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

[Deuce]

A simple 'no I cant' would have saved you some keystrokes there :roll:

Fine, continue to ignore what I'm actually saying.

 

[code1211]

A newer one from your imagination? Notice the current temperatures on the graph I posted (and referenced, natch) are no where near the red line on your unreferenced, (probably Monckton derived) graph.

The added red line that shows the actual measured temperatures are from UAH. Satellite temps measured in an unbiased and scientific way.

The graph is the one that Hansen actually presented to the Senate in 1988.

 

[code1211]

Well, yes and know. The problem is that even though they are indeed reducing the number of stations over time, there are still more stations and more frequent measurements than exist in the proxy record. What I am saying is that Marcott's reconstruction is impossible. But then it is well documented the astonishingly fundamental errors in the Marcott reconstruction and only the head cheerleaders of CAGW at RealClimate still dare use it.

Which is funny because Marcott admitted that the graph that RealClimate uses IS NOT STATISTICALLY ROBUST. So RealClimate repeats "Mike's nature trick" and tacks on instrumental record onto a problematic graph in what can best be described as a liverwurst-to-apples comparison.

All these years and the folks at RealCliamte still have fundamental misunderstandings of how statistics work. But then they also know their audience...

Also, funny thing about that decrease in climate stations... it has a VERY strong negative correlation to the late 20th century warming trend!

View attachment 67154032

Do you know what caused the decrease in the number of stations used?

Was it forced by circumstance or by design?

 

[jmotivator]

Do you know what caused the decrease in the number of stations used?

Was it forced by circumstance or by design?

They weren't showing warming so OBVIOUSlY they were broken.

Seriously, though, I have no idea why they reduced the number of global weather stations in GHCN so drastically.

 

[flogger]

These people get their science from Rush Limbaugh? Damn.

I'm British and wouldnt know who Rush Limbaugh is if he stood up in my soup.... nor would I care :roll:

 

[code1211]

These people get their science from Rush Limbaugh? Damn.

Please present the post where I referenced Rush Limbaugh.

Why not argue with those in the debate instead of constructing Straw men?

Weak.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm sure they are aware that they've been publishing junk science.

The reverso-meme in full bloom.

Insult a respected journal as being junk science while quoting junk science blogs and the usual denier claptrap.

Nature has a good reputation on science reporting; and I haven't heard anything bad about RealClimate. That can't be said of any source cited by the denier crowd.

 

[flogger]

.

and I haven't heard anything bad about RealClimate.

You havent eh ? Well you havent been looking very hard then :roll:

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about RealClimate.org

 

[code1211]

The reverso-meme in full bloom.

Insult a respected journal as being junk science while quoting junk science blogs and the usual denier claptrap.

Nature has a good reputation on science reporting; and I haven't heard anything bad about RealClimate. That can't be said of any source cited by the denier crowd.

Real Climate is a black hole of bias. On the site it lists about 40 articles on how to argue with a climate skeptic and not one on how to argue with an AGW Diehard. Case Closed

Here is a link to NPR quoting the head of NASA who says:

"I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming : NPR

Your assertion is empty, your thinking is faulty and your conclusion is wrong. Outside of that, right on!

 

[Threegoofs]

Real Climate is a black hole of bias. !

Absolutely. Biased toward current scientific thought. The guys who write for it are mainstream climate scientists.

 

[jmotivator]

Absolutely. Biased toward current scientific thought. The guys who write for it are mainstream climate scientists.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

 

[flogger]

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

I wonder when the penny will ever drop for him that nobody is rising to his bait anymore ?