http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1975/every:3/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2006/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1975/trend

Zeke Hausfather

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1175874681108344832
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1175874683952095233

Sep 26, 2019 at 7:19 AM | Phil Clarke

You seem to have conceded that Mann has not behaved with honesty, but have swerved towards another Hockey Teamster.

Have you ever thought to try looking towards honest science for genuine evidence that will stand up to scrutiny?

In fact as the new WMO report makes clear, the 'acceleration' has kicked in and it is highly likely that the 5 years 2015-2019 will be the hottest on record.

Sep 26, 2019 at 9:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

You were talking of predictions.

I've had to do this before, but here we go again..

I predict tomorrows temperature will be similar to today. I predict the next (week/month/year)decade's temperature will be similar to the last decade after allowing for normal seasonal variations.

Those kind of predictions will usually win me the bet, whether we are in a cold decade or a hot decade. It so happens that we are indeed living in one of the warmest periods since the Middle Ages. If you travel 10 meters from the summit of a local high mountain, you are still likely to be higher than anywhere else. You get about one predictive point out of ten for that revelation.

Sep 26, 2019 at 8:08 PM | michael hart
Dishonesty by Hockey Teamsters from RealClimate continues. This is an inevitable consequence of incompetence by Climate Scientists and their colleagues masquerading as Peer Reviewers, so can't really be classified as a prediction.

https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/25/resplandy-et-al-part-5-final-outcome/#more-25271

Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome
Posted on September 25, 2019
By Nic Lewis

"The editors of Nature have retracted the Resplandy et al. paper.

Readers may recall that last autumn I wrote several article critiquing the Resplandy et al. (2018) ocean heat uptake study in Nature, which was based on measured changes in the O2/N2 ratio (δO2/N2) and CO2 atmospheric concentration. These were combined to produce an estimate (ΔAPOObs) of changes in atmospheric potential oxygen since 1991, from which they isolated a component (ΔAPOClimate) that can be used to estimate the change in ocean heat content. In four articles, here and here, here, and here, I set out why I thought the trend in ΔAPOClimate – and hence their ocean heat uptake estimate – was overstated, and its uncertainty greatly understated, essentially because of errors in their statistical methodology. The bulk of my criticisms were largely accepted by the authors of the study. However, it was evident from their related ★ Realclimate article ★ that in their submitted correction they had also made a change in an unconnected assumption, with the effect of offsetting much of the reduction in their ocean heat uptake estimate that correcting their statistical errors would have caused."

The lame one, Phil, is the Piltdown Mann. He used the verification R2 statistics, suppressed them when they didn't support his research, then later said the use of them would be silly and unreasonable.

Portrait of a crook, in the original suppression and in the later comments.

Nice hero you have there.
==================

"The climate of the Holocene"

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

Agenda Insight:

[...]

"Do radical environmentalists support nature at the expense of people? Unfortunately, yes, says Jordan Peterson in this defense of human efforts to manage an ever more complex reality."

https://youtu.be/08stkynXUlc

Kim,

You clearly don't get the point about r2 being appropriate in some contexts and not others, and you're following your hero in weaving a conspiracy out of pure mist, complete with childish insult.

Lame.

Whoop! Whoop! A paper is withdrawn ('correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming,')!

Just a few thousand more and the whole edifice will come tumbling down!

Just a few thousand more and the whole edifice will come tumbling down!

Sep 27, 2019 at 10:31 AM | Phil Clarke

Is that as much of an exaggerated prediction generated without evidence, by Hockey Teamsters, as Mann's Hockey Stick?

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change

Sep 27, 2019 at 11:37 AM | Phil Clarke

Are they all as unreliable as your normal sources?

Phil. This discussion is titled "The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm". Why do you repeatedly and single-handedly demonstrate the truth of this assertion?

One hundred thousand socialist bees in a teen suit. If you have been affected by the issues covered by this post help is available.

Phil should take a look at the twitter thread from early August which features a discussion between McIntyre and Gomez-Navarro.

There is a link near the bottom of yesterday's WattsUp thread about the Piltdown Mann.
======================================

Science by Twitter?

Science by Twitter?

Mac seems to be mainly just rehashing the same-old, same-old, (r2, strip-bark, NOAMER) this time in 144 character bites.

Nothing that has not been repeatedly debunked.

Heh, so take your case to Climateaudit.org
==================================

Again, the Piltdown Mann used the verification r2 statistics and then lied about it. Some hero.

That Gomez-Navarro thread has a lot about later attempts to duplicate a hockey stick, and that stuff has not been debunked.
==========

Heh, the ex post stick.

Phil, relying on the fraudulous hockey stick is going to boomerang on the alarmists someday. It allows natural variation to be concealed, and natural variation can not stay concealed.

You'll see, or maybe you won't, but your grandchildren will. It's a truth time bomb.
===========================

, so take your case to Climateaudit.org
==================================

Oct 9, 2019 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

I've suggested that to him more than once Kim, but somehow he never manages to get round to it. The IPCC themselves quietly buried the hockey stick but some people just won't let it rest peacefully in its scientific grave.

Life On Planet Thunberg

Michael Hart.
But some cannot part from their love ones. They enshroud them and keep them in their best rooms. Phil has the rotting corpse of a hockey stick next to his computer. Commonly its smell pervades the ether. GolfCharlie is particularly sensitive.

Science by twitter.

The twitter thread starts with a classic McIntyre-ism, showing two time series from Pakistan, one with an 20th century uptick, he asks: 'Guess which one was selected into PAGES2019. Cherry-picking by climatists has gone well beyond a joke'

To which Gomez-Navarro responds with 4 points, the first of which is that none of the PAGES conclusions rely on screened data. (Classic McIntyre mountain from molehill, point out a supposed flaw, carefully ignore the impact. The Yamal effect.).

Faced with this McIntyre drops Pakistan ("I didn't suggest that results are impacted by a few selections" Um, yes you did, one in fact) and makes some old points about the North American series (or moves the pea under the thimble, to use CA borderline offensive parlance), copied and pasted from CA.

Gomez-Navarro points out that the SI in the paper demonstrates 'the result is real', a point not disputed by the Auditor.

McIntyre is an expert in irrelevant noise generation, throwing sand in the air, repeating the same old myths, over and over. In this thread we have:-

Myth The 2006 NAS Panel said bristlecone pines should not be used in temperature reconstructions, without these the hockey stick disappears.

What NAS said was a little more nuanced, firstly the issue was with stripbark samples, many bristlecones exhibit strip bark, but not all. Also the problem is only significant in the last 150 years or so. There's plenty of research to show bristlecones furnish valuable proxy information in earlier centuries, and removing them has negligible impact (the green line)

Myth Mann published favourable r2 validation scores but concealed inconveniently low scores.

No, Mann published appropriate r2 from the period of high-resolution (annual) data. R2 from earlier periods is pretty meaningless (and in any case freely available). McIntyre (selectively) quotes the NAS panel on strip bark samples, I've never seen him refer to that panel's verdict on r2 in the context of low resolution climate proxies. That would be because they said the measure 'is not in itself a useful indication of merit'

Page 92

You see how this works now?

'Debating' with McIntyre is a spectacular waste of time. Firstly, he himself has given up trying to engage with the scientific community in the form of comments or articles (please - no conspiracy guff), preferring the kind of snark exhibited here. Secondly, I've seen what happens: Nick Stokes (a retired scientist, proprietor of the Moyhu blog, and no statistical slouch) has attempted to engage on home turf with the Auditor, after taking him to task on one of his myths.

What Steve McIntyre won't show you.

As one of the commenters said, the result: McIntyre seems to be trying to bury his gross errors under a mountain of indignant blog posts, obfuscation and red herrings. McIntyre ought to just come clean, climb down and be honest with himself and others. That he can't do that, just goes to show how far gone and deluded he is. 

Oh dear.

Believe it or not, I did once cross paths with Steve, away from his safe space, at David Appell's place (scroll down) , pointing out that the fuss about r2 was a classic mountain out of a molehill.

No answer.