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

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Marcott's reconstructions are garbage!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ian,

how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?

I love these bull shit appeals to authority.. Are you implying that others are not capable of reviewing these works and showing them garbage?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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.

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.

Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap. Its been show fraudulent and the data made up.. Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Wrong! Mann's crap is garbage and those who have tried to "verify" have been laughed out the door because they make the same mistakes he did.. Improper methods and all.. Repeating epic failure is not verifying the outcome...

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

They dont seem to understand how adding 10 year plots on the end of a 300 year plot makes a problem.. just like mike..

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!

God bless them all.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

How can i say this....??

BULL SHIT!

Mann's failed work has been shown a failure multiple times as have those who made his same mistakes...

You sound like a parrot...

 

[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.

Marcott's reconstructions are garbage!

Got a citation on that? From a scientific journal? (and the Journal of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass isnt acceptable).

 

[Billy_Bob]

There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!

God bless them all.

So tell me, you think what they have done is good science?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Marcott's reconstructions are garbage!

Got a citation on that? From a scientific journal? (and the Journal of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass isnt acceptable).

Westwall already quoted Marcott's own words.. even Marcott knows their trash!

 

[threegoofs]

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.

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.

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.

Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap. Its been show fraudulent and the data made up.. Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..

Amazing how a guy can make up data and then have his findings verified independently multiple times by people using totally different methods. I guess thats why he's a Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the #1 ranked school of earth science and you are...some guy who knows how to use emojis.

 

[threegoofs]

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.

Wrong! Mann's crap is garbage and those who have tried to "verify" have been laughed out the door because they make the same mistakes he did.. Improper methods and all.. Repeating epic failure is not verifying the outcome...

I'm pretty sure getting your paper pubsihed as the lead paper in PNAS isnt being 'laughed out the door'.

But then again, you are probably someone who doesnt understand what that means, or what PNAS is.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny how these things come back and bite alarmists in the ass..

 

[Crick]

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.

 

[westwall]

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.

It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.

The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.

 

[threegoofs]

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.

It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.

The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.

Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.

If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.

Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.

 

[westwall]

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.

It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.

The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.

Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.

If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.

Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.

They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.

 

[threegoofs]

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.

It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.

The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.

Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.

If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.

Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.

They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.

That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.

You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.

 

[westwall]

It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.

The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.

Bad choice on your part.

It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.

The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.

Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.

If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.

Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.

They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.

That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.

You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.

No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..

I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.

We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----

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.

I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..