlantic experience rapid cooling?

reply to post by Kali74


Show you what? I am not your mentor go find the information for yourself it's out there. I get tired of trying to educate dunces. I'll will give you one reference though.

www.virtualwall.org...

reply to post by bladerunner44


You are making the claim so you back it up, otherwise you're simply blowing hot air. My guess by your defensive tone is that you couldn't find what you're claiming. I assume you are referring to the Yamal Chronology?

Climate Investigation Clears US Scientists

In Briffa's own words

The basis for McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

reply to post by Phage

guess I'm missing your point. Are you trying to say that volcanic activity is causing the reduction in land ice in Antarctica?

Depends on what part of the Antarctic you are talking about.

So far the volcanoes have all been located on the coasts of Antarctic and none in the interior. This places them near the edge of the ice sheets. Satellite measured temperature trends tend to back up the idea that there is volcanic activity, because there are 'Hot Spots" where temperatures have been rising.

The active volcano I linked to under the Antarctic ice “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”. It is located beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet in the Hudson Mountains. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid changes and when the team of BAS scientists went looking for the reason they found the active volcano.

Here is a related story: Lakes Beneath Antarctic Ice Sheets Found To Initiate And Sustain Flow Of Ice To Ocean

The other piece of information about Antarctica that is never mentioned is it is a desert. It is the driest place on earth.

A third "problem" The data is "Calculated" not measured!

Here is a report of the new "Calculation"

New understanding of Antarctica’s weight-loss

. Using re-calibrated scales that are able to ‘weigh’ ice sheets from space to a greater degree of accuracy than ever before, the international team led by Newcastle University has discovered that Antarctica overall is contributing much less to the substantial sea-level rise than originally thought.

(The crisis is over everyone can go home now)

Instead, the large amount of water flowing away from West Antarctica through ice-melt has been partly cancelled out by the volume of water falling onto the continent in the form of snow, suggesting some past studies have overestimated Antarctica’s contribution to fast-rising sea levels.

Using Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data, the team calculated ice sheet mass loss by more accurately mapping and removing the mass changes caused by the flow of rock beneath Earth’s surface....

“Our ice change calculations rely heavily on how well we can account for these important changes taking place beneath the Earth’s surface.....

Because most of the Antarctic land surface is covered by ice it has been incredibly difficult to determine where it is rising and falling and by how much. That has meant GRACE data hasn’t been able to contribute as much as it could to help scientists understand if Antarctica was growing or shrinking......

In other words whether Antarctica is growing or shrinking depends completely on calculations made by scientists working under the IPCC whose mandate is to find human caused climate change.

reply to post by Phage

A paper that came out about a year ago deals with the Bipolar-Seesaw: Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? And the answer is, they don't know if they can.

And the answer is, they don't know if they can.

Actually the first draft was a lot more definite, but to get past the CAGW gatekeepers so the paper could be published it had to be rewritten.

For example this sentence has gone missing:

“…thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.”

And this

“With respect to the end of interglacials, the MIS 5e– 5d transition represents the only relevant period with direct sea-level determinations and precise chronologies that allow us to infer a sequence of events around the time of glacial inception (Fig. 2).”

And this…..

“Given the large decrease in summer insolation over the Last Interglacial as a result of the strong eccentricity-precession forcing, we suggest that the value of 3 kyr may be treated as a minimum. We thus estimate interglacial duration as the interval between the terminal occurrence of bipolar-seesaw variability and 3 kyr before its first major reactivation.”

However some Sheeple might see that information and conclude CAGW was a HOAX so it had to go. It does not mean the Powers That Be believe the CAGW crap.

UK Guardian: Bilderberg 2010: What we have learned A huge agenda of global issues was crammed into four days of 'secret' meetings by a mysterious group of power brokers

* • 'Global cooling' is on the cards

Check out the agenda for Bilderberg 2010: "Financial reform, security, cyber technology, energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, world food problem, global cooling, social networking, medical science, EU-US relations." That list is a window into your future. Don't think for one minute that it isn't. And don't ignore it, because it isn't ignoring you.

reply to post by Kali74

I assume you are referring to the Yamal Chronology?

Steve McIntyre's responses on the Yamal Chronology:
A new thread by Steve McIntyre. CRU Abandons Yamal Superstick

Unreported by CRU is that they’ve resiled* from the Yamal superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and now advocate a Yamal chronology, the modern portion of which is remarkably similar to the calculations in my posts of September 2009 here and May 2012 here, both of which were reviled by Real Climate at the time.

In today’s post, I’ll demonstrate the degree to which the new Briffa version has departed from the superstick of Briffa 2000 and Briffa et al 2008 and the surprising degree to which it approaches versions shown at CA.

First here is a comparison from CA in Sep 2009 here of the Briffa 2008 superstick to a version that simply incorporated Schweingruber’s Khadyta River data, applying the method used by Briffa for Taimyr in Briffa et al 2008. Real Climate screeched in fury against this comparison....

Go to the link to see the graphs of 'Before' and 'After' the Super Tree is taken out of the data.

* Resiled = abandon a position or a course of action.

And Steve McIntyre's earlier response to the Briffa paper on Yamal.

UnderCooked Statistics

....Yamal has been a longstanding issue at Climate Audit. The new article appears to be their long awaited response to criticism from Climate Audit (though this criticism is not referred to anywhere in the aticle.)

In resisting FOI requests for their withheld 2006 Yamal-Urals regional chronology, CRU said that it was incomplete, as they were continuing to work on its development. However, they did undertake to disclose the 2006 regional chronology as part of the present publication. On my first reading, instead of living up to their undertaking to develop a regional chronology, CRU has instead provided reasons against using a regional chronology and do not present one in the paper – instead focussing on a variation of the original Yamal chronology.

In resisting the FOI, CRU said that production of the 2006 regional chronology would damage the reputation of CRU scientists. The 2006 version appears to be the “Urals raw” chronology illustrated in SM9 as Greater Urals (shown below), though it is not identified as such in my first reading. Readers can judge for themselves whether their foreboding was justified....

The first comment:

Pat Frank

“the site report (and statistical evidence) demonstrating the anomalous “signal” in the Khadytla data lead us to omit them from the new Yamal chronology constructed here (see SM5 for details)”
[quote from paper - CV]

Otherwise known as excluding data that contradict the favored hypothesis. That also, in this case, contradict the prevailing assumption of uniformity that underlies the entire field of tree-ring paleothermometry.

And this is unreservedly submitted, gets through peer-review, and past journal editors. It’s beyond shameful. It’s beyond incompetence.

(If you like statistics and math Climate Audit is an interesting site to hang around.)

I'm still not sold, convinced, on the subject and the corrolation of global warming and the excess of man made CO2 our planet can't cope with for the near future.

Call it a "gut" feeling based on personal logic but I think we're missing some parts of the puzzle here.

It's clear we're the cause of putting the CO2 ecosystem out of balance. That system that was stable for at least 800 000 Years.

I don't have the exact numbers here but it's more or less (if I remember well, but feel free to correct the numbers)

1. A grow from around 180 ppm to 300+ ppm today in a timespam of 150 Years.
2. Man made CO2 is only 7% compared to naturaly produced CO2
3.The planatair CO2 system can only cope with 40% (or was it 40% remaining that the planatair system can't cope with) of man made CO2.

So every day, week, month, year we keep more and more CO2 around us, putting the entire "system" out of balance.

My personal opinion here and those words are only mine. (gut feeling)
I've the impression our planet isn't that happy with the actual situation and is trying to find a way to cope with that 300+ CO2 ppm.
Question now is what would be the most efficient way for her?
My fear is that we're not looking at a future global warming but we could be facing a global cooling to cope what that CO2 excess.
Time will tell, but not on my watch.

Nid