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.
Can you say L-A-G...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.
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.
[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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.[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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?