Global warming: Fake news becomes no news

[Jack Hays]

Which it is. Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm it, not to mention glacier retreat, sea ice decline, shifting species zones of habitation and this:

So, you're angry the French national team is no longer all white?

 

[Mithrae]

Sorry, but the median resolution of component datasets tells you nothing about the resolution of the combined dataset. Marcott's combined resolution is 20 years, and the HADCRUT data I used was de-resolved to an identical 20-year resolution. So your complaint is baseless.

That is not the resolution of the data, it's the time-steps into which the generally lower-resolution data was interpolated, to preserve the variability of the highest-resolution data. The authors explicitly note in the supplementary information that it would have made no significant difference to their results if they had used a 100 or even 200 year time-step (and virtually all the difference occurs in the last thousand years):

One question regarding potential smoothing of our global temperature stack is what effect the choice of time-step (20 yrs) used in this study has on our results. The average sampling resolution of the datasets is 160 years, the median is 120 years, and the full range spans from 20 to 500 years (Table S1). We used the highest resolution time-step in order to preserve as much of the variability in the stack as possible. . . .
To test the sensitivity of the time-step, we recalculated the global mean temperature using a 100- and 200-year resolution (Fig. S12). While some small differences occur between the reconstructions, they are well within the uncertainty of the global temperature stack and do not affect our conclusions and general interpretations for this study. This result is not particularly surprising as the Monte Carlo simulations themselves act to smooth the datasets and filter out any potential anomalous results based on the chosen time-step.​

Simply false, and shown to be false long ago. Such hypothetical variations would have shown up in the data, if they had existed.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

I can't comment on the accuracy of Tamino's results for whatever he did, but what he did was not testing the proxy stack's ability to preserve high-frequency variability. This is clear for two fairly obvious reasons:

1 > The variability known from higher-resolution reconstructions of the past 1-2 thousand years, such as Mann et al 2008, is not preserved in Marcott's reconstruction. They're graphed right on top of each other in the paper, Mann 08 showing climate oscillations of up to 0.6 degrees back and forth in a century or less, while Marcott's proxy stack registers barely-noticeable blips (if that):


2 > Marcott et al even more explicitly state that in their test simulations, "essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years":

Because the relatively low resolution and time-uncertainty of our data sets should generally suppress higher-frequency temperature variability, an important question is whether the Holocene stack adequately represents centennial- or millennial-scale variability. We evaluated this question in two ways. First, we generated a single mean zero, unit variance white-noise time series and used it in place of our 73 records. The white-noise records were then perturbed through Monte Carlo simulations using the resolution and chronological uncertainty specific to each proxy record as well as a common 1°C proxy uncertainty. We composited a Standard 5x5 global stack from these synthetic records and calculated the ratio between the variances of the stack and the input white noise as a function of frequency to derive a gain function. The results suggest that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years, ~50% preserved at 1000-year periods, and nearly all of the variability preserved for periods longer than 2000 years (figs. S17 and S18).​

The study is an excellent low-resolution reconstruction of global long-term Holocene temperature trends, up to and including the estimated changes and pattern of insolation based on orbital variation: For folk new to amateur climate science discussion (or for experienced 'sceptics' playing dumb) it's convenient for showing not only that the expected long-term natural temperature trend would be cooling (not some arbitrary 'recovery' from the little ice age), but also why that's the case in the glacial/interglacial context.

But it is not useful for direct comparison with 20th century temperature trends in anything but the vaguest and most heavily-qualified terms. Unfortunately some folks' use of it for comparative purposes and the legitimate criticism of that has created the situation where any mention of the study at all causes instant knee-jerk "Oh, you can't use that study" reactions from many 'sceptics.'

 

[expat_panama]

Hold up there one moment, pardner. "Agreed" with what?...

Howdy bucaroo, your itchy trigger finger's no good see'ins how ya couldn't hit a bull's ass with a banjo anyway. Yikes! Where the heck's all that coming from?

Sounds like you just tuned in, whats happening here is that way back at the beginning Mithrae announced that--

...Multiple surface records, and multiple satellite records all confirm...

that there's unprecedented severe global warming. So I begged him to tell me where it was because there are soooo many temperature data sets (like this one at NOAA w/ hundreds). See, I wanted to be able to boast like he's doing but I never had any luck finding warming, I just found cooling --and I posted one of my efforts that failed to find this warming trend everyone's talking about.

There's this data set that's presented as proof of global warming (the BBC loved it too) and if you plot it w/ a 5-year moving average you get this--

-- and so I pasted in on the ice core---

--and what we end up w/ is the fact that even if we say today's temps are 'soaring' another half degree it's still not "severe" and it's still not "unprecedented".

The only reason I'm posting the numbers that don't work is because nobody here is posting numbers that do work. Like, if I didn't know better I'd think y'all had no idea what you were talking about. So please, post one --just one-- of those "multiple" records y'all say you have.

 

[Manc Skipper]

A lie repeated is still a lie. D. Trump.

 

[Poor Debater]

Howdy bucaroo, your itchy trigger finger's no good see'ins how ya couldn't hit a bull's ass with a banjo anyway. Yikes! Where the heck's all that coming from?

Sounds like you just tuned in, whats happening here is that way back at the beginning Mithrae announced that--

that there's unprecedented severe global warming. So I begged him to tell me where it was because there are soooo many temperature data sets (like this one at NOAA w/ hundreds). See, I wanted to be able to boast like he's doing but I never had any luck finding warming, I just found cooling

Oh, you found cooling in several global datasets? During the last half of the 20th century? Which ones, pray tell? We all want to know.

--and I posted one of my efforts that failed to find this warming trend everyone's talking about.

But the graph you posted did show global warming in the late 20th century. So you don't even know what you posted.

There's this data set that's presented as proof of global warming (the BBC loved it too) and if you plot it w/ a 5-year moving average you get this--

-- and so I pasted in on the ice core---

But the ice core data isn't global. It's not proof of, nor even evidence of, global anything. Certainly not global cooling, as you seem to think.

Ooooops. And you even lined them up wrong, too. Alley's data ends in 1855, not 1925. Geoscience 101: the zero point of "BP" is 1950, by convention. I guess they didn't teach you that at Denierstan U.

--and what we end up w/ is the fact that even if we say today's temps are 'soaring' another half degree it's still not "severe" and it's still not "unprecedented".

What we end up with is a global dataset patched together with a local dataset, and fobbed off as something scientific by somebody who doesn't even know enough science to know what BP means.

The only reason I'm posting the numbers that don't work is because nobody here is posting numbers that do work.

I just posted those numbers, and you've ignored them in two postings running. I guess actually thinking isn't your strong suit. That's okay though. You're par for the course in Denierstan. As long as you stay away from actual peer-reviewed science, you'll do just fine in your bubble.

Like, if I didn't know better I'd think y'all had no idea what you were talking about. So please, post one --just one-- of those "multiple" records y'all say you have.

Your original statement, to which Mithrae responded, denied any warming at all. If you're now agreeing that your original statement was in fact hogwash, I think we're done here.

 

[Poor Debater]

That is not the resolution of the data, it's the time-steps into which the generally lower-resolution data was interpolated, to preserve the variability of the highest-resolution data. The authors explicitly note in the supplementary information that it would have made no significant difference to their results if they had used a 100 or even 200 year time-step (and virtually all the difference occurs in the last thousand years):

Precisely the point. If they had used any resolution longer than 20 years, they would have been throwing away data. The 20-year timesteps are essentially required by the data they had. And they are of course correct that if you de-resolve the given dataset into, say 100-year steps, their conclusions would have not changed. How could they, being based on a de-resolved version of the same data?

I can't comment on the accuracy of Tamino's results for whatever he did, but what he did was not testing the proxy stack's ability to preserve high-frequency variability.
This is clear for two fairly obvious reasons:

1 > The variability known from higher-resolution reconstructions of the past 1-2 thousand years, such as Mann et al 2008, is not preserved in Marcott's reconstruction. They're graphed right on top of each other in the paper, Mann 08 showing climate oscillations of up to 0.6 degrees back and forth in a century or less, while Marcott's proxy stack registers barely-noticeable blips (if that):
View attachment 67215195

That's because Marcott used many more proxies than Mann, and mostly oceanic proxies, while Mann's were more heavily continental. Thus Marcott's result is more likely to be reflective of actual global variability in two ways.

2 > Marcott et al even more explicitly state that in their test simulations, "essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years":

Because the relatively low resolution and time-uncertainty of our data sets should generally suppress higher-frequency temperature variability, an important question is whether the Holocene stack adequately represents centennial- or millennial-scale variability. We evaluated this question in two ways. First, we generated a single mean zero, unit variance white-noise time series and used it in place of our 73 records. The white-noise records were then perturbed through Monte Carlo simulations using the resolution and chronological uncertainty specific to each proxy record as well as a common 1°C proxy uncertainty. We composited a Standard 5x5 global stack from these synthetic records and calculated the ratio between the variances of the stack and the input white noise as a function of frequency to derive a gain function. The results suggest that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years, ~50% preserved at 1000-year periods, and nearly all of the variability preserved for periods longer than 2000 years (figs. S17 and S18).​

Nor would I expect such a procedure to produce anything different, since their injected pseudo-signal was random, sharply constrained in amplitude by the standard deviation of the data, and centered on zero. Tamino's injected pseudo-signal was exactly the signal denialists claim could have escaped notice: a global 100-year up-and-down swing comparable to recent warming. The fact that such a signal could not, in fact, have escaped notice is strong evidence that there was no such event in the Holocene.

The study is an excellent low-resolution reconstruction of global long-term Holocene temperature trends, up to and including the estimated changes and pattern of insolation based on orbital variation: For folk new to amateur climate science discussion (or for experienced 'sceptics' playing dumb) it's convenient for showing not only that the expected long-term natural temperature trend would be cooling (not some arbitrary 'recovery' from the little ice age), but also why that's the case in the glacial/interglacial context.

But it is not useful for direct comparison with 20th century temperature trends in anything but the vaguest and most heavily-qualified terms. Unfortunately some folks' use of it for comparative purposes and the legitimate criticism of that has created the situation where any mention of the study at all causes instant knee-jerk "Oh, you can't use that study" reactions from many 'sceptics.'

The reason you get that knee-jerk reaction from skeptics isn't because the study is bad, or because it's been used badly. The reason you get that reaction from Denierstan is because the study disproves their entire pack of lies in one fell swoop. And they just can't stand that.

 

[flogger]

The reason you get that knee-jerk reaction from skeptics isn't because the study is bad, or because it's been used badly. The reason you get that reaction from Denierstan is because the study disproves their entire pack of lies in one fell swoop. And they just can't stand that.

Wow ironic or what ! And this from a guy so rabid he fiddles graphs in an effort to falsely qualify his own extreme position :shock:

 

[Mithrae]

Precisely the point. If they had used any resolution longer than 20 years, they would have been throwing away data. The 20-year timesteps are essentially required by the data they had. And they are of course correct that if you de-resolve the given dataset into, say 100-year steps, their conclusions would have not changed. How could they, being based on a de-resolved version of the same data?

You can't create a record with twenty year resolution from records whose resolution is greater than 100 years. The data simply isn't there. At most you can interpolate to higher time-steps, as Marcott et al did, which at least retains the variability of the higher-resolution proxies, but will still have a major smoothing effect when forty interpolated data points from low-resolution proxies are stacked in a time-step with one or two actual high-resolution data points.

That's because Marcott used many more proxies than Mann, and mostly oceanic proxies, while Mann's were more heavily continental. Thus Marcott's result is more likely to be reflective of actual global variability in two ways.

Marcott and co used 73 proxies, of which there were 40-60 covering most of the past 2000 years. Mann et al 2008 "made use of a multiple proxy (“multiproxy”) database consisting of a diverse (1,209) set of annually (1,158) and decadally (51) resolved proxy series."

Tamino's injected pseudo-signal was exactly the signal denialists claim could have escaped notice: a global 100-year up-and-down swing comparable to recent warming. The fact that such a signal could not, in fact, have escaped notice is strong evidence that there was no such event in the Holocene.

As I've already shown, it is a simple and obvious fact that for example the down and up swing of ~0.6 degrees around 600BP in Mann's reconstruction doesn't register at all in Marcott's reconstruction.

From what I can make of it Tamino's test is only for the signal of such a spike to exceed age-model uncertainty. He seems to have simply added his 0.9 degree spike to all records with data points in his chosen time period, which does not account for proxy temperature uncertainty. More fundamentally, he does not seem to have done a proper test against temporal resolution (or spatial distribution) for the simple reason that his spikes are so pronounced to begin with. If 100% of the proxy records covering each spike period had a data point exactly on the 0.9 degree peak, they'd obviously show up in his unperturbed graph as 0.9 degree spikes; if none of the records had a data point anywhere in that 200 year period, they wouldn't show up at all. Tamino has correctly noted that in his post. However if 33% of the records had a data point at the peak of the 0.9 degree spike it would show up as 0.3 degrees when averaged with the interpolated points from all those which didn't, but (here's the important part) then if 66% percent of the records had a data point where the up- or down-swing of the spike was at 0.45 degrees, that would show up as 0.3 degrees also. It would not look very spiky at all, in other words.

Tamino's show up as smaller yet perfect 0.5 to 0.55 degree spikes, suggesting that he has simulated 45% of the proxy records with a data point at or near the peak; that's improbable to begin with, because with a median 120 year resolution we'd realistically expect fewer than 20% of the records to have any data points at all in the warmest twenty years. But the fact that his are perfect, clearly defined spikes further suggests that he's got either a perfect distribution of 45% coverage for data points down each side (which is virtually impossible, since the proxies have such different resolutions) or no other data points whatsoever in his simulated 200 year spike (which is also virtually impossible, since over half of the records should have multiple data points in that period). Finally, even with such a high level of short-term variation, it's entirely probable that data points from 10 or 20% of the mostly-oceanic proxies would happen to lie in areas or seasons where there is no strong indication of global warming to begin with.

Spoiler

The reason you get that knee-jerk reaction from skeptics isn't because the study is bad, or because it's been used badly. The reason you get that reaction from Denierstan is because the study disproves their entire pack of lies in one fell swoop. And they just can't stand that.

One can only hope that we alarmists are able to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and recognise when we've been mistaken about something

 

[Lord of Planar]

Am I the only one confused by the relevance of the French soccer team?

I get it has changed... like the earth... but is that it?

Maybe the extra solar radiation because of clearer skies is giving more people dark tans.

 

[Mithrae]

Tamino's show up as smaller yet perfect 0.5 to 0.55 degree spikes, suggesting that he has simulated 45% of the proxy records with a data point at or near the peak; that's improbable to begin with, because with a median 120 year resolution we'd realistically expect fewer than 20% of the records to have any data points at all in the warmest twenty years. But the fact that his are perfect, clearly defined spikes further suggests that he's got either a perfect distribution of 45% coverage for data points down each side (which is virtually impossible, since the proxies have such different resolutions) or no other data points whatsoever in his simulated 200 year spike (which is also virtually impossible, since over half of the records should have multiple data points in that period).

Sorry, should be ~56%. I math good I suspect Tamino has simply assumed for convenience that any data point in the middle ~140 years of his spikes has coincided with or otherwise shown their peak temperature, rather than the actual 140-year distribution we'd get if the spikes were real.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here is what Marcott himself said .......

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

Perhaps you should take your complaints up with him ?

I keep telling people that most the scientists are honest, and that it is the pundits who spin the material. They endlessly keep saying that I claim the scientists are lying. I only claim the likes of Mann and Schmidt are the liars.

 

[Mithrae]

I keep telling people that most the scientists are honest, and that it is the pundits who spin the material. They endlessly keep saying that I claim the scientists are lying. I only claim the likes of Mann and Schmidt are the liars.

February 2010, RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. . . .

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. . . .

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. . . .

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. . . .
....the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.​

June 2010, RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann

All of these awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. . . .

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.​

 

[flogger]

The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

Yes of course it was. These well stuffed Turkeys certainly wouldnt vote for Christmas so a rerun of the Climategate inquiry was only to be expected

After all there are around 20 times more people working in this field than there were 25 years ago and thats an awful lot of vested interest to protect :wink:

 

[Lord of Planar]

February 2010, RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann

<snip>

Regardless of the inquiry results, my opinion is that he knew the data and methodology would produce inaccurate result. Just because something isn't proven, doesn't mean it isn't as said.

Just Friday, I have on security cameras, an act of vandalism. The camera clearly shows to me who the culprit is, a jackass I know. However, the video isn't clear enough to take to court.

I know he did it, but would I ever win in court?

What is known and what is proven are two different things. Remember. Mann's hockey stick, with his methodology, is recreated with random data as well.

Accident or design?

Either way, there is no way to show intent of fraud, even if factual.

 

[Mithrae]

What is known and what is proven are two different things. Remember. Mann's hockey stick, with his methodology, is recreated with random data as well.

Accident or design?

It's also recreated with both contemporary (Jones et al 1998, Crowley and Lowery 2000) and more recent reconstructions. Coincidink? Conspiracy? Or could it be that hemispheric and global temperatures have actually followed that general pattern? :shock:

Spoiler

IPPC AR5 WG1 Figure 5.7

Fifteen millenium-plus wide scale paleoclimate studies since 2000, excluding low-resolution reconstructions (such as Marcott et al 2013). [Edit: From an old post, so at least one link, the second, is no longer active.]

1 > Crowley and Lowery 2000, How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period?; AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000 (behind a paywall; reconstruction reproduced in Crowley 2000)

2 > Esper et al 2002, Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability; VOL 295 SCIENCE

3 > Moberg et al 2005, Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data; NATURE |VOL 433

4 > D'Arrigo et al 2006, On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming; JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111

5 > Juckes et al 2007, Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation; Clim. Past, 3, 591–609

6 > Frank et al 2007, Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in a large-scale temperature reconstruction; GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34

7 > Hegerl and co 2007, Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction; JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 20

8 > Mann et al 2008, Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia; PNAS vol. 105 no. 36

9 > Loehle and McCulloch 2008, Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-tree Ring Proxies; Energy & Environment· Vol. 19, No. 1

10> Ljungqvist, F. C. 2010, A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extratropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia; Geografiska Annaler: Series A (Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography)

11 > McShane and Wyner 2011, A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable?; The Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 5–44

12 > Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2011, Reconstruction of the Extratropical NH Mean Temperature over the Last Millennium with a Method that Preserves Low-Frequency Variability; JOURNAL OF CLIMATE VOLUME 24

13 > Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012, The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability; Clim. Past, 8, 765–786

14 > PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia; NATURE GEOSCIENCE | VOL 6

15 > Shi et al 2013, Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction during the last millennium using multiple annual proxies; Clim. Res., 56, 231–244

 

[Lord of Planar]

Did you read this one?

3 > Moberg et al 2005, Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data; NATURE |VOL 433

 

[Mithrae]

Did you read this one?

I glanced at it. Did you read the sixth one?

 

[expat_panama]

...Your original statement, to which Mithrae responded, denied any warming at all....

Actually it didn't, and you didn't quote any "warming is denied" words because they aren't there. There very well may be evidence of warming somewhere but nobody's posted any --sure, lots of hysteria --IT'S THERE IT'S THERE-- but no data sets.

What the original post did point out is that global warmers talk like delusional idiots, and we're seeing it here w/ all the imaginary evidence and imaginary quotes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I glanced at it. Did you read the sixth one?

Not till ow, and only the first bit.

I already knew how the number of tree proxies decrease as you go back, and how the quality changes.

There is no good evidence of an particular trend.

I remember sometime back, looking at the full set of data available for ocean floor samples of wast Africa. The few samples chosen of seveal dozen available all showed the correct trend, while those ignored showed the opposite trend.

Don't expect me to accept these papers as evidence of the hockey stick. The papers are correct in their interpretation of cherry picked data.

 

[Jack Hays]

People are often surprised when the facts fall well short of the hype.


Surprising news about trend of America’s temperature and precipitation

By Larry Kummer. Posted at the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: News stories, in both local and national media, tend to describe climate change as a simple and omnipresent phenomenon. It’s not. Here we look at the surprising trends in US temperature and precipitation, and northern hemisphere snowfall. There has been global warming during the past…
Continue reading →

. . . Climate change is not a simple phenomenon, as often described by activists and journalists. They attribute all kinds of local or regional changes — such as in agriculture, diseases, animal populations and migrations. What they seldom do is show that the responsible factor (e.g., temperature or precipitation) has actually changed. That would often ruin the story.
Global warming is not a universal explanation for weather. There are large variously in climate change from region to region, due to poorly understood reasons. Extremes of weather are even more difficult to understand — they are a constant of history, with large decadal and even century-long cycles. Reducing these to simple stories is propaganda, not science. . . .

 

[Mithrae]

Not till ow, and only the first bit.

I already knew how the number of tree proxies decrease as you go back, and how the quality changes.

There is no good evidence of an particular trend.

I remember sometime back, looking at the full set of data available for ocean floor samples of wast Africa. The few samples chosen of seveal dozen available all showed the correct trend, while those ignored showed the opposite trend.

Don't expect me to accept these papers as evidence of the hockey stick. The papers are correct in their interpretation of cherry picked data.

Well, I guess after all it is only 15-odd papers broadly confirming Mann's results plus the glowing commendation of the "investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields" based partly on his awards etc... and you've got your half-remembered personal anecdote... So it's a pretty even balance of evidence there :roll:

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, I guess after all it is only 15-odd papers broadly confirming Mann's results plus the glowing commendation of the "investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields" based partly on his awards etc... and you've got your half-remembered personal anecdote... So it's a pretty even balance of evidence there :roll:

Yes.

Effectively the methodology and data he used.

Just how much data is there for over 1,000 years back?

There was far more than what they used!

 

[Steve Case]

I wrote:
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
I mean really, are you going to tell me Phil Jones didn't
write that or it doesn't mean what it looks like it means?

What do you think it looks like it means? If you're suggesting that they were analyzing the raw temperature data and noticed a major discrepancy which might stem from observational biases during or after World War Two - that the sea surface temperatures became inexplicably much cooler after the war than the oceanic circulations or land temperatures would suggest - and began talking about why the raw data showed that and whether it was a demonstrable bias which should be corrected then yes, it probably means what it looks like.

If you're suggesting that three people conspired to unilaterally falsify the data of the world's most-used temperature series - hoping that no-one would notice or ask awkward questions - so that they could achieve their nefarious ends by fooling everyone with an extra... um... about one thousandth of a degree of global ocean warming...?

No, that's patently absurd: Much as I am forced to admire your aeronautic copulation skills, I'm going to have to go with the numerous independent reviews on this.

By the looks of it the changes discussed did end up going through with HadSST3 in 2012, even after all the scrutiny and conspiracy theories surrounding these emails. Interestingly, it looks like the sea-surface data used by GISS (ERSST4 if memory serves) did not implement similar changes, so one of the few divergences between HadCRUT4 and GISS occurs at that point. The fact that these multiple agencies cross-check with overlapping but slightly different data and often very different methodologies is yet another fact showing that while there will always be uncertainties, especially with older data, the generally high level of agreement suggests that they're probably not far off the mark.

Can you say:
R A T I O N A L I Z A T I O N
I knew you could.

 

[Mithrae]

I wrote:
http://di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt
I mean really, are you going to tell me Phil Jones didn't
write that or it doesn't mean what it looks like it means?




Can you say:
R A T I O N A L I Z A T I O N
I knew you could.

So you're trying to tell me you honestly believe that those three people conspired to unilaterally falsify the data of the world's most-used temperature series (hoping that no-one would notice or ask awkward questions) so that they could achieve their nefarious ends by fooling everyone with an extra one thousandth of a degree to the ocean warming trend? (And in fact made the warming trend since 1959 when solar activity peaked smaller than it had been.)

And still went ahead with it in 2012 despite the hacking and all the scrutiny and conspiracy theories?

And all the independent inquiries into the emails were just too dumb to realise the Truth which you see here?

Wood for Trees

 

[jmotivator]

Dont worry. Now that there is someone NOT a democrat in the WH, leftists will be starting up their Global Warming poutrage soon enough. They just have to wait til they can be reasonably sure their protests dont get snowed out...then they will be back in full force.

I hope all of the catastrophic global warming believers believe hard enough to tithe!