Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[IanC]

I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.

They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.

But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.

The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.

Well it certainly was a fiasco. Mann reminds me of the Month Python Black Knight that refuses to admit failure even after all his limbs have been hacked off.

The fiasco is that Manns original findings have been confirmed, expanded upon, and verified a half dozen times, and MBH 98 rightly stands as pioneering work in the field of paleoclimatology.

But guys like you pretend his proxy methods and findings were 'failure', even though almost no one in the paleoclimatology community would remotely agree.

I have fought this battle a hundred times over the last five years. It's boring now. You guys simply ignore the moral and scientific lapses of Mann. He is as fake as the Nobel Prize certificate he hangs in his office.

Well, it's a losing battle.


But Mann is irrelevant. Multiple studies have confirmed those findings with better and more comprehensive data, going back much farther.

But logic and reason don't seem to make a difference to some.

Actually it's a winning battle. I don't think skeptics can take all the credit though. I think the alarmists are losing primarily because they continue to shoot themselves in the foot and other places with massive exaggerations and failed predictions.

 

[IanC]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?

The red line is temperature prediction out to 2100.

Yes, Mann's methodology produces hockey sticks with just about any data as long as it has any variation. Weighting any variance by up to 300X will do that. Eg the stripbark bristlecones are given so much preference that they swamp the other data.

Mann then went on to use the upsidedown Tiljander cores in the same fashion, against the author's warning that the last few hundred years was contaminated by agriculture.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?

Yeah, yeah, you're busted and trying to right yourself

It's only 'the warmerererererst EVAH!!!!!" once you add in the imaginary excess heat absorbed, trapped and eaten by the deep oceans, so it's total BS. Even the redline would be below the MVP had you guys not adjusted that downward

Basically, your chart blows and is based on a flawed model and altered data

 

[IanC]

I am not really interested in discussing the political policy decisions of publications that have already publicly announced their position. Give me the name of a paper that you consider important to your belief in AGW. Preferably non paywalled so we can examine the data.

These aren't 'political policy decisions' anymore than plate tectonics or evolutionary biology or magnetism are political policy decisions.

They are established scientific organizations reflecting the broad consensus that the IPCC is generally correct, AGW is real, it's having environmental impacts now, and it is likely to be a serious problem in the future.

Wanting a single paper is like asking for a single paper to profess my belief in Gravity, or Evolution. It's a theory based upon a mass of evidence.

Science is like building a brick wall. If you start interspacing dirt clods for bricks then the whole thing will eventually collapse. There are a lot of dirt clods in the climate science brick wall, that is why it is important to examine the pieces rather than just admire the wall from a distance.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll..

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small..

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result"..

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science..

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence.. For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..

Thanks for grinding away at the simplistic claims of crick et al. I don't have the interest or patience to repeat the same counter arguments over and over again. But crick and Old Rocks can be counted on to repeat the same bullshit claims every few months even after they have been rebutted.

How does that saying go? Something like....an honest reasonable man can make a mistake but once it is pointed out to him and he still repeats it, then he is neither honest or reasonable.

I agree with the last statement.

Anyone who pretends there is not a fairly solid consensus in science on this issue, as outlined by the IPCC, is neither honest or reasonable.

Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement. The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.

Although the alternative to being dishonest and unreasonable is to be totally stupid, which is clearly the case with some posters here.

You were just shown 3 examples that there is no real consensus.. Using the very "evidence" that you SUPPOSE stands for consensus. So now for the pop quiz ---

1) The AMS is a big endorser of Catastrophic Effects of Global Warming. Given the membership poll by George Mason commissioned by the AMS -- WHAT questions in that study do you believe reflect any kind of consensus WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP of that organization??

2) The Aussie Geophys,. Union put the question to their membership and a 5 year battle ensued on a "consensus statement" on GWarming.. Followed by a capitulation that there would be NO statement issued.. HOW many of the OTHER organizations you cite as consensus have involved their membership in the drafting or approval of these "policy positions"??

3) Warmers consistently throw Bray and von Storch out there as PROOF of the 97% consensus on Climate Science --- yet there is nothing resembling consensus in the responses except for the fact that the Earth has been slightly warming. IN FACT -- the questions were DESIGNED by a climate scientist and are the MOST DETAILED QUESTIONS ever polled to actual climate scientists.. The answers give a lukewarm appraisal of the confidence that these researchers have in their ability to model and predict climate change. How can there be a consensus with such lukewarm appraisal of their own profession???

4) Just a reminder --- but you never answered my question pertinent to this Thread OP whether the UK Guardian "made up" that interview with the Chief of NASA GISS -- in which he walked back the claim of 2014 being the hottest year ever.. Story was carried in Forbes and WSJ as well. Do you understand that a 38% confidence on that statistic is UNACCEPTABLE from a math/science point of view for scaring the public and propaganda purposes? Do you further understand that NASA GISS (the Space Sciences guys) NEVER MENTIONED that their satellite data did not find 2014 anywhere NEAR an exceptional year???

 

[flacaltenn]

As you wish. Your vote is to defer to authority. Mine is to examine evidence and to see if the conclusions drawn are defendable.

Except you don't have any expertise to determine the conclusions are correct.

It's like a guy examining an MRI with little training in radiology, and all the experts are telling you the spot on it is cancer, but you insist that it's just a shadow.

That's why you have to pretend there is no consensus. Are you Dishonest, or naive? You tell me.

Not true Bullwinkle... Many of us who work in science can read Scientific American on ANY TOPIC and understand where and how to look to learn more. There is NOTHING difficult about understanding the "hockey stick" historical studies of climate. It's history and methods and the same kind of Data preparation that I do every day.. Except that I don't SELECT from 12 trees in Siberia the ones who's tree rings match my thesis..

MANY folks can cross-train in science and technology. I've done that my entire career..
And MOST of the work in the Global Warming library is not that difficult at all...

 

[flacaltenn]

Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.

Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.

I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.

Let's skip the content of peer reviewed articles that you've never TRIED to read and go to actual scientific debate.
The new Chief of GISS was defeated in an open debate carried on NPR and other media.. ADMITTED that his side lost the proposition "Global Warming is Not a Crisis"... Why don't we see MORE of that --- and less media propaganda about the ocean's boiling (CBS) and people dying (ABC)? Why have chief ACTIVIST SCIENTISTS like Mann and Schmidt consistently rejected sitting down to structured public debate on the topic??

They can't defend the outrageous claims and predictions of doom.. That's why.. Doesn't matter what the papers say.. As Ian said -- when you actually READ THEM -- they express all kinds of reasonable doubt and uncertainty and honesty in WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW.. But there are a cabal of activists that feed the political process and the public pure bullshit and NEVER even flinch.. That von Storch poll of climate folks ask the question. And the response was overwhelmingly that the science has been GREATLY poliiticized.. So if your opinion is based on mainstream media and National Geographic ---- you don't know shit on the topic...

HERE is one of the leading Climate Scientists at work today in his "peer reviewed:" academic tower..

That guy needs to wake up in the 21st Century and get out of there and DEBATE his theories...

 

[IanC]

Debate is supposed to be the life blood of science. Climate science doesn't allow it. The editor of Science journal made that perfectly clear. And now she will be the new president of one of the science organizations that Old Rocks loves to hold up as a virtuous beacon.

 

[flacaltenn]

True. But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified
many times.

The simple fact is, the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we now know this is happening faster than we have ever seen in the history of civilization.

It's unclear whether the effects will be, but any fool can guess that they will not be good.

View attachment 49601

That right there is an example of the GROSS misrepresentation of what the "science says".. If you READ anything about the process of preparing a proxy study like for the ENTIRE GLOBE over 10s of thousands of years --- you'd understand why that "unprecendented" qualifier is propaganda -- not science..

How about hearing it from Marcott --- and then if you DON'T UNDERSTAND what he says -- I'll help you figure it out....

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

When you try to find a 10,000 year record of the ENTIRE GLOBE with only 79 sample points of unrelated and vastly differing proxies --- you WILL NOT SEE temperature events less than SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. And temperature events that are shorter than a 1000 years will have their mins and maxes GREATLY attenuated.. So to "tack on" a MODERN instrumentation record to a historical proxy study like Marcott --- you are GUARANTEED to see a hockey stick.. Marcott Says that in MANY interviews.. A lot of this "unprecedated" BULLCRAP came from the activists like Phil Jones (who I pictured above for you) Mann and Hansen..

The AUTHOR is far more honest about what his work shows when asked the proper technical questions..

Glad to help you out here 3goofs. You need to work at bit to bust through the hysteria and even approach the science..

 

[IanC]

True. But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified
many times.

The simple fact is, the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we now know this is happening faster than we have ever seen in the history of civilization.

It's unclear whether the effects will be, but any fool can guess that they will not be good.

View attachment 49601

That right there is an example of the GROSS misrepresentation of what the "science says".. If you READ anything about the process of preparing a proxy study like for the ENTIRE GLOBE over 10s of thousands of years --- you'd understand why that "unprecendented" qualifier is propaganda -- not science..

How about hearing it from Marcott --- and then if you DON'T UNDERSTAND what he says -- I'll help you figure it out....

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

When you try to find a 10,000 year record of the ENTIRE GLOBE with only 79 sample points of unrelated and vastly differing proxies --- you WILL NOT SEE temperature events less than SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. And temperature events that are shorter than a 1000 years will have their mins and maxes GREATLY attenuated.. So to "tack on" a MODERN instrumentation record to a historical proxy study like Marcott --- you are GUARANTEED to see a hockey stick.. Marcott Says that in MANY interviews.. A lot of this "unprecedated" BULLCRAP came from the activists like Phil Jones (who I pictured above for you) Mann and Hansen..

The AUTHOR is far more honest about what his work shows when asked the proper technical questions..

Glad to help you out here 3goofs. You need to work at bit to bust through the hysteria and even approach the science..

I don't imagine that even quotes from Marcott will discourage crick and his ilk from believing the correctness of grafting high variance modern data onto low resolution proxy data

 

[threegoofs]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?

The red line is temperature prediction out to 2100.

Yes, Mann's methodology produces hockey sticks with just about any data as long as it has any variation. Weighting any variance by up to 300X will do that. Eg the stripbark bristlecones are given so much preference that they swamp the other data.

Mann then went on to use the upsidedown Tiljander cores in the same fashion, against the author's warning that the last few hundred years was contaminated by agriculture.

Your colorblindness apparently does not allow you to read the graph. Sorry about that.

Again, you can skip Mann. His work has been overwhelmingly upheld by other proxy studies that were global in scale and used many, many more proxies.

 

[threegoofs]

Really? The subject is the hockey stick graph, and it has been repeatedly verified. Mann will be remembered as a pioneering scientist when his detractors are not even notes on the bottom of the page.

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?

Yeah, yeah, you're busted and trying to right yourself

It's only 'the warmerererererst EVAH!!!!!" once you add in the imaginary excess heat absorbed, trapped and eaten by the deep oceans, so it's total BS. Even the redline would be below the MVP had you guys not adjusted that downward

Basically, your chart blows and is based on a flawed model and altered data

Well, I'm sure you have scientific studies that refute this.

Lets see them.

Oh wait. You've never read one, I'm guessing.

 

[jc456]

You can feed white noise into the model and get a hockey stick, that's not science

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?

The red line is temperature prediction out to 2100.

Yes, Mann's methodology produces hockey sticks with just about any data as long as it has any variation. Weighting any variance by up to 300X will do that. Eg the stripbark bristlecones are given so much preference that they swamp the other data.

Mann then went on to use the upsidedown Tiljander cores in the same fashion, against the author's warning that the last few hundred years was contaminated by agriculture.

Your colorblindness apparently does not allow you to read the graph. Sorry about that.

Again, you can skip Mann. His work has been overwhelmingly upheld by other proxy studies that were global in scale and used many, many more proxies.

 

[threegoofs]

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll..

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small..

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result"..

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science..

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence.. For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..

Thanks for grinding away at the simplistic claims of crick et al. I don't have the interest or patience to repeat the same counter arguments over and over again. But crick and Old Rocks can be counted on to repeat the same bullshit claims every few months even after they have been rebutted.

How does that saying go? Something like....an honest reasonable man can make a mistake but once it is pointed out to him and he still repeats it, then he is neither honest or reasonable.

I agree with the last statement.

Anyone who pretends there is not a fairly solid consensus in science on this issue, as outlined by the IPCC, is neither honest or reasonable.

Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement. The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.

Although the alternative to being dishonest and unreasonable is to be totally stupid, which is clearly the case with some posters here.

You were just shown 3 examples that there is no real consensus.. Using the very "evidence" that you SUPPOSE stands for consensus. So now for the pop quiz ---

1) The AMS is a big endorser of Catastrophic Effects of Global Warming. Given the membership poll by George Mason commissioned by the AMS -- WHAT questions in that study do you believe reflect any kind of consensus WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP of that organization??

2) The Aussie Geophys,. Union put the question to their membership and a 5 year battle ensued on a "consensus statement" on GWarming.. Followed by a capitulation that there would be NO statement issued.. HOW many of the OTHER organizations you cite as consensus have involved their membership in the drafting or approval of these "policy positions"??

3) Warmers consistently throw Bray and von Storch out there as PROOF of the 97% consensus on Climate Science --- yet there is nothing resembling consensus in the responses except for the fact that the Earth has been slightly warming. IN FACT -- the questions were DESIGNED by a climate scientist and are the MOST DETAILED QUESTIONS ever polled to actual climate scientists.. The answers give a lukewarm appraisal of the confidence that these researchers have in their ability to model and predict climate change. How can there be a consensus with such lukewarm appraisal of their own profession???

4) Just a reminder --- but you never answered my question pertinent to this Thread OP whether the UK Guardian "made up" that interview with the Chief of NASA GISS -- in which he walked back the claim of 2014 being the hottest year ever.. Story was carried in Forbes and WSJ as well. Do you understand that a 38% confidence on that statistic is UNACCEPTABLE from a math/science point of view for scaring the public and propaganda purposes? Do you further understand that NASA GISS (the Space Sciences guys) NEVER MENTIONED that their satellite data did not find 2014 anywhere NEAR an exceptional year???

Gish Gallop here.

Your whining on points 1-3 is simply counter to reality. There is a clear consensus. Pick up a journal someday.

I didnt reply to your point #4 because its absolutely stupid. A 38% confidence level is totally appropriate for a variable dataset - it was the warmest year. There is no other year that comes closer to it. People who get their undies in a bunch about this are clueless about statistics or science or both, or just dishonest. Gotta wonder where you are on the spectrum, dude.

The other reason its utterly stupid is that the same data shows that 14 out of the last 15 years (and looks like we will certainly be adding another year to that in January) are the warmest ever recorded in history.

 

[threegoofs]

Not sure if you understand that the graphs are plotting temperature and time. One can't feed random temperatures and get a defined plot every time.

But that's third grade science, you might not have gotten that far.

You have temperature readings from the year 2100?

How did you get them?

Did you understand the graph you posted showed projected temperature?

I understand exactly what I posted. See the red line? Thats actual temperatures. And theres no indication its heading anywhere but up, given the graph is a few years old and the last couple years have been some of the warmest in history, with even warmer years expected in the near future.

So you really think you can plot random temperatures and somehow get them to plot out in the same graph every time because of some 'method'? Or are you just parroting some denier who told you that and you didnt bother to think about how absurd that statement is?

The red line is temperature prediction out to 2100.

Yes, Mann's methodology produces hockey sticks with just about any data as long as it has any variation. Weighting any variance by up to 300X will do that. Eg the stripbark bristlecones are given so much preference that they swamp the other data.

Mann then went on to use the upsidedown Tiljander cores in the same fashion, against the author's warning that the last few hundred years was contaminated by agriculture.

Your colorblindness apparently does not allow you to read the graph. Sorry about that.

Again, you can skip Mann. His work has been overwhelmingly upheld by other proxy studies that were global in scale and used many, many more proxies.

View attachment 49615

Apparently you dont have the words. Maybe if you read the graph, you'd see that the HADCRUT red line data only goes to the present time.

 

[flacaltenn]

True. But I mean that his original work is irrelevant, since it has been reproduced and solidified
many times.

The simple fact is, the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and we now know this is happening faster than we have ever seen in the history of civilization.

It's unclear whether the effects will be, but any fool can guess that they will not be good.

View attachment 49601

That right there is an example of the GROSS misrepresentation of what the "science says".. If you READ anything about the process of preparing a proxy study like for the ENTIRE GLOBE over 10s of thousands of years --- you'd understand why that "unprecendented" qualifier is propaganda -- not science..

How about hearing it from Marcott --- and then if you DON'T UNDERSTAND what he says -- I'll help you figure it out....

Response by Marcott <i>et al</i>.

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

When you try to find a 10,000 year record of the ENTIRE GLOBE with only 79 sample points of unrelated and vastly differing proxies --- you WILL NOT SEE temperature events less than SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. And temperature events that are shorter than a 1000 years will have their mins and maxes GREATLY attenuated.. So to "tack on" a MODERN instrumentation record to a historical proxy study like Marcott --- you are GUARANTEED to see a hockey stick.. Marcott Says that in MANY interviews.. A lot of this "unprecedated" BULLCRAP came from the activists like Phil Jones (who I pictured above for you) Mann and Hansen..

The AUTHOR is far more honest about what his work shows when asked the proper technical questions..

Glad to help you out here 3goofs. You need to work at bit to bust through the hysteria and even approach the science..

I don't imagine that even quotes from Marcott will discourage crick and his ilk from believing the correctness of grafting high variance modern data onto low resolution proxy data

I keep forgetting that we can't di

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll..

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small..

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result"..

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science..

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence.. For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..

Thanks for grinding away at the simplistic claims of crick et al. I don't have the interest or patience to repeat the same counter arguments over and over again. But crick and Old Rocks can be counted on to repeat the same bullshit claims every few months even after they have been rebutted.

How does that saying go? Something like....an honest reasonable man can make a mistake but once it is pointed out to him and he still repeats it, then he is neither honest or reasonable.

I agree with the last statement.

Anyone who pretends there is not a fairly solid consensus in science on this issue, as outlined by the IPCC, is neither honest or reasonable.

Pick any reasonable general scientific publication aimed at an educated lay audience- Scientific American, Science Magazine, Smithsonian, National Geographic.... All are in solid agreement. The reason for this is because they reflect the consensus in the real, scientific professional journals: Nature, PNAS, Science, etc.

Although the alternative to being dishonest and unreasonable is to be totally stupid, which is clearly the case with some posters here.

You were just shown 3 examples that there is no real consensus.. Using the very "evidence" that you SUPPOSE stands for consensus. So now for the pop quiz ---

1) The AMS is a big endorser of Catastrophic Effects of Global Warming. Given the membership poll by George Mason commissioned by the AMS -- WHAT questions in that study do you believe reflect any kind of consensus WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP of that organization??

2) The Aussie Geophys,. Union put the question to their membership and a 5 year battle ensued on a "consensus statement" on GWarming.. Followed by a capitulation that there would be NO statement issued.. HOW many of the OTHER organizations you cite as consensus have involved their membership in the drafting or approval of these "policy positions"??

3) Warmers consistently throw Bray and von Storch out there as PROOF of the 97% consensus on Climate Science --- yet there is nothing resembling consensus in the responses except for the fact that the Earth has been slightly warming. IN FACT -- the questions were DESIGNED by a climate scientist and are the MOST DETAILED QUESTIONS ever polled to actual climate scientists.. The answers give a lukewarm appraisal of the confidence that these researchers have in their ability to model and predict climate change. How can there be a consensus with such lukewarm appraisal of their own profession???

4) Just a reminder --- but you never answered my question pertinent to this Thread OP whether the UK Guardian "made up" that interview with the Chief of NASA GISS -- in which he walked back the claim of 2014 being the hottest year ever.. Story was carried in Forbes and WSJ as well. Do you understand that a 38% confidence on that statistic is UNACCEPTABLE from a math/science point of view for scaring the public and propaganda purposes? Do you further understand that NASA GISS (the Space Sciences guys) NEVER MENTIONED that their satellite data did not find 2014 anywhere NEAR an exceptional year???

Gish Gallop here.

Your whining on points 1-3 is simply counter to reality. There is a clear consensus. Pick up a journal someday.

I didnt reply to your point #4 because its absolutely stupid. A 38% confidence level is totally appropriate for a variable dataset - it was the warmest year. There is no other year that comes closer to it. People who get their undies in a bunch about this are clueless about statistics or science or both, or just dishonest. Gotta wonder where you are on the spectrum, dude.

The other reason its utterly stupid is that the same data shows that 14 out of the last 15 years (and looks like we will certainly be adding another year to that in January) are the warmest ever recorded in history.

You are no scientist.. Doesn't matter how other years are ranked. In fact --- one other got something like a 25%.
Fact is --- because of the uncertainty of 0.02 degrees in the big scheme of things -- the BEST HONEST statement would be that there's slight likelihood of it being the warmest..

And I'll take it as a capitulation that you cant or wont answer the SPECIFIC questions (easy) that I posed. After all -- science is rigorous about SPECIFICS and kinda frowns on arm-waving and unsupported generalizations.

So --- we STILL need a couple rabid warmers that can actually get beyond the USA Today version of Global Warming. You KNOW any??

 

[threegoofs]

I'm sorry. I must have missed the scientific article you quoted.

As far as I know, both Mann and Marcott are being actively referenced in scientific literature today.

I don't see ianC or flacaltenn referenced there at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sorry. I must have missed the scientific article you quoted.

As far as I know, both Mann and Marcott are being actively referenced in scientific literature today.

I don't see ianC or flacaltenn referenced there at all.

I'll take that as --- you don't have a CLUE what Marcott said about the time resolution of his study. Same limitations in Mann and the other hockey sticks. Will NOT ever see 100 events like ours today in those records.. Because the data is INCAPABLE of seeing it...

Cut the shit assclown...

 

[threegoofs]

Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.

I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.

Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Heat is weather. How many thousands of square miles of the Northwest burned so far this year. Record heat, drought, and winds. You might have a problem convincing some of the hundreds of families that have lost their homes to those fires that heat is not a determining factor in weather.

Record bull shit! That's all it is.. Historical record shows that this is not uncommon nor is it unprecedented..