Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Another failure (global warming)

  1. #1 Another failure (global warming) 
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    The no-brainer icon enforced on the human herds of being evidence of global warming is well known as the hockey stick. it took a while for real scientist to tear it apart. But now, with the new and improved hockeystick, we have implicite admittance of the scammers, that the original version was garbage

    The new hockeystick is here

    the abstract:

    Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
    They use two methods of reconstruction:

    ...Most attempts to reconstruct hemispheric temperatures have used some variant on the ‘‘composite plus scale’’ (CPS) methodology (10), in which proxy data (such as tree rings, ice cores, or corals) considered to be sensitive to past surface temperature variations are standardized and centered, potentially weighted, and then composited to form a regional or hemispheric series,...

    recently, Hegerl et al. (13) use a weighted composite of proxy temperature series, but scaling is accomplished by a so-called ‘‘error-in-variables’’ (EIV) regression method (‘‘total least squares’’) to allow for errors in both predictors (i.e., proxy composite) and predictand (i.e., the instrumental hemispheric mean temperature series)....
    About those methods they observe:

    The skill diagnostics (Fig. 2; see also Dataset S4) for the validation experiments indicate that both the CPS reconstructions (with the screened network) and EIV reconstruction (with the full network) produce skillful NH land reconstructions back to A.D. 400. When tree-ring data are eliminated from the proxy data network, a skillful reconstruction is possible only back to A.D. 1500 by using the CPS approach but is possible considerably further back, to A.D. 1000, by using the EIV approach. We interpret this result as a limitation of the CPS method in requiring local proxy temperature information, which becomes quite sparse in earlier centuries. This situation poses less of a challenge to the EIV approach, which makes use of nonlocal statistical relationships, allowing temperature changes over distant regions to be effectively represented through their covariance with climatic changes recorded by the network.
    So looking at this reconstruction...



    ...we see the EIV showing a distinct medieval warm period and what also bugs a bit is the addition of the instrumental records, showing a increase of about 1.3 degrees over the last century:



    It should be noted that the normal temperature increase for the last century used to be about 0.6 degrees per century (for instance Folland et al 2001).

    What also seems to be strange is the increasing deviation between those temperature records and the reconstruction, staying clearly behind in the last part of the graph.

    Now see what happens if we remove those recorded temperatures.



    See that the temperature range of the reconstructions are indeed close to 0.6 degrees in the last century. So it would be interesting to see where that 1.3 range comes from. Note also that the reconstructions without those instrumental records would not support the claim:

    ...We find that the hemispheric-scale warmth of the past decade for the NH is likely anomalous in the context of not just the past 1,000 years, as suggested in previous work, but longer...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Another failure (global warming) 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    So it would be interesting to see where that 1.3 range comes from.
    Virtual identical rehash of the same thread you tried a couple months ago.

    The larger range comes from the difference in phase and temporal resolution of reconstructed proxy data which often spans decades and longer as compared to actual time and high resolution temperature readings.

    The hockey stick profile has been confirmed by nearly every organization that has examined the data, even its early objective skeptics which had some technical issues with the first analysis because of the huge amount of data that now reinforces it. The only room for doubt is the sparse data in the Southern Hemispshere--but even that is improving. Its denial is almost a litmus test for illegitimacy—where you see the hocket stick denied, you can almost be certain there won’t be objectivity.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Another failure (global warming) 
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    So it would be interesting to see where that 1.3 range comes from.
    Virtual identical rehash of the same thread you tried a couple months ago.

    The larger range comes from the difference in phase and temporal resolution of reconstructed proxy data which often spans decades and longer as compared to actual time and high resolution temperature readings.

    The hockey stick profile has been confirmed by nearly every organization that has examined the data, even its early objective skeptics which had some technical issues with the first analysis because of the huge amount of data that now reinforces it. The only room for doubt is the sparse data in the Southern Hemispshere--but even that is improving. Its denial is almost a litmus test for illegitimacy—where you see the hocket stick denied, you can almost be certain there won’t be objectivity.
    This is so incredibly hypocrite. THINK. man THINK!! before running the automayic propaganda tune.

    This new hockeystick overrides the old one, meaning that the old one was wrong and that the builders admit it to be wrong. Compri?

    Meanwhile another publication in the same magazine:

    Comparing the stomata CO2 to climate reconstruction of Van Hoof et al 2008 (fig 2) with Mann et al 2008

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...24105.full.pdf

    Digitized, the average of the two reconstructions of fig 2 of Van Hoof et al in red below Mann's graphs with scales adjusted:



    Not much to say here but certainly no support for a strong correlation between temps and CO2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    You're not even addressing the point about temporal resolution and phase lag of proxy data compared to real time observation.

    Instead you change the subject (once again), and overstate the importance of a poor correlation between temperature and Co2 concentration while deliberately not mentioning that the entire range of Co2 during the period was less than 20 ppmv. Given the narrow range of Co2, it would have been surprising to find a good correlation. Other factors such as methane concentrations and solar variation, for example, were also playing a role--as they always have and still do.

    This compares to the more than 100 ppmv increase since the onset of the industrial revolution. At that level of change (+40%) since the onset of the industrial age we start to see the good correlations between Co2 and surface temperature. With projections of +200% above pre-industrial levels of Co2 in the decades ahead, even including feedbacks, Co2 becomes increasingly important and overwhelms other factors-hence the whole point of concern about the future.

    Your post smacks of deliberately presenting a favorite false dichotomy of climate skeptics that suggest that temperature as either entirely due to Co2 or not at all. No credible climatologist shares this view. Co2 is one of many factors that effect temperature but one that's becoming more important as we continue to pump carbon from fossil fuels into the atmosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Andre, do you work for an oil company or something?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Andre, do you work for an oil company or something?
    Unable to some thinking of your own, do you? M'n just an outgroup, thinking of my own and apparantly finally victim of symptom #4 (nobody has suggested that before):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    1 Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
    2 Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
    3 Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
    4 Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
    5 Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
    6 Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
    7 Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
    8 Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
    I would also recommend this discussion:

    http://www.philosophorum.org/index.php?topic=1091.0

    starting with reply #13.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Oh come on Andre! Are you really going to try and hide behind your little list? You behave exactly like someone that works for an oil company. Someone whose job it is to spread propaganda against global warming. That is not to say you are necessarily such a person, but even you have to admit that your behaviour could be seen that way through no fault of their own. Your rantings have been entirely unconvincing and emotional. In fact, you have been more guilty of your list than anyone else.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You're not even addressing the point about temporal resolution and phase lag of proxy data compared to real time observation.
    I'm not addressing anything. Van Hoof et al 2008 and Mann et al 2008 are addressing things. I merely show that their work don't add up.

    Instead you change the subject (once again), and overstate the importance of a poor correlation between temperature and Co2 concentration while deliberately not mentioning that the entire range of Co2 during the period was less than 20 ppmv.
    See Van Hoof et al, Fig 1C. about 35ppmv

    This compares to the more than 100 ppmv increase since the onset of the industrial revolution. At that level of change (+40%) since the onset of the industrial age we start to see the good correlations between Co2 and surface temperature.
    Certainly:



    No credible climatologist shares this view.
    But that's circular reasoning, since when a credible climatologist expressing his doubt then you declare him automatically:

    4 Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Addition and it is sooooo simply to discredit science:

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3388

    Because of the arcane nature of science, it's easy to trash scientists. Imagine a 1940 congressional hearing to discredit Einstein. "This man actually believes the faster you drive, the slower your watch runs. Mr. Einstein, then why weren't you here yesterday?" The public, listening on radio, immediately concludes this Princeton weirdo is just another academic egghead. End of reputation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You're not even addressing the point about temporal resolution and phase lag of proxy data compared to real time observation.
    I'm not addressing anything. Van Hoof et al 2008 and Mann et al 2008 are addressing things.
    You're still completely avoiding the question about phase lag of proxy data--which is what you started this thread about.

    See Van Hoof et al, Fig 1C. about 35ppmv
    So what's your point? The Van Hoof et at 2008 graph makes nearly the exact point I already stated, you aren't likely to see Co2 correlations in low % changes--we don't see it during the middle ages because it's mostly washed out by other effects, and we don't see it within the short one-sun spot cycle of the past ten years or so. All you've done is confirmed what I've already said. When you look at longer periods and much more of a change of Co2, the signal is much more clear and predicted to become completely dominant in the next decades as we double and triple its concentration above pre-industrial levels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You're still completely avoiding the question about phase lag of proxy data--which is what you started this thread about.
    Another strawman, nowhere in the opening post is any mentioning of phase lag of proxy data, but I'm happy that you are so kind to make my day. I'm not sure how many times we have gone over the the fact that CO2 is lagging assumed temperature changes in all records and proxies. So Please do produce any evidence that CO2 is leading temperature changes to make a case for CO2 causing temperature changes.

    Now it would even be more fun if positive feedback was to be mentioned.

    we don't see it during the middle ages because it's mostly washed out by other effects,
    Now from here there are two obvious choices: either admit that natural variation outweigh the effect of concentration changes of radiative gasses or admit that AGW is no science, since no evidence against it can disprove it. Hence AGW is not falsifiable.

    Oh and Kalstar, if you still think that I'm paid by the oil companies, why don't you have a real good peek at my study, looking for the Exxon cheques and receipts:

    http://earth.myfastforum.org/forum11...1a217d50db7ef3
    http://earth.myfastforum.org/forum3.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    You're still completely avoiding the question about phase lag of proxy data--which is what you started this thread about.
    ...nowhere in the opening post is any mentioning of phase lag of proxy data,
    Exactly, and that's the problem--the very problem that accounts for the temperature difference between proxy and observed. The one that accounts for your observation: "See that the temperature range of the reconstructions are indeed close to 0.6 degrees in the last century. So it would be interesting to see where that 1.3 range comes from. Note also that the reconstructions without those instrumental records would not support the claim: " I think you get it but just refuse to acknowledge it...ow well. (sigh)


    we don't see it during the middle ages because it's mostly washed out by other effects,
    Now from here there are two obvious choices: either admit that natural variation outweigh the effect of concentration changes of radiative gasses or admit that AGW is no science, since no evidence against it can disprove it. Hence AGW is not falsifiable.
    Why present the false dichotomy again? It's not a matter of EITHER natural variation or AGW driving temperature change...it's a matter of degree of attribution. No atmospheric scientist claims those natural variations ever go away--your presentation is about as wrong as it gets. The lower the concentration of Co2, the higher are the proportional change from other temperature forcing--enough to mask small changes from the the Co2 signal. In the same way those other variations tend to create a positive feedback into Co2 concentrations--this isn't some mystery, surprising, or provide any reason to doubt the science: We even see it in the annual seasonal variation as well as the in the long term record where astronomical forcing and Co2 forcing tend to boot strap temperture until there's much large amplitude in temperature between ice age and interglacial periods than simple astronomical forcing can account for. Again no mystery. At 2x and 3x preindustrial levels in less than a century, Co2 becomes much more important and far larger than any other known change in natural forcing. Much to the discredit of the skeptics, not ones even proposing another forcing mechanism that will be anything close to Co2 change forcing, not even for small changes of the past 120 years--it says alot about the weakness of their arguments.

    Ironically, even at those future high levels, when our children are becoming grey and the planet 2-5C warmer, the subtle + or - 10% or so Co2 changes probably still won't be the dominent short term variations in temperature--they'll still be able to make the false argument you're trying to make which completely ignore the fundamental issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    You are really the master of the straw man fallacy, making false claims my statements before running the standard propaganda again based on completely and utterly falsified and wrong suppositions about pale climatology (and recidivism, continuing claiming without scientific basis is called crack pottery)

    But that's what the public likes hear and shiver about so the real science is chanceless.

    There is at most some evidence that the CO2 in the atmosphere will increase with ~100 ppm, lagging a few hundred years if the global temperature would increase with ~10 degrees. That is if the isotope interpretation of the ice cores is correct. But this is simply false, proven by big herds of extinct mammoths and horses who roamed the lush productive grassy steppes in northernmost Siberia around the last glacial maximum and the ultra cold(?) Younger Dryas. Look where those steppes are nowadays, not in North Siberia, which is high artic tundra now, supporting one musk ox per 10km2 at the most. Those steppes are in Mongolia or the prairies in North America, some 20 degrees lower in latitude. If you can explain how moderate climate steppes moved northwards to the arctic while the temperatures were about 10 degrees lower than today, then you are in business. Right now these ice ages claims with temperatures and CO2 are short sighted madness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by andre
    You are really the master of the straw man fallacy, making false claims my statements before running the standard propaganda again based on completely and utterly falsified and wrong suppositions about pale climatology (and recidivism, continuing claiming without scientific basis is called crack pottery)
    Which fallacy Andre? You mean the one that proxy temp data which includes things like plant layers in the mud, deep underground bore holes, and other forms of proxy data don't respond as quickly compared to the real time temperature observations? LOL. Much of the proxy data lags or dampens surface temperatures compared to direct measurement--it's not a fallacy--it's simple physics. You made a poorly constructed post based on flimsy comparison between high resolution actual temperature measures and lower resolution data reconstructions trying to present the expected difference as somehow surprising. It's a silly argument that completely ignores the differences between how the temp is derived.

    Or do you mean the "fallacy" that natural variations will still exist and is more relatively more important when Co2 concentrations were much lower, or when only looking at small changes in Co2 concentrations? LOL. You’re the only one here making the illogical claim by your arguments that temperature change is either natural or pure AGW induced--completely ignoring that there's an entire spectrum of relative forcing importance and feedbacks in between those two extremes.

    I can see why you're trying to change the subject from your original posting in this thread.
    --
    Glad to address the other topics as we get to them, but not when they're deliberately added to the same thread to side step the discussions already at hand. Perhaps you should start another thread titled "the year we'll hit +100 PPMV of Co2." Which would be funny given we're just about there already and know where it come from.

    Lynx_Fox
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore andre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Which fallacy Andre? You mean the one that proxy temp data which includes plant life's slow adaptations to latitude and elevation movements, bore holes from deep underground, and other forms of proxy data don't adjust or lag the real time temperature observations? LOL.
    This fallacy is known as the



    Don't forget that proxies are suppositions based on expectations

    Much of the proxy data lags and dampens surface temperatures--it's not a fallacy--it's simple physics.
    No it is still a fallacy, affirming the consequent, If A then B, B hence A. Or in mathematical terms working with more variables than there are equations. And certainly the choices of filling in the variables are always based on CO2 is climate supposition. And since that is flat out wrong, it's inevitable that things don't add up in the end.

    And plants do not adapt to climate that easily, they flourish or perish and migrate depending on the circumstances as can be seen in the pollen count of the thousands of lake sediment cores
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •