Global Warming Downgraded

[livefree]

Again, the hockey stick is bunk.

Again, your ignorant opinions about things you can't comprehend aren't worth squat.

 

[Deuce]

Again, the hockey stick is bunk.

Again, it has been confirmed by numerous independent methods as well as direct investigations, including one funded by the Koch foundation.

 

[code1211]

Again, it has been confirmed by numerous independent methods as well as direct investigations, including one funded by the Koch foundation.

It is simply and obviously wrong. There are studies upon studies, empirical evidence and eye witness accounts that show it to be wrong.

The methodology creates a hockey stick result from any data that is applied.

By this measure alone, the Hockey Stick is the perfect proof of AGW Science.

 

[livefree]

It is simply and obviously wrong. There are studies upon studies, empirical evidence and eye witness accounts that show it to be wrong.

The methodology creates a hockey stick result from any data that is applied.

By this measure alone, the Hockey Stick is the perfect proof of AGW Science.

Those are some pretty wacky myths you believe in. There have actually been "studies upon studies" verifying the basic temperature pattern the hockey stick graph shows. I've listed a bunch of them. Like a good little denier cultist, you believe many things that aren't true and make many claims that you cannot back up with any actual evidence. And no, article written by non-scientists that appear only on denier cult blogs are not actual 'evidence'.

 

[code1211]

Those are some pretty wacky myths you believe in. There have actually been "studies upon studies" verifying the basic temperature pattern the hockey stick graph shows. I've listed a bunch of them. Like a good little denier cultist, you believe many things that aren't true and make many claims that you cannot back up with any actual evidence. And no, article written by non-scientists that appear only on denier cult blogs are not actual 'evidence'.

There is one hockey stick and many other Holocene era temperature records.

Is the hockey stick right and all of the others wrong?

 

[Deuce]

It is simply and obviously wrong. There are studies upon studies, empirical evidence and eye witness accounts that show it to be wrong.

The methodology creates a hockey stick result from any data that is applied.

By this measure alone, the Hockey Stick is the perfect proof of AGW Science.

Studies upon studies? Then I'm sure you can show us several.

There is one hockey stick and many other Holocene era temperature records.

Is the hockey stick right and all of the others wrong?

Um, they're close enough together that I'd call all of them correct.

 

[flogger]

Studies upon studies? Then I'm sure you can show us several.

What a selectively short memory you have :roll:

You have been shown 'several' already from 'several' locations and 'several' times now too.

Medieval Warm Period

Then you were shown a site linking abstracts to dozens more

CO2 Science

Um, they're close enough together that I'd call all of them correct

Unlike the hockey stick these are not computer contructs based on a handful of proxies selected from a single location because they fit the result the politicians are paying for

 

[Deuce]

What a selectively short memory you have :roll:

You have been shown 'several' already from 'several' locations and 'several' times now too.

Medieval Warm Period

Then you were shown a site linking abstracts to dozens more

CO2 Science




Unlike the hockey stick these are not computer contructs based on a handful of proxies selected from a single location because they fit the result the politicians are paying for

And yet not a single global temperature reconstruction.

 

[flogger]

And yet not a single global temperature reconstruction.

Good grief talk about moving the goalposts ! :lamo

 

[Deuce]

Good grief talk about moving the goalposts ! :lamo

Um, no it isn't moving goalposts. The "hockey stick" is one of several global reconstructions. This discussion was about those reconstructions. Read back through the discussion.

 

[flogger]

Um, no it isn't moving goalposts. The "hockey stick" is one of several global reconstructions. This discussion was about those reconstructions. Read back through the discussion.

Um yes . Manns Hockey stick was used to represent the planet using half a dozen tree ring proxies from North East USA. You've now been shown multiple Non computer modelled studies from around the planet that use real world data contradicting it. The burden of proof shifts entirely to the advocate side in explaining why all those multiple studies using observation of sampled proxies must be wrong yet Manns compter model must be right

 

[Deuce]

Um yes . Manns Hockey stick was used to represent the planet using half a dozen tree ring proxies from North East USA. You've now been shown multiple Non computer modelled studies from around the planet that use real world data contradicting it. The burden of proof shifts entirely to the advocate side in explaining why all those multiple studies using observation of sampled proxies must be wrong yet Manns compter model must be right

Bull****. There were far more than half a dozen trees and they were not limited to the northeast USA. further, the other global reconstructions match MBH98 so there's nothing to prove. The question is based on false assumptions.

 

[flogger]

Bull****. There were far more than half a dozen trees and they were not limited to the northeast USA. further, the other global reconstructions match MBH98 so there's nothing to prove. The question is based on false assumptions.

You will find a full explanation of the mathematical debunking of Manns climate modelling methodology here.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Oh look.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/...live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

Looks like CRU just confirmed that mass of contradictory real world studies got it right after all . Who'd have thunk it ! :lol:

 

[Deuce]

You said half a dozen trees in one region. False.

Furthermore, figure 3 in that first link? Not a global reconstruction, and it ends in 1950. If McKitrick either doesn't know that or just decided not to mention it, is there a compelling reason i should accept the rest of his analysis?

 

[flogger]

You said half a dozen trees in one region. False.

Furthermore, figure 3 in that first link? Not a global reconstruction, and it ends in 1950. If McKitrick either doesn't know that or just decided not to mention it, is there a compelling reason i should accept the rest of his analysis?

You've been shown plenty now and your position seems more akin to religious zealotry rather than objective analysis in the face of it frankly . The MWP was real and was global as has been illustrated now multiple times for you using multiple proxies from multiple Peer reviewed sources . Even CRU its previous advocate has quietly reinstated the MWP too recently making the current 'unprecedented' warming alarm a crock . Just deal with it :roll:

 

[Deuce]

You've been shown plenty now and your position seems more akin to religious zealotry rather than objective analysis in the face of it frankly . The MWP was real and was global as has been illustrated now multiple times for you using multiple proxies from multiple Peer reviewed sources . Even CRU its previous advocate has quietly reinstated the MWP too recently making the current 'unprecedented' warming alarm a crock . Just deal with it :roll:

Multiple single-point proxies that don't agree with each other, most of which don't even compare themselves to the instrumental record. (Because why would you compare a single point proxy to a global thermometer record)

 

[flogger]

Multiple single-point proxies that don't agree with each other, most of which don't even compare themselves to the instrumental record. (Because why would you compare a single point proxy to a global thermometer record)

Good grief your obstinacy when confronted by fact is quite breathtaking here ! That one was up there with your million year old dinosaur gaff a while back :doh There were no 'intrumental records' to compare during the MWP only various natural proxy values which all point to the same inconvenient conclusion for your faith . This is getting quite comical now because you just cant stop digging this hole for yourself it seems :lamo

 

[Deuce]

Good grief your obstinacy when confronted by fact is quite breathtaking here ! That one was up there with your million year old dinosaur gaff a while back :doh There were no 'intrumental records' to compare during the MWP only various natural proxy values which all point to the same inconvenient conclusion for your faith . This is getting quite comical now :lamo

Um, you need to compare temperature proxies to the instrumental record if you want to demonstrate the MWP was warmer than today. Some charts don't bother to do that. The data might end in 1950, so you're definitely not comparing the MWP to today's temperatures.

It's even more complicated than I've described so far. As I mentioned before, a lot of temperature proxies use 1950 as a baseline for "present." Worse, they often use that as the zero-point for the temperature anomaly. Or some use the 20th century average. Another common, more recent baseline is the period from 1981-2010. Still others use 1961-1990. So even if you looked at the records side-by-side, the "0" might not even be referencing the same temperature. Some charts list by year, which is easy, but others say "BP," which means "before present." Was "present" the year of publication? Or was it the 1950 baseline?

Not all of these things are obvious just by eyeballing a bunch of charts.

Are you really trying to suggest to me that I should just eyeball these charts instead of looking at an actual quantitative analysis establishing a global average? What about spatial weighting? If there's several proxies in one area, but very few in a different one, can my gut properly calculate how much each proxy should affect the average?

 

[flogger]

Um, you need to compare temperature proxies to the instrumental record if you want to demonstrate the MWP was warmer than today. Some charts don't bother to do that. The data might end in 1950, so you're definitely not comparing the MWP to today's temperatures.

It's even more complicated than I've described so far. As I mentioned before, a lot of temperature proxies use 1950 as a baseline for "present." Worse, they often use that as the zero-point for the temperature anomaly. Or some use the 20th century average. Another common, more recent baseline is the period from 1981-2010. Still others use 1961-1990. So even if you looked at the records side-by-side, the "0" might not even be referencing the same temperature. Some charts list by year, which is easy, but others say "BP," which means "before present." Was "present" the year of publication? Or was it the 1950 baseline?

Not all of these things are obvious just by eyeballing a bunch of charts.

Are you really trying to suggest to me that I should just eyeball these charts instead of looking at an actual quantitative analysis establishing a global average? What about spatial weighting? If there's several proxies in one area, but very few in a different one, can my gut properly calculate how much each proxy should affect the average?

Since 1850 the total rise has been around 0.7C which is well within the norms of natural variability for such a timescale as has been illustrated multiple times for you elsewhere by both me and others.

Since 1950 of course the temperatures actually fell until 1975 during a period of the most rapid human industrialisation ever seen and quite at odds with the current hypothesis. After 1975 it rose for 23 years and plateaued in 1998. We've basically had a flatline since that time. There is nothing whatsoever marking these sorts of variations as in any way untypical of natural variations seen in the paleoclimatic record both at the poles or elsewhere over recent millenia.

If you want to believe something badly enough theres no way I'll ever change your mind however many studies I present you with. I've got plenty more though

http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/mwp

 

[Deuce]

Since 1850 the total rise has been around 0.7C which is well within the norms of natural variability for such a timescale as has been illustrated multiple times for you elsewhere by both me and others.

Since 1950 of course the temperatures actually fell until 1975 during a period of the most rapid human industrialisation ever seen and quite at odds with the current hypothesis. After 1975 it rose for 23 years and plateaued in 1998. We've basically had a flatline since that time. There is nothing whatsoever marking these sorts of variations as in any way untypical of natural variations seen in the paleoclimatic record both at the poles or elsewhere over recent millenia.

If you want to believe something badly enough theres no way I'll ever change your mind however many studies I present you with. I've got plenty more though

http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/mwp

So, yes, you think a bunch of graphs that don't even match each other is a substitute for a quantitative analysis. Ok.

 

[flogger]

So, yes, you think a bunch of graphs that don't even match each other is a substitute for a quantitative analysis. Ok.

And you prefer deeply flawed and highly subjective climate modelling to fact because it fits your particular political worldview ....gotcha ..... moving on :roll:

 

[Deuce]

And you prefer deeply flawed and highly subjective climate modelling to fact because it fits your particular political worldview ....gotcha ..... moving on :roll:

Are you saying temperature proxies are a result of flawed climate models?

 

[flogger]

Are you saying temperature proxies are a result of flawed climate models?

Are you saying you dont even understand that Manns Hockey Stick even is a climate model that uses only tree ring proxies as its principle variable !

Good grief ! :roll:

As for temperature proxies here are even more to chew on

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

 

[Deuce]

Are you saying you dont even understand that Manns Hockey Stick even is a climate model that uses only tree ring proxies as its principle variable !

Good grief ! :roll:

As for temperature proxies here are even more to chew on

The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science

If proxies are models, and models are bad, then how do you know the temperature of the MWP?

You've posted yet another site that gives you that ridiculous image about the MWP. Seriously, there isn't even a scale on the y-axis, did none of these so-called skeptics bother to look up where that schematic came from and what it was based on?

It wasn't a global reconstruction.
(figure 1 on that link)

 

[flogger]

If proxies are models, and models are bad, then how do you know the temperature of the MWP?

You've posted yet another site that gives you that ridiculous image about the MWP. Seriously, there isn't even a scale on the y-axis, did none of these so-called skeptics bother to look up where that schematic came from and what it was based on?

(figure 1 on that link)

You've been shown plenty more already and are prepared to dismiss it all nonetheless so I'm done wasting my time here