Yasi - Be scared, very scared of this storm

[BlackCat]

You have of course every right to question my qualifications on the subject, just as I have to question yours, though, I find it a bit amusing that you think that you after a brief reading can dismiss it as rubbish. I mean, a professor of Geology and a Ph.D in Geology publishing something in a peer reviewed Journal such as GRL might have had some considerations as yours - the reviewers might have had the same

What is it with you alarmists ? Why do you dismiss science so easily ?

[ricketyclik]

The main point I am making is that the authors themselves state that the method is

1. questionable, although it has produced results on average and after ironing out a lot of noise with methods that are guesswork that agree with the established methods

2. for the last 500 years only, the author-stated limit of the method.

This paper in no way supports your assertion that ice core temperatures in any way show what that madman thought they showed.

[BlackCat]

1. questionable, although it has produced results on average and after ironing out a lot of noise with methods that are guesswork that agree with the established methods

I simply love when scientists say such instead of claiming that they have have found the holy grail. Just wish that mann had made such a disclaimer on his hockey stick

2. for the last 500 years only, the author-stated limit of the method.

That is why you need to read on. BTW, I can't recall that there is a 500 year limit on the mthod.

This paper in no way supports your assertion that ice core temperatures in any way show what that madman thought they showed.

Haven't said such - I said that there were solid ground research using the method - that doesn't imply that it goes for ice cores - let the guy and his research speak for him.

Though, I must admit that my retracted comment was based on this, I tried to back out after a bit of recalling old knowledge.

[ricketyclik]

BTW, I can't recall that there is a 500 year limit on the mthod.

Then you need to read it again.

The entire paper is framed as a "What if?" and if you do all this stuff with the data then it produces these results. It also states that the method has "gained attention", not that it is verified.

What is the point of presenting it and the others (which I may get around to reading, because it is kind of interesting) if not to back up the ice core claim? What other point are you making with it?

[BlackCat]

On my way to bed (it's 2 hours past midnight here). It says something about LIA and MWP.

[ricketyclik]

On my way to bed (it's 2 hours past midnight here). It says something about LIA and MWP.

How do the LIA and the MWP in any way discount AGW?

And what does the SATLA have to say about it?