What? No hockey stick for Hydrological Climate Change???

[Wyatt earp]

Micheal Mann is a little bitch


Could A Climate Scientist’s Defamation Suit Shut Down The Nation’s Leading Conservative Magazine?



In this case:

Mann alleged that four phrases in Simberg’s post were defamatory: “data manipulation,” “academic and scientific misconduct,” “posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber,” and accusing the Penn State professor of molesting his data and thus being the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” He also cited a subsequent CEI press release that called his research “intellectually bogus.”

Trevor Burris of Forbes penned a full-throated defense of National Review and the other defendants, arguing that their words amounted to nothing more than name-calling:

While some of these phrases might be impolitic and unprofessional, they are not defamatory. Pugnacious rhetoric is still protected by the First Amendment, especially in matters of public debate.

Furthermore, he thinks the lawsuit will hurt the cause of climate change advocacy:

Proponents of the theory of catastrophic climate change should think twice before they support Dr. Mann’s lawsuit. In fact, anyone who engages in vigorous intellectual debate should be afraid that Mann’s lawsuit wasn’t immediately dismissed as a nuisance suit that is attempting to stifle First Amendment-protected speech. If Mann wins this lawsuit, he or his friends could easily find themselves on the other side of a defamation suit. Climate-change catastrophists consistently accuse climate-change “deniers” of intellectual and professional malfeasance.




.

 

[Crick]

Spatial resolution for a proxy? Do trees wander the globe? Do varves move from state to state? And since the only thing I've done here is to repost the comments from Mann and the works he's published, your charge here is senseless. And please explain how, as you seem to believe, limitations in spatial resolution would help Ljunqvist and hurt Mann.

You really don't know how spatial resolution applies to a supposedly "GLOBAL" proxy study -- doya?

That's why I ain't wasting time explaining why mann just admitted CLEARLY and OPENLY that his work does NOT support the outrageous pronouncements that he made about it. Even if -- you continue to parrot those claims after having Temporal and Spatial Resolution limitations of those studies explained to you --- by me ---- in detail ----- about 8 times.

Can't fix stupid. Or subjectively stupid. You decide which applies..

Quite obviously you're not going to explain it because you don't have an explanation to give.

 

[Crick]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

It means exactly what it says, only a sheep of Mann would believe otherwise, that prick has a history of trying to push under the rug anyone that challenges him.

Only someone with Mann Derangement Syndrome would make the charges you've made. How old are you dude? Compared to a few years ago, you seem to be losing it.

Me losing it? Not the one crying about people posting about how hypocritical you are in the anoucnents ..


Every one knows Mann is a little prick who hates anyone who confronts him. He will always try to silence critics who dare challenge him.

Like you and dotie on here.
.

The only one making any comment about hypocrisy on that thread is YOU and your comments are utterly pathetic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

I have never challenged temporal resolution issues. And you started THIS one with a comment on the SPATIAL resolution of proxy data. Brain fart, eh? Afraid to admit it, eh?

My claim regarding temporal resolution is that the current spike cannot possibly be gone - even with dedicated human intervention - within the period of temporal resolution. Therefore if one occurred in the proxy record, it would be visible. And, of course, you have STILL not suggested any viable, natural mechanism that would produce warming as we've seen it since 1900 nor the near instantaneous cooling that would be required to even match the span of temporal resolution.

There is also the point that the topic under discussion here with Ljundqvist is WEATHER extremes, not CLIMATE extremes, so you are attempting to see an even briefer event in a heavily damped recorder.

Now then, back to Ljunqvist. L claims that because models predict more weather extremes than he finds in his proxy records, the models are wrong. Got it? Ljundqvist is fundamentally wrong.

LOL...

You cant even figure out first year statistical basics. The basic premises of Temporal or Spatial resolution and why even Mann recognized that they do not prove his claims. They can not becasue the lack the specifics necessary for short term spikes in temp, like we have seen in our short observational history, can not be seen.

Your so invested in your lies and deceptions you cant even be remotely honest about science or its limitations. Mann got caught lying by adding 15 year plots to the end of his reconstruction creating the hokey stick, a statisticians parlor trick of deception, which is being continued today by unethical scientists. But hey, they are singing your agenda tune.

 

[flacaltenn]

Spatial resolution for a proxy? Do trees wander the globe? Do varves move from state to state? And since the only thing I've done here is to repost the comments from Mann and the works he's published, your charge here is senseless. And please explain how, as you seem to believe, limitations in spatial resolution would help Ljunqvist and hurt Mann.

You really don't know how spatial resolution applies to a supposedly "GLOBAL" proxy study -- doya?

That's why I ain't wasting time explaining why mann just admitted CLEARLY and OPENLY that his work does NOT support the outrageous pronouncements that he made about it. Even if -- you continue to parrot those claims after having Temporal and Spatial Resolution limitations of those studies explained to you --- by me ---- in detail ----- about 8 times.

Can't fix stupid. Or subjectively stupid. You decide which applies..

Quite obviously you're not going to explain it because you don't have an explanation to give.

I finally gave into my pedantic instincts and DID explain it to you.. AND of course -- you missed it -- didn't understand it --- or prefer to take personal whacks at the patient, caring, and objective person that I am..




That's WHY this is an unexpected confession from the Hockey checker.

From your scattered responses -- you obviously still don't understand that the resolution of proxy studies is only good for very very long term estimations of the mean values you are trying to divine. You can than not ETHICALLY splice modern accurate and OVERSAMPLED spatial./temporal data onto the last 80 years of proxy data and make DIRECT and BOLD pronouncements about MAGNITUDES, EXTREMES, OR RATES between the different TYPES of data sets.. It's a Frankenstein head on a wookie..

And I KNOW that within the month -- YOU will toss up a temperature hockey stick and REPEAT those unsupportable claims -- when no reputable scientist would. Only the handful of "premiere activist scientists" would manufacture that kind of disinformation for the good of the cause..

 

[flacaltenn]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

Oh of COURSE it says EXACTLY what I stated.. That's the point. Marcott ADMITTED that his similar work with some of the same proxies that Mann used lacked the time resolution (temporal) to even SEE anything shorter than 400 year events. And a 200 year event would be GREATLY attenuated. Your hilight just confirms this. Paleo proxies by their nature -- would not even SHOW our little 80 or 100 year run-up of 1degC...

So if all those "not real thermometers" can't "record very large SHORT term fluctuations" and don't accurately measure the "extremes" for Medium term events ----- How can Mann have INSISTED that the ad hoc hockey sticky he created LIKELY PROVE that our little 80 year event was "unprecedented in magnitude and rate of change" over the period of his study..

You ALMOST are getting it.. It's damn fucking obvious he SHOULD NOT have chosen to attack this different type of paleo-proxy by ADMITTING that data and the process of HIS work does not support his wild and biased statements of what it "proved"...

 

[Wyatt earp]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

It means exactly what it says, only a sheep of Mann would believe otherwise, that prick has a history of trying to push under the rug anyone that challenges him.

Only someone with Mann Derangement Syndrome would make the charges you've made. How old are you dude? Compared to a few years ago, you seem to be losing it.

Me losing it? Not the one crying about people posting about how hypocritical you are in the anoucnents ..


Every one knows Mann is a little prick who hates anyone who confronts him. He will always try to silence critics who dare challenge him.

Like you and dotie on here.
.

The only one making any comment about hypocrisy on that thread is YOU and your comments are utterly pathetic.

Damn.....you couldn't even seen it on that thread when I pointed out?

No wonder you can not see the voodoo science that MANN has been passing off with his ridiculous hockey stick. Taking proxies and using modern day temperature records to equal anything significant, Excecpt as a noviltie.

He now totally admits it and you are to dumb to see any of it.

 

[Crick]

What first year statistics do you believe I got wrong?

FCT lifted the phrase Spatial Resolution from the paper where it was used to demonstrate the regional applicability of the proxy set Ljundqvist used. It has NOTHING to do with the fidelity of the proxy response to WEATHER extremes.

Mann argued that Ljundqvist doesn't see modern weather extremes in his proxy reconstruction because of the infidelity of his proxy reconstruction to weather extremes. I know you're all convinced that he said something else, but that's your problem, not ours.

Mann quite clearly explained what he was doing in MBH 98 and the instrumented data were plotted in alternate colors. If both of those failed to catch your eye and you were confused by it all, TALK TO YOUR FUCKING FIRST GRADE TEACHER.

 

[Olde Europe]

Oh of COURSE it says EXACTLY what I stated.. That's the point. Marcott ADMITTED that his similar work with some of the same proxies that Mann used lacked the time resolution (temporal) to even SEE anything shorter than 400 year events. And a 200 year event would be GREATLY attenuated. Your hilight just confirms this. Paleo proxies by their nature -- would not even SHOW our little 80 or 100 year run-up of 1degC...

So if all those "not real thermometers" can't "record very large SHORT term fluctuations" and don't accurately measure the "extremes" for Medium term events ----- How can Mann have INSISTED that the ad hoc hockey sticky he created LIKELY PROVE that our little 80 year event was "unprecedented in magnitude and rate of change" over the period of his study..

You ALMOST are getting it.. It's damn fucking obvious he SHOULD NOT have chosen to attack this different type of paleo-proxy by ADMITTING that data and the process of HIS work does not support his wild and biased statements of what it "proved"...

I fear, you are mixing up different things.

What we're in is not a 80-years event, but a 250-years experiment with the only habitable planet we know about.

Moreover, one thing is the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the resulting increase of the earth's heat content. The other is the influence of said heat content on (short-term) weather patterns. The former is pretty straight-forward compared to the latter, which is why it's far easier to predict climate than weather. That leaves your quibble about "unprecedented", which seems to rest on the assumption that what we are having ahead is a "fluctuation", when all we know is that we're heading towards increasing heat, quite possibly exacerbated by some hard-to-predict feed-back loops we might kick off in the near future.

To sum this up, yeah, the paleo-evidence very likely missed some wild, short-term "fluctuations" in weather patterns; we have no clear evidence for them. What we're in is still "unprecedented" as we're heading, assuming we don't change our way of life, towards a long-term, significantly hotter planet. These are quite different things, don't you think? And the paleo-proxies to in fact support conclusions about long-term trends.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Two people who dont have a dam clue as to how an average removes peaks and valleys from the record. In the case of proxies the blending of the years does this naturally and is why they do not show them.. Its called Temporal resolution.. and why ice core bands can be as many as 100 years or more..

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh of COURSE it says EXACTLY what I stated.. That's the point. Marcott ADMITTED that his similar work with some of the same proxies that Mann used lacked the time resolution (temporal) to even SEE anything shorter than 400 year events. And a 200 year event would be GREATLY attenuated. Your hilight just confirms this. Paleo proxies by their nature -- would not even SHOW our little 80 or 100 year run-up of 1degC...

So if all those "not real thermometers" can't "record very large SHORT term fluctuations" and don't accurately measure the "extremes" for Medium term events ----- How can Mann have INSISTED that the ad hoc hockey sticky he created LIKELY PROVE that our little 80 year event was "unprecedented in magnitude and rate of change" over the period of his study..

You ALMOST are getting it.. It's damn fucking obvious he SHOULD NOT have chosen to attack this different type of paleo-proxy by ADMITTING that data and the process of HIS work does not support his wild and biased statements of what it "proved"...

I fear, you are mixing up different things.

What we're in is not a 80-years event, but a 250-years experiment with the only habitable planet we know about.

Moreover, one thing is the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the resulting increase of the earth's heat content. The other is the influence of said heat content on (short-term) weather patterns. The former is pretty straight-forward compared to the latter, which is why it's far easier to predict climate than weather. That leaves your quibble about "unprecedented", which seems to rest on the assumption that what we are having ahead is a "fluctuation", when all we know is that we're heading towards increasing heat, quite possibly exacerbated by some hard-to-predict feed-back loops we might kick off in the near future.

To sum this up, yeah, the paleo-evidence very likely missed some wild, short-term "fluctuations" in weather patterns; we have no clear evidence for them. What we're in is still "unprecedented" as we're heading, assuming we don't change our way of life, towards a long-term, significantly hotter planet. These are quite different things, don't you think? And the paleo-proxies to in fact support conclusions about long-term trends.

Despite what Mann and Marcott revealed about the shortcomings of the "historical" proxy studies you still cling to the notion that the 1degC change in Global surface temp in your lifetime is "unprecedented". What is clear is that there is NO EVIDENCE that short and medium and term temperature fluctuations have NOT exceeded or rivaled this modern day event.

I won't chase after EVERY misconception about the wild claims that have been made for Climate Science that are not backed by the ACTUAL work in the papers. . Only that the "proxy studies" are of limited use in comparing today to past climate. We ARE in an "80 year or 100 year event" because we've only got sufficient MODERN data to measure GLOBAL anomalies over that period of time. Everything prior to that period suffers from sparse sampling in time and space.

In reality -- if you look at INDIVIDUAL proxy studies and don't attempt to distill them down to one silly GLOBAL number ---- they reveal some very fascinating things. You can more easily see the signature of the "little ice age" and the Medieval and Roman Warm periods from isolated places all over the globe. But because the hockey sticks needs to harmonize so many weak and different TYPES of proxies --- and because they ATTEMPT to use as few as 150 or 200 samples to cover the entire surface of the GLOBE over thousands of years-- the final result of such "extrapolation" has very little meaning to the single Global number answer.

There are also proxies EXCLUDED by Mann/Marcott and others that have VERY GOOD time resolution to them, but limited historical range. And with these -- we CLEARLY SEE that the variance on the historical is already much larger than ever appeared in any "hockey stick" study...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh of COURSE it says EXACTLY what I stated.. That's the point. Marcott ADMITTED that his similar work with some of the same proxies that Mann used lacked the time resolution (temporal) to even SEE anything shorter than 400 year events. And a 200 year event would be GREATLY attenuated. Your hilight just confirms this. Paleo proxies by their nature -- would not even SHOW our little 80 or 100 year run-up of 1degC...

So if all those "not real thermometers" can't "record very large SHORT term fluctuations" and don't accurately measure the "extremes" for Medium term events ----- How can Mann have INSISTED that the ad hoc hockey sticky he created LIKELY PROVE that our little 80 year event was "unprecedented in magnitude and rate of change" over the period of his study..

You ALMOST are getting it.. It's damn fucking obvious he SHOULD NOT have chosen to attack this different type of paleo-proxy by ADMITTING that data and the process of HIS work does not support his wild and biased statements of what it "proved"...

I fear, you are mixing up different things.

What we're in is not a 80-years event, but a 250-years experiment with the only habitable planet we know about.

Moreover, one thing is the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the resulting increase of the earth's heat content. The other is the influence of said heat content on (short-term) weather patterns. The former is pretty straight-forward compared to the latter, which is why it's far easier to predict climate than weather. That leaves your quibble about "unprecedented", which seems to rest on the assumption that what we are having ahead is a "fluctuation", when all we know is that we're heading towards increasing heat, quite possibly exacerbated by some hard-to-predict feed-back loops we might kick off in the near future.

To sum this up, yeah, the paleo-evidence very likely missed some wild, short-term "fluctuations" in weather patterns; we have no clear evidence for them. What we're in is still "unprecedented" as we're heading, assuming we don't change our way of life, towards a long-term, significantly hotter planet. These are quite different things, don't you think? And the paleo-proxies to in fact support conclusions about long-term trends.

Translation~ the ends justify the phoney baloney science of the means.


Fake Data&#151How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived.



Micheal Mann now ADMITS his data is flawed what everyone outside the AGW cult has been saying along ..

The hockey stick was produced using tree ring data for temperature proxy up to recent times and then grafting on thermometer measurements. The tree ring data was flat for a thousand years in spite of known climate variations. The obvious reason is that temperature does not determine width of tree rings. Growth rate of plants is almost never temperature limited. Usually, it is either light limited or moisture limited. The famous decline after 1960 was probably due to increased overcast limiting light availability for photosynthesis. Physicist may not know this, but ignorance is no excuse for corruption of science.

The unspeakable fraud of it is that the purpose was to detect a 0.6°C global average temperature increase, as if they were using a laboratory instrument. With tree ring width? Four thousand thermometers have been shown to be inadequate for the purpose. See Temperature Fraud.

Fakes in science needed a representation of global warming which could sway the masses, and they found it in a hockey stick graph which the IPCC used as its primary showpiece. It's called the hockey stick graph because it is a straight line which bends up on the end. It's supposed to represent global temperature over the past thousand years with a sharp increase in the twentieth century due to human activity.

It has to be called outright fraud due to an absence of a bump and trough for known heating a thousand years ago and cooling a few hundred years ago. To show a straight line for a thousand years means it is not representing anything real.





.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh of COURSE it says EXACTLY what I stated.. That's the point. Marcott ADMITTED that his similar work with some of the same proxies that Mann used lacked the time resolution (temporal) to even SEE anything shorter than 400 year events. And a 200 year event would be GREATLY attenuated. Your hilight just confirms this. Paleo proxies by their nature -- would not even SHOW our little 80 or 100 year run-up of 1degC...

So if all those "not real thermometers" can't "record very large SHORT term fluctuations" and don't accurately measure the "extremes" for Medium term events ----- How can Mann have INSISTED that the ad hoc hockey sticky he created LIKELY PROVE that our little 80 year event was "unprecedented in magnitude and rate of change" over the period of his study..

You ALMOST are getting it.. It's damn fucking obvious he SHOULD NOT have chosen to attack this different type of paleo-proxy by ADMITTING that data and the process of HIS work does not support his wild and biased statements of what it "proved"...

I fear, you are mixing up different things.

What we're in is not a 80-years event, but a 250-years experiment with the only habitable planet we know about.

Moreover, one thing is the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the resulting increase of the earth's heat content. The other is the influence of said heat content on (short-term) weather patterns. The former is pretty straight-forward compared to the latter, which is why it's far easier to predict climate than weather. That leaves your quibble about "unprecedented", which seems to rest on the assumption that what we are having ahead is a "fluctuation", when all we know is that we're heading towards increasing heat, quite possibly exacerbated by some hard-to-predict feed-back loops we might kick off in the near future.

To sum this up, yeah, the paleo-evidence very likely missed some wild, short-term "fluctuations" in weather patterns; we have no clear evidence for them. What we're in is still "unprecedented" as we're heading, assuming we don't change our way of life, towards a long-term, significantly hotter planet. These are quite different things, don't you think? And the paleo-proxies to in fact support conclusions about long-term trends.

Translation~ the ends justify the phoney baloney science of the means.


Fake Data&#151How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived.



Micheal Mann now ADMITS his data is flawed what everyone outside the AGW cult has been saying along ..

The hockey stick was produced using tree ring data for temperature proxy up to recent times and then grafting on thermometer measurements. The tree ring data was flat for a thousand years in spite of known climate variations. The obvious reason is that temperature does not determine width of tree rings. Growth rate of plants is almost never temperature limited. Usually, it is either light limited or moisture limited. The famous decline after 1960 was probably due to increased overcast limiting light availability for photosynthesis. Physicist may not know this, but ignorance is no excuse for corruption of science.

The unspeakable fraud of it is that the purpose was to detect a 0.6°C global average temperature increase, as if they were using a laboratory instrument. With tree ring width? Four thousand thermometers have been shown to be inadequate for the purpose. See Temperature Fraud.

Fakes in science needed a representation of global warming which could sway the masses, and they found it in a hockey stick graph which the IPCC used as its primary showpiece. It's called the hockey stick graph because it is a straight line which bends up on the end. It's supposed to represent global temperature over the past thousand years with a sharp increase in the twentieth century due to human activity.

It has to be called outright fraud due to an absence of a bump and trough for known heating a thousand years ago and cooling a few hundred years ago. To show a straight line for a thousand years means it is not representing anything real.





.

Actually, tree rings are modified by temp and moisture, drought and flooding. The problem is --- SEPARATING these from other effects like canopy crowding, fire, disease, etc. And THEN -- just when you think you've made a thermometer out of a tree accurate to sub 1 deg --- you STILL have to separate temperature and moisture effects from one another.

Similar issues with mudbug shells. These guys bury in vertical burrows up to 2 foot deep. Two feet is like a 1000 years of sediment buildup -- so you can't just date them from their position in core samples. You have to try to refine that with C14 or other dating which has it's own issues. And then different species have different uptakes of the isotopes being analyzed as a temp proxy. It's all quite messy. BUT --- it does work to some degree.

It's just that a handful of unethical loud mouths want the PUBLIC to believe that the "science is settled" and that their data PROVES our 1degC is UNPRECEDENTED over 1000s of years,.

One of the LARGEST Fibs EVER to be broadcast around the world by science. Bad page in history for scientists that get too emotional involved in the "created fiction" they WANT to be true..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh of COURSE it says EXACTLY what I stated.. That's the point. Marcott ADMITTED that his similar work with some of the same proxies that Mann used lacked the time resolution (temporal) to even SEE anything shorter than 400 year events. And a 200 year event would be GREATLY attenuated. Your hilight just confirms this. Paleo proxies by their nature -- would not even SHOW our little 80 or 100 year run-up of 1degC...

So if all those "not real thermometers" can't "record very large SHORT term fluctuations" and don't accurately measure the "extremes" for Medium term events ----- How can Mann have INSISTED that the ad hoc hockey sticky he created LIKELY PROVE that our little 80 year event was "unprecedented in magnitude and rate of change" over the period of his study..

You ALMOST are getting it.. It's damn fucking obvious he SHOULD NOT have chosen to attack this different type of paleo-proxy by ADMITTING that data and the process of HIS work does not support his wild and biased statements of what it "proved"...

I fear, you are mixing up different things.

What we're in is not a 80-years event, but a 250-years experiment with the only habitable planet we know about.

Moreover, one thing is the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and the resulting increase of the earth's heat content. The other is the influence of said heat content on (short-term) weather patterns. The former is pretty straight-forward compared to the latter, which is why it's far easier to predict climate than weather. That leaves your quibble about "unprecedented", which seems to rest on the assumption that what we are having ahead is a "fluctuation", when all we know is that we're heading towards increasing heat, quite possibly exacerbated by some hard-to-predict feed-back loops we might kick off in the near future.

To sum this up, yeah, the paleo-evidence very likely missed some wild, short-term "fluctuations" in weather patterns; we have no clear evidence for them. What we're in is still "unprecedented" as we're heading, assuming we don't change our way of life, towards a long-term, significantly hotter planet. These are quite different things, don't you think? And the paleo-proxies to in fact support conclusions about long-term trends.

Translation~ the ends justify the phoney baloney science of the means.


Fake Data&#151How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived.



Micheal Mann now ADMITS his data is flawed what everyone outside the AGW cult has been saying along ..

The hockey stick was produced using tree ring data for temperature proxy up to recent times and then grafting on thermometer measurements. The tree ring data was flat for a thousand years in spite of known climate variations. The obvious reason is that temperature does not determine width of tree rings. Growth rate of plants is almost never temperature limited. Usually, it is either light limited or moisture limited. The famous decline after 1960 was probably due to increased overcast limiting light availability for photosynthesis. Physicist may not know this, but ignorance is no excuse for corruption of science.

The unspeakable fraud of it is that the purpose was to detect a 0.6°C global average temperature increase, as if they were using a laboratory instrument. With tree ring width? Four thousand thermometers have been shown to be inadequate for the purpose. See Temperature Fraud.

Fakes in science needed a representation of global warming which could sway the masses, and they found it in a hockey stick graph which the IPCC used as its primary showpiece. It's called the hockey stick graph because it is a straight line which bends up on the end. It's supposed to represent global temperature over the past thousand years with a sharp increase in the twentieth century due to human activity.

It has to be called outright fraud due to an absence of a bump and trough for known heating a thousand years ago and cooling a few hundred years ago. To show a straight line for a thousand years means it is not representing anything real.





.

Actually, tree rings are modified by temp and moisture, drought and flooding. The problem is --- SEPARATING these from other effects like canopy crowding, fire, disease, etc. And THEN -- just when you think you've made a thermometer out of a tree accurate to sub 1 deg --- you STILL have to separate temperature and moisture effects from one another.

Similar issues with mudbug shells. These guys bury in vertical burrows up to 2 foot deep. Two feet is like a 1000 years of sediment buildup -- so you can't just date them from their position in core samples. You have to try to refine that with C14 or other dating which has it's own issues. And then different species have different uptakes of the isotopes being analyzed as a temp proxy. It's all quite messy. BUT --- it does work to some degree.

It's just that a handful of unethical loud mouths want the PUBLIC to believe that the "science is settled" and that their data PROVES our 1degC is UNPRECEDENTED over 1000s of years,.

One of the LARGEST Fibs EVER to be broadcast around the world by science. Bad page in history for scientists that get too emotional involved in the "created fiction" they WANT to be true..

I know, Proxies were only for what I always call at work guestimations...

And these fools wanted to base it on actual measurements to fool the mases.

Just look at the tree ring data the past 100 years which Micheal Mann left out of his hockey stick graph (and instead added thermometer readings) it showed COOLING..


The Decline They Hid: the Deleted Portion of the Briffa Reconstruction


The hidden data is that of Keith Briffa, a fellow climate scientist (and warmist) at East Anglia. Briffa compiled tree-ring data to obtain global temperature estimates back to 1400. But there was a problem with the tree-ring data, from the warmist perspective. The tree ring data showed pronounced cooling beginning in the mid-20th century. This was at variance with some ground temperature measurements (so we are told- the actual raw data from the ground stations was 'accidently' thrown in the garbage in the 1980's, and all we have are 'modified' data from the CRU scientists themselves.)

So the method that the warmist climate scientists used to estimate temperatures over the past millenium or so (tree ring data) did not show warming that correlated with rising CO2. This leaves a couple of possibilities, neither favorable to the warmist hypothesis. Either the tree ring data in the 20th century that was inconsistent with temperature recordings meant that the older tree ring data was unreliable (eliminating the argument that the warming was unprecedented) or the temperature recordings were inaccurate (perhaps from the heat island effect, in which sensors situated near growing urban areas give spurriously high readings) and rising CO2 didn't cause warming.

 

[Olde Europe]

So much misconception, so little time, flacaltenn.

We ARE in an "80 year or 100 year event" because we've only got sufficient MODERN data

We are in an 80-year event because we have modern temperature data for that time but not before. Doesn't that strike you as, say, a little odd? Not to say, illogical? When, on the other hand, we know that the release of excess CO2 in significant quantities didn't start just 80 years ago?

Despite what Mann and Marcott revealed about the shortcomings of the "historical" proxy studies you still cling to the notion that the 1degC change in Global surface temp in your lifetime is "unprecedented".

... and that gets you all riled up? Why is that? With, say, a little good will towards texts you'd have taken the talk about "unprecedented" as: "We're seeing an increase in temperature of a magnitude and velocity that has no peer in the historical data" - and could have saved yourself the jumping up-and-down over all that. What do you imagine you achieve? You've finally slaughtered the climate-hoax dragon? Again, what's the fuss? Even if we have had a volcanic eruption in pre-historic times that released CO2 in such quantities (but little if anything else, particularly no ash) as to compel a short-term increase comparable to the one we've experiencing during the last 80 years (assuming for the sake of the argument such is even possible), nothing would change about our current predicament and our dire prospects; merely Mann would have to correct himself about the use of one term. That amounts to what, exactly? On the other hand, there just isn't any evidence for any forcing that would have resulted in the kind of spike in temperatures we are now seeing, and thus the talk about "unprecedented" is very likely very justifiable.

And, if I may, aren't you - at least a little bit - embarrassed to join that silly conspiracy theory nonsense as peddled by the likes of the Bear?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So much misconception, so little time, flacaltenn.

We ARE in an "80 year or 100 year event" because we've only got sufficient MODERN data

We are in an 80-year event because we have modern temperature data for that time but not before. Doesn't that strike you as, say, a little odd? Not to say, illogical? When, on the other hand, we know that the release of excess CO2 in significant quantities didn't start just 80 years ago?

Despite what Mann and Marcott revealed about the shortcomings of the "historical" proxy studies you still cling to the notion that the 1degC change in Global surface temp in your lifetime is "unprecedented".

... and that gets you all riled up? Why is that? With, say, a little good will towards texts you'd have taken the talk about "unprecedented" as: "We're seeing an increase in temperature of a magnitude and velocity that has no peer in the historical data" - and could have saved yourself the jumping up-and-down over all that. What do you imagine you achieve? You've finally slaughtered the climate-hoax dragon? Again, what's the fuss? Even if we have had a volcanic eruption in pre-historic times that released CO2 in such quantities (but little if anything else, particularly no ash) as to compel a short-term increase comparable to the one we've experiencing during the last 80 years (assuming for the sake of the argument such is even possible), nothing would change about our current predicament and our dire prospects; merely Mann would have to correct himself about the use of one term. That amounts to what, exactly? On the other hand, there just isn't any evidence for any forcing that would have resulted in the kind of spike in temperatures we are now seeing, and thus the talk about "unprecedented" is very likely very justifiable.

And, if I may, aren't you - at least a little bit - embarrassed to join that silly conspiracy theory nonsense as peddled by the likes of the Bear?

Nothing would change about our current predicament and our dire prospect


What the heck are you talking about?

You bought the fear mongering hook line and sinker.... You want to base future trends off of only 30 years plus of semi accurate temperature readings? (Digital thermometers and satellite data) and only since 1994 of day to day ocean temperature data? On a planet 4.5 billion years old?


You want to base it on a C02 of 400 ppm when during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods the CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppm ?

And what conspiracy???????

God damn dude there is no conspiracy just over hyped egotistical scientists who can't see the forrest from the trees....


I am into FACTS not propaganda not junk science, thats my JOB....

I can't fix a processing problem at work with bullshit data, I can't predict what parts to order/predict how long a injection molding matching can run before it breaks or when a screw and barrel is wearing out with a pencil whipped preventive maintenance report or bullshit S.P.C. data fool.








.



.



.

 

[flacaltenn]

So much misconception, so little time, flacaltenn.

We ARE in an "80 year or 100 year event" because we've only got sufficient MODERN data

We are in an 80-year event because we have modern temperature data for that time but not before. Doesn't that strike you as, say, a little odd? Not to say, illogical? When, on the other hand, we know that the release of excess CO2 in significant quantities didn't start just 80 years ago?

Despite what Mann and Marcott revealed about the shortcomings of the "historical" proxy studies you still cling to the notion that the 1degC change in Global surface temp in your lifetime is "unprecedented".

... and that gets you all riled up? Why is that? With, say, a little good will towards texts you'd have taken the talk about "unprecedented" as: "We're seeing an increase in temperature of a magnitude and velocity that has no peer in the historical data" - and could have saved yourself the jumping up-and-down over all that. What do you imagine you achieve? You've finally slaughtered the climate-hoax dragon? Again, what's the fuss? Even if we have had a volcanic eruption in pre-historic times that released CO2 in such quantities (but little if anything else, particularly no ash) as to compel a short-term increase comparable to the one we've experiencing during the last 80 years (assuming for the sake of the argument such is even possible), nothing would change about our current predicament and our dire prospects; merely Mann would have to correct himself about the use of one term. That amounts to what, exactly? On the other hand, there just isn't any evidence for any forcing that would have resulted in the kind of spike in temperatures we are now seeing, and thus the talk about "unprecedented" is very likely very justifiable.

And, if I may, aren't you - at least a little bit - embarrassed to join that silly conspiracy theory nonsense as peddled by the likes of the Bear?

You're leaping to all sort of conclusions not in evidence. But first -- I find nothing odd about limitations on accurately measuring the entire surface temperature of the Earth over long time spans. It is what it is. We already have battles over satellite estimates versus 10,000 surface thermometer readings. Battles that amount to TENTHS of a degree. What makes you think that before 1916 we had better spatial coverage and enough sample points to divine GLOBAL temperature with any degree of accuracy. We KNOW what we can adequately measure. And these Paleo-proxies all have FATAL weaknesses that don't allow them to tell us what the VARIANCE is on surface temperature.

If you think that the surface temps were absolutely FLAT for 10,000 years -- you wouldn't have accounts of Ice Faires held on a frozen Thames River.. Or Grapes growing in Greenland. So it's a matter of GUESSING really about what the variance has NATURALLY been since the last Ice Age thaw.

And in that context -- 1degC is really nothing in terms of weather or climate. GW hysteria is all about the failed longer term projections that the warming WILL accelerate and the Earth will destroy itself if a certain "trigger temperature" is reached. THAT part of GW theory is definitely "not settled science" in any shape or form.

Don't care about volcanoes. Their effect in the Modern era on climate is short and mild. And what "dire consequences" are you referring to? You aware that GW science has failed to model predictions even 20 years out.. But that's not the topic,.

MAKE me embarrassed. Tell me something I don't know --- because of forum rules --- let's restrict that to the proxy studies. Whereupon the LIES that they PROVE our little 1degC experience in your lifetime IS unprecedented. When in fact they CANNOT prove that at all...

I will tell you that CO2 has a KNOWN power to warm the GreenHouse. I totally buy that part. But in any Atmos Physics book you will see a derivation for the ACTUAL power of CO2.. And that's generally agreed to be about 1degC/doubling of concentration.. We have YET to hit the first doubling point since the Industrial Revolution. Won't hit it for at least another 15 to 20 years. You might have a lot of catching up to do before you accuse me of "jumping up and down" and "slaying dragons". I study.. I learn.. Because I can.. And it's clear to me that the public has been WAAAAAY misled about the ACTUAL science and what is ACTUALLY proven in the GW circus.

 

[Crick]

FCT, still wondering where you see evidence that the Arctic has been melting for thousands of years.

 

[Olde Europe]

You're leaping to all sort of conclusions not in evidence. But first -- I find nothing odd about limitations on accurately measuring the entire surface temperature of the Earth over long time spans. It is what it is. We already have battles over satellite estimates versus 10,000 surface thermometer readings. Battles that amount to TENTHS of a degree. What makes you think that before 1916 we had better spatial coverage and enough sample points to divine GLOBAL temperature with any degree of accuracy. We KNOW what we can adequately measure. And these Paleo-proxies all have FATAL weaknesses that don't allow them to tell us what the VARIANCE is on surface temperature.

MAKE me embarrassed. Tell me something I don't know --- because of forum rules --- let's restrict that to the proxy studies. Whereupon the LIES that they PROVE our little 1degC experience in your lifetime IS unprecedented. When in fact they CANNOT prove that at all...

Well, restating your point, again and again, doesn't really make it more compelling. The current rise is "unprecedented" as we've seen nothing like it in the historical record of the last thousand - or even 10,000 - years. Everybody knows that the paleo-record has its weaknesses, as it smoothes out short-term fluctuations in weather patterns - and yet Ljungqvist concludes from the absence of short-term weather fluctuations that the models over-predict short-term weather fluctuations. If that doesn't strike you as a grave scientific fluke, I don't know what will. Moreover, concluding from the graph Crick posted above, the variability over the last 10,000 years was 0.6°C, which is also when our species has developed and thrived. So, 1°C in temperature rise is huge, and 2 to 4°C would be enormous, and the consequences, climate scientists inform us, would be catastrophic.

I will tell you that CO2 has a KNOWN power to warm the GreenHouse. I totally buy that part. But in any Atmos Physics book you will see a derivation for the ACTUAL power of CO2.. And that's generally agreed to be about 1degC/doubling of concentration.. We have YET to hit the first doubling point since the Industrial Revolution. Won't hit it for at least another 15 to 20 years. You might have a lot of catching up to do before you accuse me of "jumping up and down" and "slaying dragons". I study.. I learn.. Because I can.. And it's clear to me that the public has been WAAAAAY misled about the ACTUAL science and what is ACTUALLY proven in the GW circus.

Now, there's a start. Were CO2 the only component of forcing, you'd have a point, but it is not.

Yeah, it's pretty annoying to be accused of "jumping up and down" and "slaying dragons", isn't it? No more than being accused of hysteria or other varieties of being emotionally or mentally incompetent, I assure you. So, why don't we both cut the crap (leave that part of the climate hoax silliness to the bear and his ilk), and try to learn something about the benefits and shortcomings of Ljungqvist's study? After all, compiling a (comparatively) broad record of paleo-evidence should come with some insights, but maybe some of the conclusions he draws need to be rejected because the available evidence, spotty as it is, doesn't support them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You're leaping to all sort of conclusions not in evidence. But first -- I find nothing odd about limitations on accurately measuring the entire surface temperature of the Earth over long time spans. It is what it is. We already have battles over satellite estimates versus 10,000 surface thermometer readings. Battles that amount to TENTHS of a degree. What makes you think that before 1916 we had better spatial coverage and enough sample points to divine GLOBAL temperature with any degree of accuracy. We KNOW what we can adequately measure. And these Paleo-proxies all have FATAL weaknesses that don't allow them to tell us what the VARIANCE is on surface temperature.

MAKE me embarrassed. Tell me something I don't know --- because of forum rules --- let's restrict that to the proxy studies. Whereupon the LIES that they PROVE our little 1degC experience in your lifetime IS unprecedented. When in fact they CANNOT prove that at all...

Well, restating your point, again and again, doesn't really make it more compelling. The current rise is "unprecedented" as we've seen nothing like it in the historical record of the last thousand - or even 10,000 - years. Everybody knows that the paleo-record has its weaknesses, as it smoothes out short-term fluctuations in weather patterns - and yet Ljungqvist concludes from the absence of short-term weather fluctuations that the models over-predict short-term weather fluctuations. If that doesn't strike you as a grave scientific fluke, I don't know what will. Moreover, concluding from the graph Crick posted above, the variability over the last 10,000 years was 0.6°C, which is also when our species has developed and thrived. So, 1°C in temperature rise is huge, and 2 to 4°C would be enormous, and the consequences, climate scientists inform us, would be catastrophic.

I will tell you that CO2 has a KNOWN power to warm the GreenHouse. I totally buy that part. But in any Atmos Physics book you will see a derivation for the ACTUAL power of CO2.. And that's generally agreed to be about 1degC/doubling of concentration.. We have YET to hit the first doubling point since the Industrial Revolution. Won't hit it for at least another 15 to 20 years. You might have a lot of catching up to do before you accuse me of "jumping up and down" and "slaying dragons". I study.. I learn.. Because I can.. And it's clear to me that the public has been WAAAAAY misled about the ACTUAL science and what is ACTUALLY proven in the GW circus.

Now, there's a start. Were CO2 the only component of forcing, you'd have a point, but it is not.

Yeah, it's pretty annoying to be accused of "jumping up and down" and "slaying dragons", isn't it? No more than being accused of hysteria or other varieties of being emotionally or mentally incompetent, I assure you. So, why don't we both cut the crap (leave that part of the climate hoax silliness to the bear and his ilk), and try to learn something about the benefits and shortcomings of Ljungqvist's study? After all, compiling a (comparatively) broad record of paleo-evidence should come with some insights, but maybe some of the conclusions he draws need to be rejected because the available evidence, spotty as it is, doesn't support them.

Moreover, concluding from the graph Crick posted above, the variability over the last 10,000 years was 0.6°C, which is also when our species has developed and thrived. So, 1°C in temperature rise is huge, and 2 to 4°C would be enormous, and the consequences, climate scientists inform us, would be catastrophic.

You stupid moron....we are talking proxies can't fucking give accurate temperature, everyone knows according to proxies that it is suggested the Roman period was just as warm or warmer.

Yet you still fucking cling that is is unprecedented by 0.6 degree?

God Damn you love to bullshit.



.





God Damn sheep.




.