In case of Global Warming....

[Threegoofs]

People just don't understand that solar is the largest driver of the earth's heat. This solar cycle is the coolest in some time. The next is expected to be even cooler.

So in other words, the 'plateau' in rising temperatures is because of reduced solar activity over the last decade? If it was normal, temperatures would be the hottest ever recorded?

Thanks for making our point.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So in other words, the 'plateau' in rising temperatures is because of reduced solar activity over the last decade? If it was normal, temperatures would be the hottest ever recorded?

Thanks for making our point.

Can you say L-A-G...

 

[BmanMcfly]

coolest June on record, one of the coolest Julys on record. the last couple of days the high temp have been in the mid 70s in Alabama in the middle of August. Where the hell is this global warming happening? because it sure isn't warming here.

Don't you know that's the proof that we must be even more scared of global warming.

Now, pay your co2 tithe to al gore and he promises to plant a tree in the third world and he will be your savior.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Oh Mann! Paper demonstrates that tree-ring proxy temperature data is ‘seriously compromised’[/h] Posted on August 16, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Michael Mann won’t be happy about this.
A new paper now in open review in the journal Climate of the Past suggests that “modern sample bias “has “seriously compromised” tree-ring temperature reconstructions, producing an “artificial positive signal [e.g. 'hockey stick'] in the final chronology.”
Basically, older trees grow slower, and that mimics the temperature signal paleo researchers like Mann look for. Unless you correct for this issue, you end up with a false temperature signal, like a hockey stick in modern times. Separating a valid temperature signal from the natural growth pattern of the tree becomes a larger challenge with this correction.
Here is a relevant excerpt:
Much of the work in dendrochronology, and dendroclimatology in particular, relies on accurate, unbiased reconstructions of tree growth long into the past. As a result, a great deal of effort has been put into trying to isolate important trends and identify potential 5 biases. However, one major bias called “modern sample bias”, first identified by Melvin (2004), is still largely neglected in applied studies, despite its potential impact on all regional curve standardization chronologies (Brienen et al., 2012a).
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

[h=2]Oh Mann! Paper demonstrates that tree-ring proxy temperature data is ‘seriously compromised’[/h] Posted on August 16, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Michael Mann won’t be happy about this.
A new paper now in open review in the journal Climate of the Past suggests that “modern sample bias “has “seriously compromised” tree-ring temperature reconstructions, producing an “artificial positive signal [e.g. 'hockey stick'] in the final chronology.”
Basically, older trees grow slower, and that mimics the temperature signal paleo researchers like Mann look for. Unless you correct for this issue, you end up with a false temperature signal, like a hockey stick in modern times. Separating a valid temperature signal from the natural growth pattern of the tree becomes a larger challenge with this correction.
Here is a relevant excerpt:
Much of the work in dendrochronology, and dendroclimatology in particular, relies on accurate, unbiased reconstructions of tree growth long into the past. As a result, a great deal of effort has been put into trying to isolate important trends and identify potential 5 biases. However, one major bias called “modern sample bias”, first identified by Melvin (2004), is still largely neglected in applied studies, despite its potential impact on all regional curve standardization chronologies (Brienen et al., 2012a).
Continue reading →

Like I said before, too many variables to properly account for to make accurate assessments. This also gives anyone with an agenda the opportunity to skew the data in ways that are hard to detect.

For you crying fowl because of the blogger link, here is the study:

A likelihood perspective on tree-ring standardization: eliminating modern sample bias

 

[Jack Hays]

Like I said before, too many variables to properly account for to make accurate assessments. This also gives anyone with an agenda the opportunity to skew the data in ways that are hard to detect.

Yup. McShane & Wyner published the seminal debunking statistical work, and now we can expect proxy studies to come under increasing attack.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yup. McShane & Wyner published the seminal debunking statistical work, and now we can expect proxy studies to come under increasing attack.eace

Do you recall me in another thread stating how difficult it is to take this and another type of proxy data serious, for this level of accuracy?

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you recall me in another thread stating how difficult it is to take this and another type of proxy data serious, for this level of accuracy?

Yup.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

Yup.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Another erudite and well reasoned post.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Like I said. You apparently know much more about this than the people who have invested the time and energy into getting their PhDs, studying this data for decades and designing, implementing and analyzing data from temperature monitoring stations all over the world.

Maybe they'll start using satellites instead. Oh wait. Nevermind.

You really should tell them. I'm sure they'll thank you for your brilliant insight that they dont every study systematically ever. At all. Oh wait. Someone did.
Global warming critic Richard A. Muller does 'total turnaround,' admits he was wrong | cleveland.com

You gotta wonder, if it's plainly obvious to a random people, with varying levels of scientific background, that it should be plain as day to the actual scientists....

So, why would they ignore these (and other) obvious problems??

Could it be that a billion dollar per year industry has grown around the alarmism?

 

[Threegoofs]

You gotta wonder, if it's plainly obvious to a random people, with varying levels of scientific background, that it should be plain as day to the actual scientists....

So, why would they ignore these (and other) obvious problems??

Could it be that a billion dollar per year industry has grown around the alarmism?

Or, the other obvious answer.... That these issues are well known and recongnized and either they don't make a difference or are accounted for in the data set.

Because there are people who invest lots of time, money and their entire scientific reputation on getting the data right.

And hearing pissants like you pretending that you know how best to collect temperature data vs the guy who has devoted his life to the issue can get quite irritating.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Or, the other obvious answer.... That these issues are well known and recongnized and either they don't make a difference or are accounted for in the data set.

Oh, can you document where these have been adjusted for specifically this problem? And I mean explicitly, not implicitly as I'm sure you will try.

Because there are people who invest lots of time, money and their entire scientific reputation on getting the data right.

And you don't think that when their entire livelihood depends on them being able to demonstrate warming, through the continuation of hundreds of millions of dollars per year in "research", are going to be too stressed about what might make a 1-2 degree difference from actual temperatures??

And hearing pissants like you pretending that you know how best to collect temperature data vs the guy who has devoted his life to the issue can get quite irritating.

Oh, there's that bluster you were warning about...

In your bluster you are actually defending artificial heat sources as part of the temperature record... So, thanks for implicitly conceding the corruption and data manipulation within the field.

Are you really telling us all that it's better to collect data that has artificial heat and to "adjust", then to ensure accurate data collection ?!

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws[/h] Posted on August 19, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Pollution controls have contributed to a more transparent atmosphere, thus allowing for “…a staggering increase in surface solar radiation of the order of ∼20% over the last decade.”
Figure 1 from Wild et al 2012 showing radiation balance differences due to aerosols

A new paper (O’Dowd et al.) from the National University of Ireland presented this summer at the 19th International Conference on Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols suggests that clean air laws put in place in the 1970′s and 80′s have resulted in an increase in sunlight impacting the surface of the Earth, and thus have increased surface temperatures as a result. In one fell swoop, this can explain why surface temperature dipped in the 1970′s, prompting fears of an ice age, followed by concerns of global warming as the air got cleaner after pollution laws and controls were put in place.
Continue reading →

 

[Threegoofs]

Are you really telling us all that it's better to collect data that has artificial heat and to "adjust", then to ensure accurate data collection ?!

Are you really telling us you understand the intricacies of temperature monitoring better than the PhD level scientists who have been working on it for decades?

And let me clue you in to a confirmatory source of data. You might not know this, but we send rockets into space with little things at the tips. These are called 'satellites'. It's pretty technical, but lets just summarize by saying they read temperatures too. (But FROM SPACE! I'm serious!).

Science. There's some really clever people involved in it. Really.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

View attachment 67151912


I guess deniers just don't have the cojones to make a decision....

What a stupid thread. Is this all you have?

 

[BmanMcfly]

So, should I take your non-response as an apology for corruption, or should I take that as you have no justification for this clear flaw in data collection?

Are you really telling us you understand the intricacies of temperature monitoring better than the PhD level scientists who have been working on it for decades?

No, and that is further evidence of the ham fisted way that the data is being manipulated, that it doesn't even take an expertise to see these problems.

And let me clue you in to a confirmatory source of data. You might not know this, but we send rockets into space with little things at the tips. These are called 'satellites'. It's pretty technical, but lets just summarize by saying they read temperatures too. (But FROM SPACE! I'm serious!).

2000-2005 NASA was caught manipulating the data in order to maintain the delusion of "hottest year ever".

It happens that once the data was corrected for the manipulation, the data showed that 1998 was the hottest recent and essentially tied with 1938.

Science. There's some really clever people involved in it. Really.

Ya, and money is a great motivator towards corruption, and the industry gets about a billion of those excuses each year in order to go with the flow.

 

[Threegoofs]

Thanks for your temperature station monitoring expertise. I don't know how scientists got along without you.

You still haven't looked up 'satellite temperature monitoring' though. Have you?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Thanks for your temperature station monitoring expertise. I don't know how scientists got along without you.

You still haven't looked up 'satellite temperature monitoring' though. Have you?

Do you even read what you are responding to?

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you even read what you are responding to?

Yep. Your referring to your fake 'NASA manipulates data' comment (extraordinary claims usually deserve a reference, and not a ****ty WUWT one either)and blabbering about everything else other than independent temperature records confirming weather station records?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yep. Your referring to your fake 'NASA manipulates data' comment (extraordinary claims usually deserve a reference, and not a ****ty WUWT one either)and blabbering about everything else other than independent temperature records confirming weather station records?

They were caught, just like al gore was caught in his inconvenient truth.

Not that it matters, you will just apologize for the corruption, or claim that scientists would have the intelligence to account for the problems that "amateurs" are pointing out.

Meanwhile, that's the point, they DO KNOW, they MUST know, but they have lots of grants that they can collect, so a few flaws gets covered up by some clever phrasing, and it works to their benefits, so why not play ball?

 

[Lord of Planar]

[h=2]Shocker: Global warming may simply be an artifact of clean air laws[/h] Posted on August 19, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Pollution controls have contributed to a more transparent atmosphere, thus allowing for “…a staggering increase in surface solar radiation of the order of ∼20% over the last decade.”
Figure 1 from Wild et al 2012 showing radiation balance differences due to aerosols

A new paper (O’Dowd et al.) from the National University of Ireland presented this summer at the 19th International Conference on Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols suggests that clean air laws put in place in the 1970′s and 80′s have resulted in an increase in sunlight impacting the surface of the Earth, and thus have increased surface temperatures as a result. In one fell swoop, this can explain why surface temperature dipped in the 1970′s, prompting fears of an ice age, followed by concerns of global warming as the air got cleaner after pollution laws and controls were put in place.
Continue reading →

This is something I first started saying more than 5 years ago, maybe more than 10. I'm sure some of you recall me saying in at least two other threads, that we started clearing the skies in the 70's with EPA regulations.

 

[OscarB63]

This is something I first started saying more than 5 years ago, maybe more than 10. I'm sure some of you recall me saying in at least two other threads, that we started clearing the skies in the 70's with EPA regulations.

well......we had to do SOMETHING to stave off that imminent ice age the dirty sky was going to cause.

 

[Threegoofs]

They were caught, just like al gore was caught in his inconvenient truth.

Thanks, again, for the reference. It apparently only exists in your mind. That's a shame, because its clearly crowding out other useful things.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Thanks, again, for the reference. It apparently only exists in your mind. That's a shame, because its clearly crowding out other useful things.

How come you insist on dodging? Is it really that you don't want to verbalize your support for this corruption? I mean your only defense so far has been appeal to authority, or simply ignoring the issue and moving on.

Of course, you probably accept Hayden's defense where he said it was because of too many people manipulating a single file; so they had to rewrite the data, making old data cooler and recent data warmer... The group was "wrong", not manipulative.

That's ok though, because for the warmer cult even when it gets cooler that is proof that it's getting warmer... And no amount of lies, manipulations, exaggerations or distortions will change the level of faith of the acolytes.