fayfreethinkers.com

This is depressing. Got any suggestions that fit with a $23K income and $53K mortgage? I already drive a Datsun/Nissan, when I drive at all - use mass transit for work commute, buy local when the market's open, etc. I can't think of anything I can afford to do that I don't already do.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:This is depressing. Got any suggestions that fit with a $23K income and $53K mortgage?

DOUG
Do what you can. No one can ask for more than that. The problem is not that you aren't doing enough, but that so many conservatives not only don't do anything, they buy huge Hummers and deny the problem of climate change itself.

I know. It's why in 1942 they had to go with rationing, because the folks who volutarily did as the gov't asked couldn't balance the "hoarders" and spend-thrifts. I wish I remembered the source of the stats (I think from "1942: the Year the Axis Lost the War") - but in a given population 20% will do what's "right" even if it takes extra effort, 2% will do what's "wrong" no matter how easy doing "right" is or how bad the results of doing "wrong", and 78% will obey the law. The 78 will follow "voluntary" behaviors only until the 2% convince them they are being suckers. If there is one thing the 78 can't stand, it's being suckers - so it's very easy to make them into suckers by convincing them doing the "right" thing is for suckers. And that's why we need laws to make the change happen in time, if it's not already too late. And to deal with the results of being too late, if it is.

It's funny how regional anomalies are disparaged - unless of course they support the alarmist view! The preliminary WMO report gives global average temperature in 2006 to be less than 2005 and much less than the peak high in 1998.

GENEVA, 14 December (WMO) - The global mean surface temperature in 2006 is currently estimated to be + 0.42?C above the 1961-1990 annual average (14?C/57.2?F), according to the records maintained by Members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The year 2006 is currently estimated to be the sixth warmest year on record. Final figures will not be released until March 2007.

2007 is an El Nino year, so if it turns out cooler than 1998 it will pretty much refute the El Nino excuse given by alarmists to explain away the 1998 high.

The year 2006 is currently estimated to be the sixth warmest year on record.

DAR
As the world temperature spikes into increased global warming it is entirely consistent to find that some years are up a little, others down a little. Any time we are in a single digit number of "warmest year on record" (or, as we are now in a sustained period of this) we are observing a condition consistent with the most strident alarmist predictions and quite contrary to the irrational global warming denier position. Expect this trend to continue.

D.

Hogeye wrote:The year 2006 is currently estimated to be the sixth warmest year on record. Final figures will not be released until March 2007.

DOUG
Update:

NOAA REPORTS 2006 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD FOR U.S.
General Warming Trend, El Niño Contribute to Milder Winter Temps

The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, including December, which ended as the fourth warmest December since records began in 1895.

Based on preliminary data, the 2006 annual average temperature was 55° degrees F, 2.2° degrees F (1.2° degrees C) above the 20th century mean and 0.07° degrees F (0.04° degrees C) warmer than 1998.

Read the rest here.

DOUG
Update:

NOAA REPORTS 2006 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD FOR U.S.
General Warming Trend, El Niño Contribute to Milder Winter Temps

DAR
I posted that just a couple posts earlier. Hogeye dismissed it above as a "regional anomaly", to wit:

"It's funny how regional anomalies are disparaged - unless of course they support the alarmist view!"

What his comment ignores of course is that he tries to use his "regional anomalies", his "Medieval Warming Period" chesnut, to show GLOBAL warming over centuries. The fact that 2006 had the highest temps ever measured in the US and Britain, and that 2006 will probably rank as the 6th highest global average temp ever measured, means the irrational GW deniers are still on the run, and the claims of IPCC, still on track.

D.

Since the solution to global warming is also the solution to domestic security (no dependence on foreign oil, get out of the Middle East) and to our failing economy (good jobs in the "green" energy sector), I wish the "deniers" would just say, "I don't agree with you on global warming, but we need to do these things anyway, so let's get to work." Right now the deniers are saying we shouldn't do anything because GW doesn't exist (or can't do anything because GW isn't human-caused). So we've got GW AND "war" in Iraq (and probably Iran) AND a failing economy/destruction of the middle class AND...

In 1936 DuPont was bragging that they'd just synthesized rubber and our nation would never have to fear having natural rubber supplies cut off - but they didn't build the plants, so when natural rubber supplies were cut off in Dec 1941, the U.S. was stuck with surviving WWII with what rubber they had on hand. That was the real reason for both gas rationing and the 35 mph speed limit - to save those tires (among other things) "for the duration".

Right now we are in the same kind of situation - we have the technology to amerliorate, if not totally turnaround, the GW issue - but we have to start building the plants NOW to have them operating before it's too late (if it isn't already too late). BRI Energy breaks ground on their first 2 commercial plants this year, but those won't be online until 2009 and that's only 2 plants. Every city and town in the nation needs one, both to generate energy (ethanol and electricity) and to alleviate the "where to put the garbage" problem. Ditto every large agri facility (and neighboring groups of small farms/facilities). The issue is not "can we do this", but "will we do this" as far as dealing with the combination of problems caused by the combination of using too much energy and having to import over 60% of it. GW is only one of those problems - the biggest to my mind - but I can work with a GW denier, if they'll just WORK.

Barbara wrote:Right now the deniers are saying we shouldn't do anything because GW doesn't exist (or can't do anything because GW isn't human-caused).

This is a strawman. Most GW catastrophe deniers want to use a harm-reduction approach - that doing things which reduce harmful effects of climate change is the way to go. They generally only oppose grandiose ultra-expensive attempts to change the climate (e.g. Kyoto protocols) through massive regulation. If you want to hear some real "GW deniers", rather than the media caricatures, check out this online flick:

"Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change"

I'd still love to hear Dr. Gaddy (or someone) from BRI Energy talk at a Freethinkers' meeting.


Darrel is still insisting that the following nine reconstructions, which clearly show the Medieval Warm Period as global, are somehow mistaken since they don't fall in with his preconceptions.



In the past, he's urged people to ignore their own eyes and brains, and instead believe the commentary and spin about this data. I'm afraid that's not likely to work among freethinkers.

Hogeye wrote:If you want to hear some real "GW deniers", rather than the media caricatures, check out this online flick:...

DAR
Tim Ball and his "Friends of Science" aren't the real media caricatures? This is the fellow that up until very recently preached that the earth is cooling and we should be preparing for the chill.
Incidentally, I am pretty sure the FOS group of clowns has changed their name again. Although, since that big outing they recieved in the Canadian press I am not sure anyone is paying much attention to them no matter what humorous title they go by.

Darrel is still insisting that the following nine reconstructions, which clearly show the Medieval Warm Period as global, are somehow mistaken since they don't fall in with his preconceptions.

DAR
No, Darrel believes that you have an immature, discarded, unsupportable and entirely politically motivated, myopicly filtered understanding of those reconstructions. The understanding of the science regarding those reconstructions is clear, not difficult and carefully explained by the worlds foremost climatologists here.

In the past, he's urged people to ignore their own eyes and brains,...

DAR
Sometimes a two dimensional chart doesn't provide enough nuance. But your misunderstanding is worse than that. You need to read the explanations and caveats written by the scientists who created the charts. Or at least take the time to read a footnote. They agree. You can't use the limited regional reconstructions to show a global MWP. They also agree that our current heating is global, and largely human caused. And we are just at the beginning of further very serious increase.

...and instead believe the commentary and spin about this data.

DAR
You have claimed that there has been switch and the concensus now is that the MWP is understood to have been a global event. You tried ONE tiny example and it got shot down because, as sometimes happens, it supported the opposite of what you were saying. If you have any thing else, give it a try.

I'm afraid that's not likely to work among freethinkers.

DAR
I don't know any freethinkers that find your claims or position regarding GW persuasive. Not one.

D.

Darrel wrote:You need to read the explanations and caveats written by the scientists who created the charts.

I have. Every one of those charts is made by scientists who purport them to represent average global temperature. And all clearly show a Medieval Warm Period. So there you have it. You can believe the nine solid scientific studies, or you can believe an essay written by a political special interest group.

Hogeye wrote:

Darrel wrote:You need to read the explanations and caveats written by the scientists who created the charts.

I have.

DAR
Of course you have not.

Every one of those charts is made by scientists who purport them to represent average global temperature.

DAR
Incidentally, I posted that chart before you did. You once claimed there was a concenus for a global MWP. I challenged you to give one reputable source. You tried and your first and only attempt failed because it flatly disagreed with you and specifically said NOT to use the data as you were trying to spin it. Why don't you try again? One example certainly wouldn't be a concensus but it would at least be a baby step.

And all clearly show a Medieval Warm Period.

DAR
No one denies some, regional, warming during this period.

So there you have it. You can believe the nine solid scientific studies,...

DAR
There are no "solid" scientific studies of global temperture during this time. If you had read the accompanying "explanations and caveats" as you claim, you would know this.

or you can believe an essay written by a political special interest group.

DAR
The "group" is the world's formost Climatologists, and their "special interest" is the planet. Even all the Exxon money in the world can't buy them. That's pretty amazing really.

D.

Darrel wrote:One example certainly wouldn't be a concensus but it would at least be a baby step.

I gave nine examples - the ones in the chart. You haven't challenged them at all. Do you admit that all nine are purported by the researchers who created them to represent global average temperatures? If so, then you admit there was indeed a global MWP. If not, you are challenging the results of nine teams of respected researchers.

Darrel wrote:There are no "solid" scientific studies of global temperture during this time. If you had read the accompanying "explanations and caveats" as you claim, you would know this.

Right - they use proxies and such. But all nine teams claim that the graphs presented represent global average temperature as best they can determine them.

The IPCC is a political group with some govt appointed scientists. The scientists don't write the reports, and their comments are routinely edited out or ignored.

Hogeye wrote:

Darrel wrote:One example certainly wouldn't be a concensus but it would at least be a baby step.

HOG
I gave nine examples - the ones in the chart.

DAR
As I have told you many times, there are TEN reconstructions in this chart, NOT nine. Can you learn this simple fact?! If you can't get this straight how can you hope to persuade anyone that you actually know something indepth about this chart and the reconstructions it represents?

You haven't challenged them at all.

DAR
Challenged them at all? I posted this chart a long time ago (before you did) and many times since. It is clear you haven't the foggiest idea of what is going on with this chart and this is easy to show. And yet you pretend, quite dishonestly, to have read the "explanations and caveats written by the scientists who created the charts." That's actually impossible. In fact, it is apparent that you don't even know who did these reconstructions or else you wouldn't speak so foolishly and flatly contradict what you have said in the past.

Do you admit that all nine are purported by the researchers who created them to represent global average temperatures?

DAR
Of course not. Only someone who was completely unfamiliar with not only the work and claims of these scientists, but also simply who they are would make such a ridiculous assertion. Also, you would have to be completely ignorant of even the titles of the papers these scientists have written.

If so, then you admit there was indeed a global MWP. If not, you are challenging the results of nine teams of respected researchers.

DAR
Oh they are respected now? Time to open another can of whoop ass. As many times as you have been roasted the topic of the hockeystick you should have at leasted learned that Mann, and Jones (like almost everyone apparently) doesn't believe that the MWP was global. Did you learn that? I hope so. These are two fellows that you have repeatedly disparaged on this forum.

Now, the above chart shows TEN reconstructions. What follows is the actual authors of the ten papers representing the science behind this chart and the titles of their publications which show that if you had even taken the time to make yourself cognizant of the titles of their papers you would know that many of them DO NOT refer to global temperatures. I have posted this before so you have no excuse. Be a scientist, study the following and see if you can find if Mann and PD Jones had any involvement in the above chart. Two fellows you just referred to now as "respected researchers" (because you thought they support you).

I'll do some bolding to help you out:

***
1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. DOI:10.1191/095968398667194956

2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)

3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. DOI:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])

4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.DOI:10.1029/2000JD900617

5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. DOI:10.1126/science.1066208

6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.

7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143

8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781

9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265

10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

Source.

HOG
But all nine teams claim that the graphs presented represent global average temperature as best they can determine them.

DAR
As my dad used to say: "Better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

The IPCC is a political group with some govt appointed scientists.

DAR
You're funny.

"According to a flash animation on the front page of the IPCC's website, the people contributing to the IPCC 4AR [that's the latest report] include:

* 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
* 850+ Contributing authors
* 450+ lead authors

from over 130 countries, contributing for the last 6 years."

link

The scientists don't write the reports, and their comments are routinely edited out or ignored.

DAR
Yes of course, it's all clearly a set up job. Here are the key conclusions of their latest report:

***
The Working Group I report was published on February 2, 2007. Its key conclusions were that:

* Global warming is occurring
* Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.[7]
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
* The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%
* World temperatures will probably rise by 1.8 to 4°C (3.25 to 7.2°F) during the 21st century and that:
* Sea levels will probably rise by 28 to 43cm (11 to 17 inches)
* It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years.

--ibid

Yes, there are ten reconstructions in the chart. The abstract for Jones and Mann 2004 indicates that it is about global temperature. The Jones/Mann 2004 study is about "climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate 'proxy' data sources and climate modeling studies." Globally. (Although he admits that southern hemisphere data is sparse.) Since I'm not a paid member of AGU, I can't download the whole report to quote a fuller description.

Yes, some of the studies measure only northern hemisphere temperatures, but you've no doubt read enough on the subject to realize that NH temperatures are considered a proxy for global temperature, especially since the data from the SH is sparse, with fewer land stations, and so on. So don't pretend that these are not supposed to represent global average temperatures.

Note that Jones/Mann2003 is titled "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia." You seem not to have noticed that Mann has, if not outright flip-flopped on the existence of the MWP, has considerably qualified his 1998 denial of it. He had to - his own reconstructions contradicted him! He's gone from saying essentially that the MWP doesn't exist to saying it has "limited utility." (from the same 2004 abstract.)

Note that the abstract contradicts itself in one respect. On the one hand, it says, "There is more tentative evidence that particular modes of climate variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, may have exhibited late 20th century behavior that is anomalous in a long-term context." IOW, these natural phenomena (El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation) might have made the late 20th century warmer. But the last sentence of the abstract says, "Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century." Clearly both can't be true. Maybe the last part was just PC bullshit to score the next govt grant. I dunno.

Darrel wrote:Yes of course, it's [the IPCC report] all clearly a set up job.

Yep. The real scientists are brought in at the lowest level. The government bureaucrats rewrite and make everything politically correct for their respective governments and parties, and politically appointed hacks approve the final line by line!! See the IPCC Letter to Governments forwarding final draft. Note that the IPCC Letter to Organizations forwarding final draft explicitly admits that "Approval and acceptance of IPCC reports are at the level of governmental representatives." But real scientists are "encouraged" to send comments "for consideration" of course. Yep, the IPCC reports are political propaganda with a thin veneer of science, created and dumbed down for politicians ("policy makers"). Various participating scientists have publicly complained that their work has been bastardized and misrepresented. (The pdf links above are from this IPCC page.)

Working Group I's most ridiculous points are probably 3 and 4. Any climatologist worth his salt would say that global warming is caused by both natural and anthropogenic factors, and that the Working Group's dicotomy of either natural or antropogenic is bogus. No doubt the govt flunkies "interpreted" that into the report for political reasons. In fact, there is a 100% probability that natural factors contributed, and 100% probability that anthropogenic factors also contributed (but perhaps only marginally) to recent warming.

Hogeye wrote:Yes, there are ten reconstructions in the chart.

DAR
Then why do you keep repeating, erroneously, that there are nine reconstructions even though I have corrected you on this many MANY times? Why can't you get such a simple fact straight?

The abstract for Jones and Mann 2004 indicates that it is about global temperature.

DAR
Once again all one has to do is go to your source and read what they say:

"Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales. There is more tentative evidence that particular modes of climate variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, may have exhibited late 20th century behavior that is anomalous in a long-term context. Regional conclusions, particularly for the Southern Hemisphere and parts of the tropics where high-resolution proxy data are sparse, are more circumspect. The dramatic differences between regional and hemispheric/global past trends, and the distinction between changes in surface temperature and precipitation/drought fields, underscore the limited utility in the use of terms such as the “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” for describing past climate epochs during the last millennium. Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century."

Earlier I told you:

"You need to read the explanations and caveats written by the scientists who created the charts."

You responded:

"I have."

Obviously you had not even read the titles of their papers. Will you admit that you lied when you said this?

The Jones/Mann 2004 study is about "climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate 'proxy' data sources and climate modeling studies." Globally.

DAR
Stop dishonestly misrepresenting the material of these scientists.
If you had read (you hadn't) and understood (perhaps not possible with your predisposed dogmatism) the "explanations and caveats written by the scientists who created the charts" then you would know this. If you had read even the titles of their papers you wouldn't make howling errors like:

"But all nine teams claim that the graphs presented represent global average temperature as best they can determine them."

So don't pretend that these are not supposed to represent global average temperatures.

DAR
These scientists repeatedly and forcefully warn against spinning this information in this way. Stop dishonestly misrepresenting the work of these scientists.

I dunno.

DAR
I agree. But what you "dunno" is not what is most disappointing with you. It's what you do know and constantly distort.

D.

Hmmm. You and I have both quoted the pertinent part of the abstract. We apparently understand it differently. The abstract doesn't say explicitly whether the reconstruction is intended to represent global temperatures or not. It does explicitly say they used Southern Hemisphere proxy data. It strongly implies they also used Northern Hemisphere data for their reconstruction. So I, frankly, don't understand how you conclude that it is not intended to represent global temperatures. No doubt the paper itself would make things clearer.

Darrel, will you admit that Northern Hemisphere temperatures were used as a proxy for global temperatures in those reconstruction with "Northern Hemisphere" in the title? Or would you rather just call me dishonest and duck the issue?

Hogeye> So don't pretend that these are not supposed to represent global average temperatures.

Darrel> These scientists repeatedly and forcefully warn against spinning this information in this way.

Please provide a quote where the scientist warns against interpreting their reconstruction as global. Certainly Jones and Mann don't in the 2004 abstract. Quite the contrary, they write, "Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales. (Emphasis mine.) I would call this encouragement to do so rather than warning against.

Hogeye wrote:Please provide a quote where the scientist warns against interpreting their reconstruction as global. Certainly Jones and Mann don't in the 2004 abstract. Quite the contrary, they write, "Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales. (Emphasis mine.) I would call this encouragement to do so rather than warning against.

OK, so they say that global warming at 20th century levels is likely unprecedented. Yet you want us to believe that they support your contention that global warming at 20th century levels has happened before.

Have a mug full of WTF???

Doug wrote: OK, so they say that global warming at 20th century levels is likely unprecedented. Yet you want us to believe that they support your contention that global warming at 20th century levels has happened before.

DAR
You haven't noticed yet that Hogeye has always been much better at understanding the data produced by these "respected researchers" than they are? Forget their conclusions. Forget their weasely nuanced qualifications. That kind of talk doesn't fit in Black or white boxes and can be ignored. What do they know anyway? Let them do the work, let him provide the correct analysis of the material. Afterall, they may have at one time performed work for a government!

Actually Doug, to be serious for a moment, as I have told Hogeye many times (in a complete waste of keystrokes), even if his MWP was global and as warm as today it's a red herring to blather on about it. No current GW science depends on this bogus line of thought Hogeye keeps bringing up (ala hockeystick). It's just a 9 year old GW Denier hobby horse and I shouldn't have indulged it as much as I did. Within a few years, perhaps a decade, we will have temperature averages that are *likely* unprecedented in a millenium. The hockeystick will in deed be a goalie stick.

D.

PS
Oh, I had two responses from people who were at the OMNI event on global warming last night. They said the Hoggy performance was no big deal. No one takes his contrarian rants seriously. They just roll their eyes and wait for the silliness to stop. Apparently the presenter was smart enough to know better than to engage and waste time with his denier material (fiction writer Michael Crichton and all). Sometimes I wish I was that smart. I did tell them that if they have any questions about what he brought up, anything that might have made them go "hmmm, I wonder if Hogeye has a point there" to be sure and pass it along for a good spanking. It's not like he has put forward a single GW Denier claim that hasn't been completely roasted over and over in these archives.

DAR
Oh, look what I just learned on realclimate.org:

"Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the Summary for Policy Makers comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years." link

~Snort~