The definitive post on why global warming is not 'paused' and is not 'cooling'.

[Earthling]

If AGW is not resolved by 2013, we're all going to die. That's just a fact, and NASA says so.

Something's wrong, Jimbo's prediction expired over a year ago, so shouldn't we all be making preparations for the end of civilisation?

 

[Threegoofs]

Something's wrong, Jimbo's prediction expired over a year ago, so shouldn't we all be making preparations for the end of civilisation?

Apparently, you post on this topic all day long for months and dont understand the concept. Odd.

You're too old to see the consequences. I guess thats what you call 'personal responsibility' - let the grandkids deal with it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Oh. Then you'll be interested in this:

Well the hockey stick element has been pretty well debunked by now. But even if it was still a valid scientific theory, looking at your graph we should be thanking our lucky stars and figuring out ways to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we surely avoided plummeting into another ice age.

Speaking of which, anybody with a computer and an agenda can make a graph. Consider these:





Which of course show a huge fluctuation in global temps over millions of years, many of those periods in which there was no permanent ice caps at either pole, and also suggesting that CO2 had little or nothing to do with those broad fluctuations.

So who do we believe? Your graph taken from no doubt a site with an agenda? Or my graphs certainly taken from a site with an agenda?

 

[Earthling]

... all day long for months ...

 

[Threegoofs]

Well the hockey stick element has been pretty well debunked by now. But even if it was still a valid scientific theory, looking at your graph we should be thanking our lucky stars and figuring out ways to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere, because we surely avoided plummeting into another ice age.

Speaking of which, anybody with a computer and an agenda can make a graph. Consider these:

Really? The hockey stick is debunked? Do tell. And use something from the actual scientific literature, not a blog.

The reason I challenge you is because you are full of crap, basically. Mann's work has been replicated many times over, including from a recent paper from the PAGES 2K project, which used many, many more proxies from around the globe to show unprecedented modern warming.

Educate youself sometime. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

The graph I posted is a mix of three different data sets.

One, the Shakun reconstruction, using multiple proxies to reconstruct paleoclimate data back about 20k years. The next is the Marcott analysis, which uses multiple proxies to basically not only replicate Manns seminal 1998 work, but to expaad it to earlier dates - approximately to the age of the dawn of modern civillization. The last part is both actual temperatures now as well as projections to 2100, to give perspective on the warming.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Really? The hockey stick is debunked? Do tell. And use something from the actual scientific literature, not a blog.

The reason I challenge you is because you are full of crap, basically. Mann's work has been replicated many times over, including from a recent paper from the PAGES 2K project, which used many, many more proxies from around the globe to show unprecedented modern warming.

Educate youself sometime. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html

The graph I posted is a mix of three different data sets.

One, the Shakun reconstruction, using multiple proxies to reconstruct paleoclimate data back about 20k years. The next is the Marcott analysis, which uses multiple proxies to basically not only replicate Manns seminal 1998 work, but to expaad it to earlier dates - approximately to the age of the dawn of modern civillization. The last part is both actual temperatures now as well as projections to 2100, to give perspective on the warming.

Yes. The hockey stick theory has been debunked which can be verified by several different reliable sources if you care to google it and check for yourself. Here's MIT's take on it:

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

 

[Earthling]

Yes. The hockey stick theory has been debunked which can be verified by several different reliable sources if you care to google it and check for yourself. Here's MIT's take on it:

A few days ago, 3Gs was trying to prove that the IPCC were still using the Hokey Schstick, but he failed, miserably.
Not one of the graphs he linked to was Mann's Hokey Schstick.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A few days ago, 3Gs was trying to prove that the IPCC were still using the Hokey Schstick, but he failed, miserably.
Not one of the graphs he linked to was Mann's Hokey Schstick.

Well what do I know? 3G is no doubt a very smart man (or woman--I actually don't know anything about him) and he has declared me to be full of crap. So obviously I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But gee, that was a really REALLY easy one.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A few days ago, 3Gs was trying to prove that the IPCC were still using the Hokey Schstick, but he failed, miserably.
Not one of the graphs he linked to was Mann's Hokey Schstick.

Ouch... for Mann and his lawsuit...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well what do I know? 3G is no doubt a very smart man (or woman--I actually don't know anything about him) and he has declared me to be full of crap. So obviously I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But gee, that was a really REALLY easy one.

I agree, he seems to be smarter than the average bear. However, it isn't in climate science...

 

[Earthling]

Well what do I know? 3G is no doubt a very smart man (or woman--I actually don't know anything about him) and he has declared me to be full of crap. So obviously I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But gee, that was a really REALLY easy one.

To the majority of climate catastrophists, that's probably 97%, anyone who dares to disagree with the warmist religion is a denier, so "full of crap" doesn't constitute strong language in their playbook.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes. The hockey stick theory has been debunked which can be verified by several different reliable sources if you care to google it and check for yourself. Here's MIT's take on it:

Maybe you don't understand the concept of primary literature?

 

[Earthling]

Maybe you don't understand the concept of primary literature?

That in mind, do you have any news on Mann's Nobel?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Maybe you don't understand the concept of primary literature?

Maybe you don't know what debunked means?

 

[Threegoofs]

Maybe you don't know what debunked means?

I do. But debunking a scientific paper (which, as I said, has been reconfirmed many times over, including an excellent comprehensive analysis from 2013) in a newsletter isn't possible.

You need to show that paleoclimatologists have totally reversed their position on this paper with actual, you know, data.

And you can't. I know you can't because we would have heard about this since the last definitive 'hockey stick' confirmation was published in April 2013.

So I think I can back up my assertion that you are full of crisp on this point.

 

[Threegoofs]

Ouch... for Mann and his lawsuit...

If I were you, I'd be very cautious in believing things that come out of earthlings keyboard.

If I recall correctly, I even specifid the page number and figure number for the stated reference. Mann's work has been superseded by multiple papers all essentially showing the same thing, BTW.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I do. But debunking a scientific paper (which, as I said, has been reconfirmed many times over, including an excellent comprehensive analysis from 2013) in a newsletter isn't possible.

You need to show that paleoclimatologists have totally reversed their position on this paper with actual, you know, data.

And you can't. I know you can't because we would have heard about this since the last definitive 'hockey stick' confirmation was published in April 2013.

So I think I can back up my assertion that you are full of crisp on this point.

Well if you can, then you should be able to provide a link to a credible source that is not devoted to the promotion of the AGW doctrine for the benefit of those who financially benefit from the doctrine? Something perhaps as authoritative as my MIT source? Take your time. I'll wait.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well if you can, then you should be able to provide a link to a credible source that is not devoted to the promotion of the AGW doctrine for the benefit of those who financially benefit from the doctrine? Something perhaps as authoritative as my MIT source? Take your time. I'll wait.

Nice goalpost moving.

You can't come up with a paper, eh?

It's a simple thing. You said Mann has clearly and definitively been shown to be wrong. Seems to me I produced papers showing that to be false.

I already showed you a couple. But of course, any studies I come up with are 'devoted to the promotion of AGW doctrine'. Poisoning the well.

The crap is now starting to overflow!

 

[AlbqOwl]

Nice goalpost moving.

You can't come up with a paper, eh?

It's a simple thing. You said Mann has clearly and definitively been shown to be wrong. Seems to me I produced papers showing that to be false.

I already showed you a couple. But of course, any studies I come up with are 'devoted to the promotion of AGW doctrine'. Poisoning the well.

The crap is now starting to overflow!

No I did not come up with a paper nor did I move any goal posts. I came up with a credible source, not known for any partisan leanings or promotion of any particular ideology, climate or otherwise, that pointed to credible research that debunked the Hockey Stick theory. I'm sure you can do the same to back up your assertion that the Hockey Stick remains a credible scientific study. Of course some of the pro-AGW sites will do that but those do not report anything contrary to what promotes AGW. I want to see your point of view confirmed by somebody who reports both sides of the argument. If you can't do that, then okay. We know whose crap is overflowing. But do have a nice day.

 

[Threegoofs]

No I did not come up with a paper nor did I move any goal posts. I came up with a credible source, not known for any partisan leanings or promotion of any particular ideology, climate or otherwise, that pointed to credible research that debunked the Hockey Stick theory. I'm sure you can do the same to back up your assertion that the Hockey Stick remains a credible scientific study. Of course some of the pro-AGW sites will do that but those do not report anything contrary to what promotes AGW. I want to see your point of view confirmed by somebody who reports both sides of the argument. If you can't do that, then okay. We know whose crap is overflowing. But do have a nice day.

Again, poisoning the well.

There IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THE ARGUMENT SCIENTIFICALLY. Its like saying you want to hear the other side of the argument that water is not a carbon based molecule. Its like saying you want to hear the other side of the argument of plate tectonic theory. Its like saying you want to hear the other side of the argument to DNA being the genetic code of life. The hockey stick (meaning the fact that the earth is warmer than it has been in a thousand years, and that the rise in temperature has been very rapid historically) has been repeatedly shown to be real.

Now for giggles, lets look at the reference you threw out there. It says:

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected....

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true–but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed–and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitricks only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

Nonwithstanding this article is TEN YEARS OLD and multiple confirmatory reconstructions with many different temperature proxies (tree rings, coral reefs, ice cores, pollen grains,lake sediments, water isotopic analysis, etc. etc etc) totally confirms and expands upon the data Mann had.
What does that mean? Well, the paper was rejected. But then again, most papers submitted to Nature are. Its pretty much a cutting edge journal that rejects 99% of papers. It can afford to - everyone wants to be in Nature. But what did M and M do? They gave up publishing (there are dozens of lesser journals that may have looked) probably because they knew they'd get ripped in peer review.


By the way, I'll show you a graph from the PAGES 2K reconstruction (referenced earlier it was published in Nature Geoscience (a subjournal of Nature... Nature itself probably wouldnt take it since they showed its foundational work 13 years before))


Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.


Sorry for having to publicly dismantle you here. But when you make crazy assertions, thats gonna happen.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Again, poisoning the well.

There IS NO OTHER SIDE TO THE ARGUMENT SCIENTIFICALLY. Its like saying you want to hear the other side of the argument that water is not a carbon based molecule. Its like saying you want to hear the other side of the argument of plate tectonic theory. Its like saying you want to hear the other side of the argument to DNA being the genetic code of life. The hockey stick (meaning the fact that the earth is warmer than it has been in a thousand years, and that the rise in temperature has been very rapid historically) has been repeatedly shown to be real.

Now for giggles, lets look at the reference you threw out there. It says:


Nonwithstanding this article is TEN YEARS OLD and multiple confirmatory reconstructions with many different temperature proxies (tree rings, coral reefs, ice cores, pollen grains,lake sediments, water isotopic analysis, etc. etc etc) totally confirms and expands upon the data Mann had.
What does that mean? Well, the paper was rejected. But then again, most papers submitted to Nature are. Its pretty much a cutting edge journal that rejects 99% of papers. It can afford to - everyone wants to be in Nature. But what did M and M do? They gave up publishing (there are dozens of lesser journals that may have looked) probably because they knew they'd get ripped in peer review.


By the way, I'll show you a graph from the PAGES 2K reconstruction (referenced earlier it was published in Nature Geoscience (a subjournal of Nature... Nature itself probably wouldnt take it since they showed its foundational work 13 years before))

View attachment 67161415
Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.


Sorry for having to publicly dismantle you here. But when you make crazy assertions, thats gonna happen.

No link to where you got that graph? Really?

Here's my rebuttal to it, however:

McIntyre and McKitrick are most famous for demolishing the infamous “hockey stick”—the graph promoted by the IPCC as proof that global temperatures had been stable for nine hundred years until increasing rapidly in the twentieth century. Their debunking of the hockey stick was confirmed in 2006 by a panel of professionals statisticians convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Their exploits have been recounted in a new book by A. W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, which reads like a detective thriller.
McIntyre and McKitrick to receive award | Watts Up With That?

Oh, and before you complain that this was during the Bush administration, I will mention that President Bush was a stronger pro-AGW proponent than even Barack Obama and put out an energy policy that only the most flaming liberal environmentalists could love.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No link to where you got that graph? Really?

Par for the course.

 

[Threegoofs]

No link to where you got that graph? Really?

Here's my rebuttal to it, however:



Oh, and before you complain that this was during the Bush administration, I will mention that President Bush was a stronger pro-AGW proponent than even Barack Obama and put out an energy policy that only the most flaming liberal environmentalists could love.

So you attack the source (sorry I didnt link the source to the graph... I posted the freaking link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE... somehting you have yet to produce).

Here is is - use chrome to translate from German. Its a climate reseacher and a PAGES 2K contributor.

Paläoklima: Die letzten 2000 Jahre

Yeah. Its 'hockeyschlager' in German.


And your rebuttal to the multiple sources that I have presented is.... WUWT. Not only WUWT.. but a pitch for a book (which reads like a detective thriller!) thats designed to seperate the gullible from their money.



This is the part where you hang your head in shame and quietly exit, while the rest of the denier rabble distract, obfuscate and throw ad hominems to distract from the train wreck.
I see LoP started already...

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you attack the source (sorry I didnt link the source to the graph... I posted the freaking link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE... somehting you have yet to produce).

Here is is - use chrome to translate from German. Its a climate reseacher and a PAGES 2K contributor.

Paläoklima: Die letzten 2000 Jahre

Yeah. Its 'hockeyschlager' in German.


And your rebuttal to the multiple sources that I have presented is.... WUWT. Not only WUWT.. but a pitch for a book (which reads like a detective thriller!) thats designed to seperate the gullible from their money.



This is the part where you hang your head in shame and quietly exit, while the rest of the denier rabble distract, obfuscate and throw ad hominems to distract from the train wreck.
I see LoP started already...

One thing that Climastrologists have backwards. 65S insolation is more important to global warming than 65N. Thanx for the graphic!



The reason is that about 95% of the solar energy making it to the surface is readily absorbed by the ocean, but much less by land. What is absorbed by land is radiated back out to space in short order. The graphic shows the power increasing by 5 W/m^2 over the last 2000 years at 65S.

Remember... there is far more water covering the earth in the southern hemisphere than the northern hemisphere.

I'd like to also point out that the proxy percentages vary in ways that make it look like the hockey stick was manipulated to exist.

 

[AlbqOwl]

So you attack the source (sorry I didnt link the source to the graph... I posted the freaking link to the ORIGINAL ARTICLE... somehting you have yet to produce).

Here is is - use chrome to translate from German. Its a climate reseacher and a PAGES 2K contributor.

Paläoklima: Die letzten 2000 Jahre

Yeah. Its 'hockeyschlager' in German.


And your rebuttal to the multiple sources that I have presented is.... WUWT. Not only WUWT.. but a pitch for a book (which reads like a detective thriller!) thats designed to seperate the gullible from their money.



This is the part where you hang your head in shame and quietly exit, while the rest of the denier rabble distract, obfuscate and throw ad hominems to distract from the train wreck.
I see LoP started already...

Ah yes, the personal blog of a co-founder of the Real Science site that has NEVER found a pro-AGW promoter they didn't just love to pieces or anybody who questioned the AGW religion who was not totally incompetent. Nope. Will need something more objective than that for your argument to be believable.

But don't bother. I'm pretty certain that anything else you post will be more AGW propaganda and you won't be able to support it with any kind of objective source. So let's just agree to disagree and move on. You're a warmer. I'm a realist who wants real evidence before I hand over my personal liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to big government. Let's let it go at that.