When faced with the text critics tend to talk about how the graph was presented and so forth, but then they’re talking about optics, not science. It’s a good idea to make clear which strand you’re commenting on. Then conflate by all means, but shed light first and then weave your narrative.

Our reconstruction thus supports the notion of relatively warm hemispheric conditions earlier in the millennium, while cooling following the 14th century could be viewed as the initial onset of the Little Ice Age ,/i>sensu lato. Considerable spatial variability is evident however [see Hughes and Diaz, 1994] and, as in in Lamb’s [1965] original concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch, there are episodes of cooler as well as warmer conditions punctuating this period.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL900070

LIA was severe in the Arctic, where the Northwest Passage became covered in ice, and it Africa, where several glaciers grew.

But maybe it was not severe in the Pacific, where any atmospheric cooling would have made little noticeable effect. So let’s agree that the LIA was noticed only in locations where it was noticeable. You may deny the LIA in other locations, I’ll allow it, but that makes you an LIA and MWP denier. In fact, that makes you a climate change denier.

Unless human activity is involved. Then you are all in, where anthropogenic global warming is concerned.

Meanwhile, I still believe in natural climate change. Unless you believe in the Hockey Stick graph (and you do), there is just too much evidence to deny it.

No one disputes that the LIA was severe in Europe, your 3C might well be right – in some places, but who’s claiming that the Northern Hemisphere was “supposed” to have cooled by 3C, where’re the papers that make that claim? (And I don’t mean newspapers).

Meanwhile, since you’re sticking to your Hockey Stick story, I’m sticking to mine. The Icebergs are coming, the Icebergs are coming!

The Hockey Stick does not show that “Earth’s climate was steady”, it shows a decline in temperature through to about 1900 (the end of the LIA) followed by a strong up-tick in temperatures, your claim about what you think it was “meant” to show simply demonstrates your disconnect from the reality of whats there in front of you.

Except that the Mann Hockey Stick shows that it was non-existent, not less severe (whatever that means). The Hockey Stick is meant to demonstrate that Earth’s climate was steady until man came along with his fossil fuel use.

Edward: I don’t rent, so I have already decided to spend the money I am sure to make when those ice-age refugees coming pouring down from Minnesota.

No, as the IPCC TAR said: “Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.”

Not a denial of the existence of the MWP or LIA, anymore than a global average wind speed graph is a denial of the existence of cyclones and hurricanes.

In other words the MWP and LIA were more localized than hemispheric or global. The blog CO2 science once tried to prove a global LIA, they put up lots of graphs with little arrows pointing to the LIA on those graphs, the problem they had was that their graphs showed the LIA happened at different times around the globe, average those various LIA’s and you get a much longer and less severe at its worst LIA, which is what NH and global temperature graphs show though that period.

The second one is what I was looking for. It declares that Mann’s Hockey Stick algorithm is robust.

Now that we can agree that the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age no longer count, we are free to ignore reality and focus on our own favorite belief systems, unsupported by science or observation. You have chosen the Mann Hockey Stick, which denies the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age, but I am choosing the version taught to me as a child: the imminent Ice Age.

One advantage of choosing the legacy Ice Age belief system is that I can regain my trust in my school teachers, who until today had been wrong about global cooling being the beginning of new polar ice caps stretching all the way to Minneapolis (Sorry St. Paul, you miss out on the environmental catastrophe scenario), so were they right about anything? (Especially since 2+2 now can equal 5, under the new Common Core math system.)

In my legacy belief system, hundreds of millions of people will be migrating south to get away from the freezing temperatures. One destination may be Arizona, meaning that property values will soon sky rocket there; good choice of location, Robert, as your property will soon be worth millions. Unless you rent.

Localfluff wrote: “They suggested a few years ago that the highways would be rebuilt into high speed railways. One doesn’t need to be an engineer to understand that they cannot have the same geographical layout at all in our hilly landscape. Swedish highways are also built curvy in order to keep drivers awake and to prevent the Soviets from landing aircrafts on them.”

I do not think that the high speed rail idea was supposed to be practical. I think it was just to get rid of cars, except for the elite few.

Mitch S. wrote: “People aren’t trained to understand climate science but they do learn to spot fakes and frauds”

Piltdown man showed us that it can take a while to accept that we have been fooled by a fraudster.

Maybe that is why I am so susceptible to the imminent-Ice-Age hypothesis of my youth.

Is it getting cold in here?

My personal situation is the one I described above.
I don’t have the time or education to dive into the data and sort out whose theory best fits the data.
Since I can’t absolutely know what the correct theory is why would I have doubts about some?
The answer is the predictions.

I don’t know enough physics/cosmology to understand Einstein’s theories or the Big Bang theory but when those theories were proposed they came with some predictions.
If theory X is correct, then there should be experimental result Y.
Perhaps the most famous is the discovery of the cosmic background radiation that had been predicted years earlier by the Big Bang theory.
An even after Einstein’s theories were generally accepted, experiments were being performed to check that it’s predictions were correct (I don’t recall those experimental scientists being derided as “Relativity deniers”).
And when experimental results don’t fit what a theory predicted, the theory is put on the hot seat (of course the theoretician can question the validity of the experiment).
We’ve seen this in cosmology with the experimental data showing the universe expanding at an unpredicted rate.

AGW theory has been pushed for over 20 years now.
We were told that that the “tipping point” was right around the corner, that within 5, surely within 10 years the effects of AGW would be so obvious that nobody would have doubts. Cities would be flooded, the world ravaged with storms and drought, crop failures etc.
You might correctly point out that most of those predictions were spread by non-scientists such as Al Gore – but scientists such as Mann and Hanson were applauding on the sidelines, or often from the stage.
People aren’t trained to understand climate science but they do learn to spot fakes and frauds and the behavior of the AGW preachers makes them as credible as that of those popups that “warn” “Your computer has been infected by a virus,click here…”

With most of what leftists promote. If the opposite were to happen we would all be better off.

Bigger American armed forces. Our enemies need to fear us. It’s good for us.
Lower taxes. Because the government doesn’t do anything to create value.
I could spend another hour here.

http://drtimball.com/

A very comprehensive interpretation of the subject and its history by someone who is well trained in the field. Control and mitigate pollution, without doubt, human caused global warming?

Their main new policy decided by their yearly party congress recently is to forbid plastic soda straws, very important given the current crises with immigration, war like violent crime escalating out of control, falling housing prices, EU collapse, our conflict with Russia about nothing and on and on). Despite being in a government coalition for the first time since 4 years, very little have been done by them (which is a good thing! But voters leave them because they are disappointed, not because they have come to their senses about the climate doomsday myth) Except for a tax reduction for households hiring professional bicycle repairmen. But only if the repair is done in your home. I haven’t played with bicycles since I was a child, but I’ve asked some who do still as grown ups, and none of them has ever hired anyone to repair their bicycle. Sweden btw has no fossil fueled power plants at all, so there’s not much they can do to regulate CO2 emissions other than to try help bicycling compete with cars. They suggested a few years ago that the highways would be rebuilt into high speed railways. One doesn’t need to be an engineer to understand that they cannot have the same geographical layout at all in our hilly landscape. Swedish highways are also built curvy in order to keep drivers awake and to prevent the Soviets from landing aircrafts on them.

The environmentalists never know anything about what they are talking about. Sure, one could value things different and have different opinions about them. But they are plain wrong and so stupid and weird and they fail with everything they try on.

Can you link to a study with an alternative algorithm that does this to Mann’s data?

McIntyre’s point was not that there is no climate change, nor was he denying that we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age for the past two or three centuries. He was pointing out that Mann’s algorithm had a flaw. The last I heard, Mann’s version of the hockey stick graph is unsupported by his data and misrepresents reality, especially since it shows no medieval warm period or Little Ice Age.

OK, some of those tactics were already used but for the event, they showed restraint. They actually deserve a pat on the back for not engaging in their usual behavior.

Diane Wilson: Both analyses of Mann’s data were done by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. See in particular Hockey Stick Studies and Proxy Data

You can also do a search here on BtB for McIntyre and come up with a lot of neat stuff showing the fraud that he has exposed in the climate field.

I seem to remember, shortly after climategate, someone (I thought it was Dr. Curry, maybe not) got a copy of Mann’s algorithm, and ran trials with it, feeding it white noise for data. And got a hockey stick curve, more often than not.

Someone also got his raw data, identifying the trees that were sampled. There were two huge problems, one being a small sample set, and the other being that one tree was such an outlier as to throw off the results for the entire analysis. Bad data! Bad data! All of this covered in Watts Up With That, many years ago.

Queue up the videos from Minnesotans for Global Warming.