Nonetheless, temperature now is within measurement error of 2003. By HadCrut 4.

So? Rapid warming is also possible within the error bars.Check out Nick Stokes' demolition of Javier's risible curve fitting at WUWT. (more propaganda).

You cannot measure a trend with just two data points and then credibly complain about ignorance in others. Your entire premise 'AnthroCO2 is not living up to its purportedly ferocious warming potential' is incorrect, (and therefore everything that flows from it). Pointing out statistical illiteracy is not closing down debate, btw.

HTH.

http://tinyurl.com/ybqttdle

"You cannot measure a trend with just two data points and then credibly complain about ignorance in others
Apr 9, 2019 at 8:25 AM | Phil Clarke"

So why did Mann ignore all the data points for the MWP and LIA? Was he ignorant of them, or was he rewarded for deliberately ignoring them?

Blip

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0274.txt

Mr Burke read the Lords report rather too hastily since the other research work is referred
to in the Lords Report, as are papers finding significant 'blips' in in the temperature
history and to which he makes no reference. However, I have been unable to download what
appear to be your broadcasts on your webpage and I wondered if you have a transcript in
e-form that I might see. Alternatively you may have issued some other refutation of the
McKitrick-McIntyre critique - if so I have not been able to find it. I should add that it
is only this critique that the Lords referred to and not to any other.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0571.txt

Clipe, once again the thrust of your point is hard to know, especially as you missed off the reply

Dear Dr. Pearce,

Thanks for your inquiy.

Indeed, there have been detailed rebuttal's by me directly (on the website

"RealClimate.org" and also e.g. on the BBC, links available here:
[1]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/news/news.html
but perhaps more importantly, the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been
independently discredited independently by at least two research groups (and several others
that have submitted papers for review recently). There is discussion of this (and some
relevant links) on the RealClimate.org website. In particular, see the latest posting
"Scientists Respond to Barton", especially the "Response of Michael Mann" that is linked to
below.

You might want to look specifically at the press release (and extensive supporting material provided) by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) from a couple months ago, describing the work of an independent group of scientists who have established deep flaws in the McIntyre and McKitrick claims

[2]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

(there is a link to the abstracts of their papers, one on them is currently iin revision,
the other is in press).
Also, you should note this additional paper by Rutherford et al discrediting the McIntyre
and McKitrick claims, to appear next month in the "Journal of Climate" is available here
(click on hyperlink for first article
in list):
[3]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/articles/articles.html
I hope this information if of help to you. ...

Heh, that big fat blip of an El Nino recently just cooled the ocean. So where are we really? We are not warming in any scary fashion.

Scary is cooling, even a little; warming that we are capable of is going to be net beneficial.

The world will wonder how it fell for this social mania of Catastrophe: It's pretty easy, fear and guilt, by which hoi polloi is always easily manipulated, but never for very long.
========================================

Well, I was on that thread you link. It's well worth reading all the comments, because the fact that temperature is not rising like expected is well discussed there. Nick even slips a little from his horse race advocacy, inadvertently, and surely temporarily.

Another inconvenient fact mentioned, inconvenient for the alarmists, is that Man releases a larger aliquot of CO2 every year, but the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the same each year. That's not alarming. It suggests that CO2 sinks are not as saturated or as saturatable as the alarmists would have it, and that AnthroCO2 will not remain as long in the atmosphere as the alarmists would have it.

That's kind of too bad. I'd wish for all that plant fertilizer to stick around a little longer.
===========================================

Apr 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM | Phil Clarke

How many Hockey Teamsters are still denying the existence of the MWP and LIA, in order that they can pretend that they support Mann?

With US Taxpayer Funded "Climate Science" facing an unprecedented lack of money, your continued assistance is very helpful.

is that Man releases a larger aliquot of CO2 every year, but the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the same each year.</>

Neither of these is the case. Do you check or just make stuff up?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau

Nope, AnthroCO2 production logarithmic and atmospheric CO2 rise linear. This is not news, but it is not alarming.
=================================================

You can read about it at the link you posted yesterday @ 8:25 AM.
=================================================

Personally I think it's recruitment of coccolithophores and the like, but Alan almost convinced me it's not so.

Nonetheless, sinks are not saturated, consequently even one more thing not to worry about.
===============================================

The airborne fraction of emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been decreasing. Read it and weep, Phil; jeez you are about as bad as Nick with the reflexive alarmism.

We are not murdering the earth, the climate, or human society. You should be glad.
======================================

And why, with CO2 rising, shouldn't previously underutilized CO2 sinks be recruited? We may not know just where they are now, but it's easy to postulate their existence.

Amusingly, if it is calcific skeletons of microorganisms, it's functionally like CO2 condensing and 'raining' out of the system.

Yet one more reason not to be alarmed, and not to waste a whole lot of money for which there are a lot better uses than responding to witch doctor alarms of climate and weather doom. Didn't we as a culture outgrow that sort of shamanism?
=================================

Apr 10, 2019 at 11:27 PM | Phil Clarke
As a European propaganda unit, do you think Carbon Brief is worth quoting, with the EU's current problems with bungled pseudo science? Climate Science is causing unrest throughout the EU

https://www.carbonbrief.org/about-us
"We are grateful for the support of the European Climate Foundation, which provides our funding. In the spirit of transparency, we voluntarily declare that this funding totalled £465,919 for the financial year of 2017."

Are these "experts" all prepared to deny the MWP and LIA to save Mann's Hockey Stick?

Heh, he's got it bad, or 'they' do.

Social mania, flashes in the pan, though this one has burnt long and expensively. What a waste.
==========================

date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:22:29 +1100
from: David Thompson <davet@atmos.colostate.edu>
subject: the paper....
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, John Kennedy <john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk>

Dear Phil and John,

Thanks much for the quick and helpful comments...

In the next version I'll include more details on the analysis procedure... hopefully that
will clarify how the volcano results were calculated.

As for the negative anomalies ~8-10 years before the eruption dates: they reflect the
impact of the trends in temperature on the composite, not just the impact of El Chichon
prior to Pinatubo. (You don't see the negative blips if you only go +/- 5 years). In the
text I used the spurious negative chunks to motivate the detrending. I agree with Phil that
the volcano text is still a little rough. And I like the idea of showing the results for
each volcano separately.

I've recently shown the results to a few folks heavily involved in the last IPCC, and
they've suggested we consider a pair of companion papers: a longer JCL paper which focuses
on the volcanos and provides the details of the filtering methodology; and a short, punchy
Nature paper which focuses on the step in 45. I suppose it's possible the step in 45 could
get lost in a longer volcano paper, and apparently the results clarify why the IPCC models
are unable to capture SST variability in the middle of the 20th century... if you have
strong thoughts on this, please let me know.

And if you have any additional comments that come to mind over the next couple weeks,
please send them along. I'll get a next draft to you soon after the New Year... it will
incorporate all your ideas, will provide the analysis details, etc ...

Thanks again,

Dave


'Punchy' gives away the propagandists. Why did they ever think they'd come out smelling like roses?

What a waste.
================================

This is not news, but it is not alarming.

Not true, either. There's a good reason you only ever provide anecdote and assertion, but never links.

The airborne fraction of emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been decreasing.

You are still just repeating Trumpesque self-serving lies.

Is the fraction of anthropogenically released CO2 that remains in the atmosphere increasing? Is the rate at which the ocean and land sinks take up CO2 from the atmosphere decreasing? We analyze these questions by means of a statistical dynamic multivariate model from which we estimate the unobserved trend processes together with the parameters that govern them. By assuming a balanced global carbon budget, we obtain more than one data series to measure the same object (for 5 example, the airborne fraction). Incorporating these additional data into the dynamic multivariate model in effect increases the number of available observations, thus improving the reliability of parameter estimates. We find no statistical evidence of an increasing airborne fraction but we do find statistical evidence of a decreasing sink rate. We infer that the efficiency of the sinks to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere is decreasing at approximately 0.54% per year

Bennedsen et al 2018

I don't know if you believe this stuff or are just passing it on from the denier blogs. Doesn't really matter.

"There's a good reason you only ever provide anecdote and assertion, but never links."

"I don't know if you believe this stuff or are just passing it on from the denier blogs. Doesn't really matter.
Apr 11, 2019 at 8:53 AM | Phil Clarke"

You keep lying and referring to incompetents. Until Climate Science gets honest, "your" credibility can only continue flatlining in a more convincing manner than the shafting of Mann's Hockey Stick.

How did all the Climate Science experts lose the MWP and LIA?

About ten years ago I figured out that skepticism was driving climate science. By that I mean that the preponderance of climate scientists, who are alarmists, are spinning their wheels creating junk science to answer the points of skeptics.

Bennedsen et al illlustrates this.

Despite that study, it does appear that for quite some time the airborne fraction of emitted AnthroCO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been decreasing.

And why shouldn't previously underutilized sinks be recruited as atmospheric CO2 rises? It seems they are.

You, Phil, wonderfully illustrate that old saw; it ain't what you don't know, it's what you know that ain't so.
==================================

Oh, haha. Go read Roy Spencer's 'A simple model of the atmospheric CO2 budget' either at his blog or at WattsUp on 4/11/19.
=============================

On that thread, especially read down to javier's comment at 2:05 AM on 4/12/19. If you want to understand, that is.
=================================

I wonder if Bennedsen's error was assuming a 'balanced global carbon budget'. Not sure that is so. If not, it's all just a crock.
=======================================================

You are still just repeating Trumpesque self-serving lies

Define "Trumpesque".

Would that be like Justin Trudeau's "self-serving lies"?

You wait ages for a hockey-stick-confirming study, then three come along at once.

This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

Only after the 1850s did the transition into the period of anthropogenic warming start. We conclude that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by the recovery from a sequence of volcanic eruptions, which makes it difficult to define a single pre-industrial baseline.

Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions

Reconstructions and simulations qualitatively agree on the amplitude of the unforced global mean multidecadal temperature variability, thereby increasing confidence in future projections of climate change on these timescales. The largest warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer occur during the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the unusual character of the warming in recent decades.

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era

MSM write up here.