[Yelling]

That's essentially what I said as well.

Sigh, no, you did not. What you said is that the paper shows temperatures that do not support some aspect of warming during the MWP. What I am saying is that the paper can't be used for that since it doesn't measure that. What the author says is that the wind and current pattern shifted to cause cooler currents with more upwelling. This caused sea surface temperatures to drop. It is not a reflection of any surface temperature. You go to a beach on a very warm day with an offshore wind and the water is cooler than you expect. That is upwelling. nothing to do with temperature.

However, I do find it somewhat amusing that you are prepared to accept any aspect of what a paper says to support your ideas and yet you accuse me of being biased. Read what the paper says and then you will be in a much better position to comment on it.

Regarding CL, could you comment on how it was "tweaked" and therefore useless?

Finally, regarding Soon! Lets see. It was presented by WOSG and I showed how it is a very poor attempt. You then read it and seemed to feel that it was sound. So when I do a critical analysis of it you say that I am "simply pretending to scientifically review the Soon paper." So I would guess that you are simply pretending to admit that there are errors in it?

I am not leaving the debate, but I do feel that I have done more than my share of the research. I have had to dig out several papers, read them and try to understand what they show and then present and defend my point of view against people who don't wish to read the papers. While I find reading technical papers somewhat enjoyable it is time consuming. If you wish a real debate about this then post some real comments that I can look at and review.

One final comment - I think you sell yourself short. I feel that you could actually do better than Soon did on that paper. I am pretty sure I could even though I am an engineer, not a climatologist - but then again Soon isn't a climatologist either. That may explain something.

Regards,

Y.

[palmer]

upwelling

Took another look at the demenocal-2000 data and he mentions strong seasonal upwelling. If this data is only measuring strength of that, then I'll ignore it and move on to the next data set.

You then read it and seemed to feel that it was sound. So when I do a critical analysis of it you say that I am "simply pretending to scientifically review the Soon paper." So I would guess that you are simply pretending to admit that there are errors in it?

You have provided no scientific review of the Soon hypothesis and conclusions as I did in post 131. You merely presented a bunch of nitpicks that you found in various GW sites about the errors he made. You claimed a "devastating" attack, but provided no systematic review of the paper. I on the other hand have looked and continue to look at the actual data to see if it supports Soon's hypothesis. Because the bottom line is that irregardless of what Soon said and how he said it, I (and most other people on this forum) want to know whether or not his hypothesis it true.

As for CL, the notes from his readme are as follows:

Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.

His assumption of CO2 forcing is not supported by any raw data in his possession, it is a hypothesis only supported by simulations. He then smoothed his historical data based on assumed statistics about natural mechanisms that also labels "forcing" although they are not the same thing (i.e. particulate cooling is not forcing). So his historical data was smoothed to (conveniently) eliminate any MWP or LIA warming. He did not choose to release his raw data.