• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene.. due to CO2 emissions. [W:121]

Threegoofs said:
So one of a dozen makes it 'Mann's blog'?
Click to expand...

No it's mann's blog dude. The list was of the "working climate scientists" who do the writing and so-called "work".. Him being one of them.. If it's not their site, whose site is it? They are the only credited contributors on the about page, and unless you are now admitting it's not a climate scientists site, but what I showed it was before, a PR blog for an environmental PR firm. Then you have been wrong all along when you claimed it was a proper climate science source...

It's okay goofs I already know you lack the character to admit you have been citing a site you knew nothing about, and were wrong when you tried to claim it wasn't mann's blog. No big shock, we have seen you get caught talking nonsense so many times already this was expected...
 
Threegoofs said:
Thats called SCIENCE. And scientists are doing that every day. The theory is solid, the models have borne out, the numbers have been rechecked multiple times, and crunched over and over again. The verdict is pretty clear. Every day you delay inaction, its going to cost you more and more money. And the argument to do something gets tougher as the solution seems more and more expensive. Ten years ago we could have moved on this because the data was clear then. Its even clearer now.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that doesn't convince me. I have looked at the research and found it lacking. The newer reports all point in the same direction and away from the dire predictions of a possible 6% increase in temperature. It looks more and more as though the maximum increase will be below the 2% target the UN and EU had in mind; most probably only 1.3%. Now explain why we should invest trillions of Dollars if we are safe?

No, that won't fly. If you want to take the living standards of the poor and shredder them for some Grail Holy or other, you will have to show that it exists and that the things you want to spend all that money on will actually do something worth while and not only try. Because if the prognosis was that we were going to have 6% and needed to spend the trillions to have 2%, only to find out that 6% was Never-Never Land ... Nah. You don't have my vote without substantially more solid science.
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess the journal Nature hasnt been told its not real science. You might want to let them know.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they are aware that they've been publishing junk science.
 
Threegoofs said:
So one of a dozen makes it 'Mann's blog'?
Click to expand...
I've been following that blog since it's inception. IIRC it was started in 2004 by Michael Mann and Malcolm Hughes to defend their infamous hockey stick after a paper was published that showed it's serious flaws and Nature forced them to issue a corrigendum. They were trying to save face after their junk science was debunked.
 
joG said:
I am afraid that doesn't convince me. I have looked at the research and found it lacking. .
Click to expand...

Any your qualifications to determine this are...???

It's like handing you an MRI scan of someone's abdomen and having you declare that you don't see a problem.
 
Threegoofs said:
Any your qualifications to determine this are...???

It's like handing you an MRI scan of someone's abdomen and having you declare that you don't see a problem.
Click to expand...
How is that any different than handing someone a graph of "anomalies" and having them proclaim they do?
 
Threegoofs said:
Any your qualifications to determine this are...???

It's like handing you an MRI scan of someone's abdomen and having you declare that you don't see a problem.
Click to expand...

Nope. I would pass on the abdominal scan. I am also not a natural scientist. But as a quantitative economist I do know a little about statistics, modelling complexity and the cost involved in fundamentally changing the infrastructure of societies. So, yes. I can spot a weakness in an argument based on statistics and modelling. And yes. I have looked into die economic implications of the switch to alternative living.

So in a nuts shell, I do not think the science looks enough robust to justify the amount of money the traverse to alternative society would cost at this time.
 
EdwinWillers said:
How is that any different than handing someone a graph of "anomalies" and having them proclaim they do?
Click to expand...

It's like having a radiologist handing someone a CT scan reading and telling them they see a likely adenoma on the head of the pancreas.
 
Threegoofs said:
Real Climate (you know, the site that actually is run by real climate scientists, as opposed to TV weathermen like others like to cite) has a nice post on the temperature from the holocene.

RealClimate: Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene

It also refers to a nice reconstruction of temperature since the last ice age - 10,000 years before Marcottes analysis begins:

View attachment 67153732

I expect the usual knuckle dragger comments and retorts based upon the ravings of TV weathermen, failed English non-scientist Lords, creationist scientists and retired oil company statisticians, but I thought I'd actually post some real climate info given that this section has descended into pseudoscience.
Click to expand...



Not at all. This is a wide departure from your normal appeal to authority bereft of any data whatsoever.

The data they use to construct their graph seems to be in variance with most of the data that I've seen on this topic, but that is the data that they have used. The number is the number. Most sources I have seen refer to a rise in temperature from the year zero to present as 0.7 degrees. While their Figure 1 is about equal to this rise across this time frame, the preceding temperatures seem understated compared to what I have seen in the past.

The range of uncertainty for some reason seems to get larger as the pre instrument record gets more recent.

The practice of attaching an instrument record to the end of a chain of proxy record averages is used often. In this case the record shows the proxies, followed by the instrument record followed by a prediction of what they suppose might happen. It is deceptive, but it is what it is.

All of that said, the nearly vertical rise of temperature to 2100 ad looks as it is intended to look: Like a disaster in the making.

It does represent that there have been variations in the past, but those differences are smoothed in this graph as opposed to others that I've seen. The start of the warming of 0.7 degrees since the year 0 seems to have been delayed until about 1900 on your graph. In this representation, the Little ice Age appears to have ended at about the time the yankees won their first series.

It's interesting that this data is different than the data most often presented.

Real Climate, by the by is far from being an unbiased site. There is one entire section in their index that has about 40 entires on how to defeat "contrarians" in debate on climate. They have no such section on how to defeat Diehards. One might expect this other section as balance if it was actually an unbiased site.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
The data they use to construct their graph seems to be in variance with most of the data that I've seen on this topic, but that is the data that they have used.
Click to expand...

I think this says more about what data you have seen than the veracity of the graph, which is merely a few well established and verified studies put together on one timeline.
 
Threegoofs said:
Any your qualifications to determine this are...???

It's like handing you an MRI scan of someone's abdomen and having you declare that you don't see a problem.
Click to expand...

And that would be like handing that scan to you and expecting a valuable contribution...

Dude how many times do we have to explain to you, having a lot of medical procedures done to you, doesn't make you able to play pretend doctor on a web forum.. ROFL.
 
gslack said:
And that would be like handing that scan to you and expecting a valuable contribution...

Dude how many times do we have to explain to you, having a lot of medical procedures done to you, doesn't make you able to play pretend doctor on a web forum.. ROFL.
Click to expand...

I guess 'analogy' is a foreign concept to you, eh, coach?
 
Threegoofs said:
I guess 'analogy' is a foreign concept to you, eh, coach?
Click to expand...

Nah, but truth is a foreign concept to you, medical whatever you are this time... Your analogy was a weak attempt to convince people you're a medical whatever. Dude no ones buying it, you've wasted that lie with your own posts..
 
gslack said:
Nah, but truth is a foreign concept to you, medical whatever you are this time... Your analogy was a weak attempt to convince people you're a medical whatever. Dude no ones buying it, you've wasted that lie with your own posts..
Click to expand...

Holy crap. You don't know what an analogy is!

I guess I could have expected this with your apparent education level, but still.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think this says more about what data you have seen than the veracity of the graph, which is merely a few well established and verified studies put together on one timeline.
Click to expand...
Not really.
 
Threegoofs said:
Holy crap. You don't know what an analogy is!

I guess I could have expected this with your apparent education level, but still.
Click to expand...

No moron, I know what analogy is.. The fact I noticed your use of one to make another claim of your being a medical whatever you are now, on the sly, is evidence of two things. 1. I know what an analogy is. 2. I know a desperate plea for attention and acceptance as well the BS which so often accompanies it..

Here's an analogy for you..

Believing you really are a medical whatever you are today, is like slapping Al Gore... Either one might make you feel better, but both will make you sorry..
 
KLATTU said:
More junk science. Those past temperatures can never be validated. The idea that anybody can establish accurate global temperatures 10,000 years ago via proxies( they couldn't even do now---hide the decline) is pie-in-the sky fanatsy Fun to to do, but not real science. Next.
Click to expand...



It's funny that the confidence inerval of the Marcott plot gets LESS confident during the modern climate record.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well then. (Explanation needed)
Click to expand...


(See Graph in link you posted) The light blue confidence interval is narrower (more confident) for the temperature in 6000 BC than it is for the past century.
 
jmotivator said:
(See Graph in link you posted) The light blue confidence interval is narrower (more confident) for the temperature in 6000 BC than it is for the past century.
Click to expand...

ROFL

:lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom