scientists are worried about a surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean

[Frankfooter]

More pointless evasions.

I don't give a damn about where the link came from or what the web posting says about the IPCC's 1990 chart.

The chart has no scale on it, its entirely useless for making any claims.
The sites where you have seen it used distorted the chart and added a faked scale.
The original chart had no scale so can't be used to prove any point.
Now on to your next statement:

The fact is that your statement about FAST was false. You should try acting like an adult and acknowledge that what you said was wrong. Maybe you even want to show that you're more mature than anyone imagines and apologize to FAST.

Here you are lying about a chart, claiming it proves something when it doesn't.
Admit that the chart is totally useless to any argument without a scale then we can talk about FAST's support of the hockey stick chart.

ok?

 

[Frankfooter]

A cursory read of the link shows that the graph posted is not wrong, the article speaks of another graph that used the posted graph as the framework to make a fake graph.

Instead of spending 5 minutes to read an article, you would rather spend that 5 minutes making a post that reveals you ignorance, incompetence, and laziness.

Alternatively you might actually have read the article and understood what it says and chose to still make false statements, in that case your post is a testament to your commitment to deception, and not a smart deception at that as anyone who has 5 minutes to read the article can see right through your deception.

Moviefan used the chart to try to claim that global temperatures were higher in the midieval period and that the recent warming is nothing new. However, a cursory reading of the realclimate article notes that the chart is an estimate of British temperatures, it is not accurate (as it should be obviously with the lack of scale) but most importantly, its not a chart of global temperature.

The chart is legit, but its faked when its used as a claim about global temperatures for those two reasons.

As Realclimate noted:

This curve was based on Lamb’s estimated climate history for central England. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/#sthash.Wx3OINb9.dpuf

I fully expect that moviefan found the chart on some other site that used the faked and distorted on, either that or he really thinks a chart with no scale can be used as proof.
There are more obviously faked versions of this chart floating around on moviefan's lobbyist sites, where they distort the curve and add a scale to this 'estimate' of central British temperatures.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Page 28 of the Summary for Policy Makers in the IPCC's 1990 report:

"(W)e believe that a real warming of the globe of 0.3°C - 0.6°C has taken place over the last century, any bias due to urbanisation is likely to be less than 0.05°C"

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

The temperature increase from the late 19th century to the late 20th century was acknowledged in the IPCC's 1990 report -- eight years before the hockey stick graph.

It is not a "finding" that came from the hockey stick graph. The statement that FAST's acknowledgment of that warming was an endorsement of the hockey stick graph was a lie.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Moviefan used the chart to try to claim that global temperatures were higher in the midieval period and that the recent warming is nothing new.

No, actually, I used the chart to show that the temperature increase from 1880 to the late 20th century isn't a "finding" that came from the hockey stick graph.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5360409&viewfull=1#post5360409

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5360821&viewfull=1#post5360821

 

[bishop]

Obviously you did not initially read the article, you only read it later and have changed your accusations that it is outright fraud to it only represents the british isles.

Now you have to understand that estimated climate history is the best they can do, the data I suppose is composed mostly of tree ring data which is just a proxy to actual temperature. If the climate was not estimated that would imply that someone took a time machine back and installed a modern temperature station on the british isles.

Now with regards to it only representing Britain, it is true, though it is still a valid datapoint supporting global temperatures have always been changing and our current temperature is not statistically significant. It certainly does not support your alarmist viewpoint that we are experiencing temperatures without precedent or temperature changes without precedent.

Now MF did misrepresent the graph knowingly or unknowingly as global temperatures.

 

[Frankfooter]

Obviously you did not initially read the article, you only read it later and have changed your accusations that it is outright fraud to it only represents the british isles.

It is outright fraud to bring in a chart that is an estimate of central England temperatures and claim it is an accurate chart of global temperatures, as moviefan tried to do.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, actually, I used the chart to show that the temperature increase from 1880 to the late 20th century isn't a "finding" that came from the hockey stick graph.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5360409&viewfull=1#post5360409

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5360821&viewfull=1#post5360821

From your post in the first link:

The key "finding" of the hockey stick graph was the extremely dubious claim that there was no Medieval Warm Period. FAST said nothing to suggest he believes such a thing, and the hockey stick graph and Mann have been thoroughly discredited.

You have a choice here:
a) admit you brought a local chart into a discussion about global temperatures because you just read it on some other lobbyist site and didn't check to see if it was legit (stupid easy mark defence)
b) admit that you tried to pull an 'extremely dubious claim' by trying to misrepresent a chart as global, when it was an estimate of local temperatures (admitting you are dishonest)

Your choice.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Now MF did misrepresent the graph knowingly or unknowingly as global temperatures.

Actually, the IPCC report says it is a schematic diagram of "global temperature variations" (page 202): https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

In the part of the written text about that schematic, it says "it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global."

It was the IPCC that made the claim that the schematic was about global temperatures.

Regardless, the debate is a red herring. Whether the increases and decreases are exactly to scale or not, the schematic confirms that the IPCC believed in 1990 that the planet's temperature had increased from the late 19th century to the late 20th century.

As shown in post 63, that increase from the late 19th century to the late 20th century was also confirmed in the written text:

"(W)e believe that a real warming of the globe of 0.3°C - 0.6°C has taken place over the last century, any bias due to urbanisation is likely to be less than 0.05°C"

The claim that the temperature increase from 1880 onward is a "finding" that should be attributed to the hockey stick graph remains false. Frankfooter's claim about FAST's statement was a lie.

 

[Moviefan-2]

admit that you tried to pull an 'extremely dubious claim' by trying to misrepresent a chart as global, when it was an estimate of local temperatures (admitting you are dishonest)

The IPCC said it is a schematic of "global" temperature variations. Page 202: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

If you want to make the assertion that the IPCC is forever getting things spectacularly wrong (or, if you prefer your words, that the IPCC makes "extremely dubious claims"), I'm prepared to back you on that.

If you want to stick with your assertion that what the IPCC reported is "outright fraud," I might be prepared to back that assertion, as well.

Meanwhile, you owe FAST an apology for lying about what he said.

 

[bishop]

You are right, there is no mention that the graph 7.1(c) is for a particular location in the PDF, it is logical assume it is representative of global temperatures.

 

[SexB]

"Cold Blob"?

I smell a Syfy movie of the week!

 

[FAST]

The original chart had no scale so can't be used to prove any point.

Actually if had the slightest clue,...a graph does NOT necessarily require a scale to prove a point,...assuming one actually knows how to read a graph.
Just continues to confirm you don't even know what a graph is,...let alone know how to read one.

,...we can talk about FAST's support of the hockey stick chart.

And once again,...you are lying,...but I don't expect ANY of your posts to be anything other than lies.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

The IPCC said it is a schematic of "global" temperature variations. Page 202: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
.

The chart comes from a 1990 IPCC report, and is one of the few errors in that report, as noted by the source you used for that chart, realclimate.
The top of the three graphs in the IPCC report is the only one that is global, the other two are estimates (note that there is no scale) of central England temperatures as noted in the more detailed history of that chart in the page you used to post the chart.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

The fact that your argument is based on one error in a 25 year old report and that you have no recent IPCC evidence to back this claim shows it to be total nonsense and based either on lazy researching or intentional dishonesty.

This is from the page that you linked to for the graph:

The curve is a fake in several respects. It originally is taken from the first IPCC report of 1990: a scan of the original is shown in Figure 3. At that time, no large-scale temperature reconstructions were available yet. To give an indication of past climate variability, the report showed Lamb’s Central England estimate. (Unfortunately this was not stated in the report – an oversight which shows that IPCC review procedures in the early days were not what they are now. We will post in more detail on the history of this curve another time.) - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/#sthash.hwxmkgeH.dpuf

 

[Moviefan-2]

The chart comes from a 1990 IPCC report, and is one of the few errors in that report...

Oh, so now it's an "error." :biggrin1: That's quite a climb down from what you were saying yesterday.

It is outright fraud to bring in a chart that is an estimate of central England temperatures and claim it is an accurate chart of global temperatures....

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...lantic-Ocean&p=5361519&viewfull=1#post5361519

Yesterday, the IPCC's statement that the schematic represents "global" temperatures was characterized as "outright fraud." Now, it's just an "error."

Too funny.

Of course, you have no proof that it was an "error" but it's immaterial.

The written text in the IPCC's report confirmed that the IPCC believed the Earth's temperature had increased from 1880 to the end of the 20th century. And that report was published eight years before the hockey stick graph.

Your statement about what FAST said was a lie. You should admit to the lie and apologize to FAST.

 

[Frankfooter]

Oh, so now it's an "error." :biggrin1: That's quite a climb down from what you were saying yesterday.

The IPCC published an error with the graph.

You, however, are committing fraud to use a 25 year old, mislabelled graph in your argument, since your very source for the graph is from an article that points out both the error and the false claims you made with this chart.

Remember, your link to the chart is this realclimate article detailing the fraudulent use of this chart:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

Your link for the chart was was:
(http://www.) realclimate.org/images/ipcc_1990_panel3.jpg

And as they note in that article:

The curve is a fake in several respects. It originally is taken from the first IPCC report of 1990: a scan of the original is shown in Figure 3. At that time, no large-scale temperature reconstructions were available yet. To give an indication of past climate variability, the report showed Lamb’s Central England estimate. (Unfortunately this was not stated in the report – an oversight which shows that IPCC review procedures in the early days were not what they are now. We will post in more detail on the history of this curve another time.) - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/#sthash.tcHGSXzg.dpuf

 

[Frankfooter]

The written text in the IPCC's report confirmed that the IPCC believed the Earth's temperature had increased from 1880 to the end of the 20th century. And that report was published eight years before the hockey stick graph.

So you are saying that the IPCC's findings backed the findings of Mann's 'hockey stick chart' 8 years before it was published and you think that instead of confirming the chart you think it indicates its wrong?

 

[bishop]

The chart comes from a 1990 IPCC report, and is one of the few errors in that report, as noted by the source you used for that chart, realclimate.
The top of the three graphs in the IPCC report is the only one that is global, the other two are estimates (note that there is no scale) of central England temperatures as noted in the more detailed history of that chart in the page you used to post the chart.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/

The fact that your argument is based on one error in a 25 year old report and that you have no recent IPCC evidence to back this claim shows it to be total nonsense and based either on lazy researching or intentional dishonesty.

This is from the page that you linked to for the graph:

The graph is based on historical data, would you be comfortable if every year history is reinterpreted and rewritten? If there is new analysis to apply to the historical data then it will surely be reanalyzed and published.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So you are saying that the IPCC's findings backed the findings of Mann's 'hockey stick chart' 8 years before it was published and you think that instead of confirming the chart you think it indicates its wrong?

No, what I said is that the IPCC report confirms that the small temperature increase from 1880 to the late 20th increase was known by scientists years before the hockey stick graph was ever created.

The temperature increase from the late 19th century to the late 20th century is not a "finding" that is attributed to the hockey stick graph; nor is it confirmation of the more outrageous claims in the completely discredited hockey stick graph, which covered a period of 1,000 years, not just the past 135 years.

If you want me to provide you with a detailed list of the things that confirm ("indicate" is much too soft a word) that the hockey stick is total crap, you let me know. I'll be happy to oblige.

In the meantime, what you posted about FAST's statement was a lie. Acknowledging that the temperature is slightly higher now than it was in 1880 has nothing whatsoever to do with an endorsement of the hockey stick rubbish. You should admit that you lied and apologize to FAST.

 

[Frankfooter]

The graph is based on historical data, would you be comfortable if every year history is reinterpreted and rewritten? If there is new analysis to apply to the historical data then it will surely be reanalyzed and published.

The graph is based on what was new research into historical data at the time, research continues.
Would you be happy if doctors were allowed to discover cancer existed but allowed to do any new research into curing it?

 

[Frankfooter]

No, what I said is that the IPCC report confirms that the small temperature increase from 1880 to the late 20th increase was known by scientists years before the hockey stick graph was ever created.

The temperature increase from the late 19th century to the late 20th century is not a "finding" that is attributed to the hockey stick graph; nor is it confirmation of the more outrageous claims in the completely discredited hockey stick graph, which covered a period of 1,000 years, not just the past 135 years.

So you are confirming that the 'hockey stick chart' was based on existing research, and that existing research confirms its findings for the last 150 years.

Now all you need to do is look at research that is more current then the 1990 chart you posted to confirm that the rest of Mann's findings have also been confirmed.
Multiple times.