Hockey Stick 30 years of junk science

[Sunsettommy]

Wait a second " direct instrument measurement "


Say What??????



Bhahahahahahahaha

Direct measurement only goes back to about the early 1800's...

He is so full of crap it isn't funny..

Two idiots who can't even read a chart, no wonder they are STUPID enough to be deniers!!!

Clearly the graph lists HAD Instrumental Record (solid gray) and CRU Instrumental Record (solid red) as lines on the graph and as you can clearly see those lines begin around 1850. Many of the data lines do not run the full 1,000 years, but you two are not observant enough to see that, which is why you are so easily deceived by your fellow lying global warming deniers.

I notice warmists has a bad habit of not posting links for the charts they post.

Please post the link.

 

[westwall]

Wait a second " direct instrument measurement "


Say What??????



Bhahahahahahahaha

Direct measurement only goes back to about the early 1800's...

He is so full of crap it isn't funny..

Two idiots who can't even read a chart, no wonder they are STUPID enough to be deniers!!!

Clearly the graph lists HAD Instrumental Record (solid gray) and CRU Instrumental Record (solid red) as lines on the graph and as you can clearly see those lines begin around 1850. Many of the data lines do not run the full 1,000 years, but you two are not observant enough to see that, which is why you are so easily deceived by your fellow lying global warming deniers.

I notice warmists has a bad habit of not posting links for the charts they post.

Please post the link.

Most of the time when I bother to track them down they come from "global warming art".

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wait a second " direct instrument measurement "


Say What??????



Bhahahahahahahaha

Direct measurement only goes back to about the early 1800's...

He is so full of crap it isn't funny..

Two idiots who can't even read a chart, no wonder they are STUPID enough to be deniers!!!

Clearly the graph lists HAD Instrumental Record (solid gray) and CRU Instrumental Record (solid red) as lines on the graph and as you can clearly see those lines begin around 1850. Many of the data lines do not run the full 1,000 years, but you two are not observant enough to see that, which is why you are so easily deceived by your fellow lying global warming deniers.

I notice warmists has a bad habit of not posting links for the charts they post.

Please post the link.

Most of the time when I bother to track them down they come from "global warming art".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It explains WHY he doesn't understand it.

 

[edthecynic]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Well... Ignorance is what I expected....

So you do not understand why this is a fabrication and deceptive... Thanks for proving your a shill who doesn't know the first thing about the issue.

Actually I know photoshop very well.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Well... Ignorance is what I expected....

So you do not understand why this is a fabrication and deceptive... Thanks for proving your a shill who doesn't know the first thing about the issue.

Actually I know photoshop very well.

But of course you forgot to explain it...........

Snicker.................................................

 

[edthecynic]

Wait a second " direct instrument measurement "


Say What??????



Bhahahahahahahaha

Direct measurement only goes back to about the early 1800's...

He is so full of crap it isn't funny..

Two idiots who can't even read a chart, no wonder they are STUPID enough to be deniers!!!

Clearly the graph lists HAD Instrumental Record (solid gray) and CRU Instrumental Record (solid red) as lines on the graph and as you can clearly see those lines begin around 1850. Many of the data lines do not run the full 1,000 years, but you two are not observant enough to see that, which is why you are so easily deceived by your fellow lying global warming deniers.

I notice warmists has a bad habit of not posting links for the charts they post.

Please post the link.

The charts come from this book by the National Academy of Science, not from some denier BLOG where your crap comes from.

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

 

[edthecynic]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Well... Ignorance is what I expected....

So you do not understand why this is a fabrication and deceptive... Thanks for proving your a shill who doesn't know the first thing about the issue.

Actually I know photoshop very well.

But of course you forgot to explain it...........

Snicker.................................................

What is to explain, Billy Boobs chart was clearly photoshopped, and the ONLY explanation is dishonesty.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wait a second " direct instrument measurement "


Say What??????



Bhahahahahahahaha

Direct measurement only goes back to about the early 1800's...

He is so full of crap it isn't funny..

Two idiots who can't even read a chart, no wonder they are STUPID enough to be deniers!!!

Clearly the graph lists HAD Instrumental Record (solid gray) and CRU Instrumental Record (solid red) as lines on the graph and as you can clearly see those lines begin around 1850. Many of the data lines do not run the full 1,000 years, but you two are not observant enough to see that, which is why you are so easily deceived by your fellow lying global warming deniers.

I notice warmists has a bad habit of not posting links for the charts they post.

Please post the link.

The charts come from this book by the National Academy of Science, not from some denier BLOG where your crap comes from.

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

And they used the Michael Mann School of deception guide lines.

I don't give a damn who published it, deception is deception and shody science is shody science...

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Well... Ignorance is what I expected....

So you do not understand why this is a fabrication and deceptive... Thanks for proving your a shill who doesn't know the first thing about the issue.

Actually I know photoshop very well.

But of course you forgot to explain it...........

Snicker.................................................

What is to explain, Billy Boobs chart was clearly photoshopped, and the ONLY explanation is dishonesty.

I clearly indicated that I had made changes.. No Deception about it.

Now you on the other hand can not explain how tacking a daily temperature trend onto a proxy is legitimate when their spatial resolution is in 250 year plot points... Explaining that removing the daily plots and averaging them to be CONSISTENT and IN CONTEXT of temporal factors is EXPOSING CORRUPTION AND DECEITFUL PROMOTION.

But then you would believe the charlatan who says he modeled your bank account and your a gazillion heir.....and never check your balance....

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Here is a little lesson for the fucktard...

here is a daily plot.

Here is that same plot with 1 month plots..

now this is the 10 year plot..

here is a 100 year plot

This is what would occur if the Spatial Resolution's were contextual... Your whole warming....GONE...

THIS IS WHY HANSEN AND HIS ILK ARE LIARS...

 

[edthecynic]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Here is a little lesson for the fucktard...

here is a daily plot.
View attachment 190375

Here is that same plot with 1 month plots..

View attachment 190388

now this is the 10 year plot..

View attachment 190379

here is a 100 year plot

View attachment 190380

This is what would occur if the Spatial Resolution's were contextual... Your whole warming....GONE...

THIS IS WHY HANSEN AND HIS ILK ARE LIARS...

All your graphs show a hockey stick except the last, which is clearly not a 100 year plot, which shows 5 year steps from 1830 to 1870. You are caught lying yet again.
Why don't you give it up?

 

[edthecynic]

I clearly indicated that I had made changes.. No Deception about it.

Changes you pulled out of your lying ass! That is pure deception.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I clearly indicated that I had made changes.. No Deception about it.

Changes you pulled out of your lying ass! That is pure deception.

Your utter and unequivocal ignorance is your undoing. The only one hiding deceptions and lies is you.. You have refuted nothing and bantered about name calling. You are nothing but a left wing political hack.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Here is a little lesson for the fucktard...

here is a daily plot.
View attachment 190375

Here is that same plot with 1 month plots..

View attachment 190388

now this is the 10 year plot..

View attachment 190379

here is a 100 year plot

View attachment 190380

This is what would occur if the Spatial Resolution's were contextual... Your whole warming....GONE...

THIS IS WHY HANSEN AND HIS ILK ARE LIARS...

All your graphs show a hockey stick except the last, which is clearly not a 100 year plot, which shows 5 year steps from 1830 to 1870. You are caught lying yet again.
Why don't you give it up?

And your incapable of reading anything...

A waste of my time and your parents time to boot...

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Here is a little lesson for the fucktard...

here is a daily plot.
View attachment 190375

Here is that same plot with 1 month plots..

View attachment 190388

now this is the 10 year plot..

View attachment 190379

here is a 100 year plot

View attachment 190380

This is what would occur if the Spatial Resolution's were contextual... Your whole warming....GONE...

THIS IS WHY HANSEN AND HIS ILK ARE LIARS...

All your graphs show a hockey stick except the last, which is clearly not a 100 year plot, which shows 5 year steps from 1830 to 1870. You are caught lying yet again.
Why don't you give it up?

And your incapable of reading anything...

A waste of my time and your parents time to boot...

Yeah he doesn't realize that he makes a fool of himself showing his massive inability to understand your dated plots. I am amazed that he can't see the obvious point you are making.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Here is a little lesson for the fucktard...

here is a daily plot.
View attachment 190375

Here is that same plot with 1 month plots..

View attachment 190388

now this is the 10 year plot..

View attachment 190379

here is a 100 year plot

View attachment 190380

This is what would occur if the Spatial Resolution's were contextual... Your whole warming....GONE...

THIS IS WHY HANSEN AND HIS ILK ARE LIARS...

All your graphs show a hockey stick except the last, which is clearly not a 100 year plot, which shows 5 year steps from 1830 to 1870. You are caught lying yet again.
Why don't you give it up?

Wow!

You are that dumb, he shows that his last chart is indeed a 100 year plot, and the values change more slowly as resolution get

worse at far left edge of each successive chart.

​

 

[edthecynic]

This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.

View attachment 190193

Edits in yellow highlight are mine

No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!

Here is a little lesson for the fucktard...

here is a daily plot.
View attachment 190375

Here is that same plot with 1 month plots..

View attachment 190388

now this is the 10 year plot..

View attachment 190379

here is a 100 year plot

View attachment 190380

This is what would occur if the Spatial Resolution's were contextual... Your whole warming....GONE...

THIS IS WHY HANSEN AND HIS ILK ARE LIARS...

All your graphs show a hockey stick except the last, which is clearly not a 100 year plot, which shows 5 year steps from 1830 to 1870. You are caught lying yet again.
Why don't you give it up?

Wow!

You are that dumb, he shows that his last chart is indeed a 100 year plot, and the values change more slowly as resolution get

worse at far left edge of each successive chart.

​

Sure, a 100 year plot on a 40 year graph, and you deniers say I'm dumb!!!!!

 

[Crick]

13 "hockey sticks"

 

[Crick]

All from : Residual Analysis: DIY - Very Simple "Hockey Stick"

DIY - Very Simple "Hockey Stick"

A while back, when I analyzed raw data from Mann & Jones (2003), I came up with my own "hockey stick" graph. I didn't post it then, but I thought it might be interesting now, in light of the CRU incident.

AGW "skeptics" are pushing the idea that Phil Jones' "trick to hide the decline", and the VERY ARTIFICIAL correction I discussed in a prior post are essentially evidence of tampering with the "hockey stick" reconstruction.

In reality, the artificial correction refers to rudimentary, probably temporary code (apparently marked with all-caps comments to caution CRU researchers not to use it as final code) that corrects temperatures derived from tree-ring widths, due to a problem known as "tree-ring divergence." It's highly improbable the artificial correction was ever used in any published paper.



This "hockey stick" does not require you to write any algorithms. The only "tricks" involved in producing it are the following:

1. Temperature data up to 1980 comes from Mann & Jones (2003)(data made available by NOAA.)
2. Temperature from 1981 onwards comes from the CRUTEM3vglobal data set.
3. The red line is a 25-year central moving average of the temperature series.

You can try this yourself with different data sets. It's not very difficult. If you don't trust CRU temperature data, use GISSTemp. If you don't think the Mann & Jones (2003) reconstruction should be used, there are plenty of other historical reconstructions that use methods other than tree-rings. Do report back if it doesn't work. Comment moderation is never enabled here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

All from : Residual Analysis: DIY - Very Simple "Hockey Stick"

DIY - Very Simple "Hockey Stick"

A while back, when I analyzed raw data from Mann & Jones (2003), I came up with my own "hockey stick" graph. I didn't post it then, but I thought it might be interesting now, in light of the CRU incident.

AGW "skeptics" are pushing the idea that Phil Jones' "trick to hide the decline", and the VERY ARTIFICIAL correction I discussed in a prior post are essentially evidence of tampering with the "hockey stick" reconstruction.

In reality, the artificial correction refers to rudimentary, probably temporary code (apparently marked with all-caps comments to caution CRU researchers not to use it as final code) that corrects temperatures derived from tree-ring widths, due to a problem known as "tree-ring divergence." It's highly improbable the artificial correction was ever used in any published paper.



This "hockey stick" does not require you to write any algorithms. The only "tricks" involved in producing it are the following:

1. Temperature data up to 1980 comes from Mann & Jones (2003)(data made available by NOAA.)
2. Temperature from 1981 onwards comes from the CRUTEM3vglobal data set.
3. The red line is a 25-year central moving average of the temperature series.

You can try this yourself with different data sets. It's not very difficult. If you don't trust CRU temperature data, use GISSTemp. If you don't think the Mann & Jones (2003) reconstruction should be used, there are plenty of other historical reconstructions that use methods other than tree-rings. Do report back if it doesn't work. Comment moderation is never enabled here.

And Crick shows his ignorance by posting up empirical daily plots on the end of a PROXY! The same deception Mann does..