R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh yes. We have seen this one, and many, many more of them, (though nobody produces the “hockey stick” anymore) and the ones that point in the other direction. On and on and on and on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SamH
Guest
Source of the data used in the graph?Correctly, no climate models predicted the stall, because there was no stall.
Hopefully this will clarify the issue. Skeptics see nothing more than the episodal temperature “stalls”, and ignore the gigantic leaps between the stalls.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
Looks like something my son made in Excel 2003 on the carrying weight of diffent brands of diapers - you didn’t borrow that from a school website did you?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Well, please explain the data set for the later portions of the graph which discard many of the colder temperature stations in Siberia and Northern Canada? Why should we use a graph which isn’t based on a consistent set of data?Correctly, no climate models predicted the stall, because there was no stall.
Hopefully this will clarify the issue. Skeptics see nothing more than the episodal temperature “stalls”, and ignore the gigantic leaps between the stalls.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
Next, please explain why you are starting your graph in 1973, vice 1900, or 1700 or 1500 or even earlier? Even if the temperature is rising, please explain why you confined your data to this era vice other eras with similar temperatures?
Science includes defining a baseline and the rationale behind it. It must include controlling for variables. How are the causes of earlier warmer temperature ranges proven not to be the driving factors in the current warming trend?
S
SamH
Guest
I think we know the answer to that. How do you show global warming when its cooler than it was 80 years ago?Next, please explain why you are starting your graph in 1973, vice 1900, or 1700 or 1500 or even earlier? Even if the temperature is rising, please explain why you confined your data to this era vice other eras with similar temperatures?
E
estesbob
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
E
estesbob
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Have you read the Wegman Report that was done by two independent researchers for Congress? Interesting bit of reading as it highlights the bias of using the chosen baseline point, as well as faulty statistical analysis.I think we know the answer to that. How do you show global warming when its cooler than it was 80 years ago?
Anyway, here’s a bit from the report re the chosen baseline and statistics:
"Two principal methods for temperature reconstructions have been used; CFR 4 (climate field construction) and CPS (climate-plus-scale). The CFR is essentially a principal component analysis and the CPS is a simple averaging of climate proxies, which are then scaled to actual temperature records. The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of theperiod 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a “hockey stick” shape. Centering the mean is a critical factor in using the principal component methodology properly. It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research. We did, however, successfully recapture similar results to those of MM. This recreation supports the critique of the MBH98 methods, as the offset of the mean value creates an artificially large deviation from the desired mean value of zero.
(The computer code thing came up in climate gate, a coder trying to re-construct the results had to give up as no one could provide him with the source material for code on how historical estimates were created. He ended up just throwing in/accepting the processed temps vice doing a full recreation)
Findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this
case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. …"
E
estesbob
Guest
K
Kevin_B
Guest
Why would you expect geoscientists and engineers to be experts on the causes of atmospheric conditions?Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
K
Kevin_B
Guest
The reason this particular graph was started in 1973 is because it is not a graph used to prove global warming, it is just used to prove that the “declines” skeptics keep mentioning don’t actually exist.Next, please explain why you are starting your graph in 1973, vice 1900, or 1700 or 1500 or even earlier? Even if the temperature is rising, please explain why you confined your data to this era vice other eras with similar temperatures?
Science includes defining a baseline and the rationale behind it. It must include controlling for variables. How are the causes of earlier warmer temperature ranges proven not to be the driving factors in the current warming trend?
Why do we know the same factors that caused the Medieval
Warm Period and other climate changes aren’t causing the current one? Great question. Every thousand years or so, for the last hundreds of thousands of years, the temperature has gone up and down about a degree every thousand years. Now, the temperature is going up about a degree in a hundred years.
Of course, it is entirely possible that we just so happen to be experiencing the fastest natural temperature increase in over a hundred thousand years, but the odds against that are very high. It is much more likely that something else is at work. And since we have known for over 150 years that Carbon Dioxide warms the atmosphere (it was proven experimentally by John Tyndall in 1859), and we have known probably just as long, if not longer, that burning hydrocarbons releases Carbon Dioxide, AND that the huge increase in global temperatures just happens to coincide with global increase in the use of hydrocarbons, it senna like a very safe assumption to make that we are greatly contributing to the temperature increase.
Of course, that is greatly simplifying the amount of evidence we have, and like your friend is showing it is very ready to pick the 1% or so of evidence that makes it look like this isn’t the case and present it as your only evidence to make yourself look good, but that is pretty dangerous, don’t you think? Risking the health of or glove just to make yourself look smart? I promise that for every 1 chat sometime can present that makes it look like the climate is not changing, I can produce 10 or more that show the opposite. There are hundreds and hundreds of different climate records and models, of course a handful are going to show you what you want to see.
K
Kevin_B
Guest
Actually, the Greenhouse Effect was first proven experimentally in 1859. Do you have any proof that scientists are not doing experiments on this data?•The steps of the scientific method are to:
◦Ask a Question
◦Do Background Research
◦Construct a Hypothesis
◦Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
◦Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
◦Communicate Your Results
The problem is the “scientist” are skipping step 4. The other problem is observed weather patterns conflict with the communicated results. Can you name a single person promoting MMGW that predicted the 17 year absence of temperature increases (or the current temperature declines)?
They claim computer models take the place of testing - but anyone that programs computers will tell you that a program is designed to give a specific answer - I wonder what answer was programmed into their models?
As for Obama and his birth certificate - who cares and what does that do besides show your ham handed attempt to demonize people?
No scientists predicted the stall you mentioned because they don’t exist. Well, to be accurate, they do exist, but are so small they are insignificant. Predicting a 1% temperature stall over the course of 10 years when our temperature has been increasing greatly over the past hundred or so is like asking a meteorologist if the high temperature in a week will be 85° or 86°. The difference is so slight that it is well within acceptable error. The “declines” that you are obsessing over are so absurdly minute compared to the increases that i would some you were joking if you though someone could actually predict them, except that, unfortunately, I know you are serious.
The Birth Certificate comparison was just proving that, no matter much overwhelming evidence you show someone, it won’t make a difference if they’ve already made up their mind that you are wrong. In other words, conspiracy theorists don’t let facts get in the way of their opinions.
S
SamH
Guest
Actually the claim has been with more CO2 the temperature would rise even faster. Instead with more CO2 the temperatures have stopped rising and even fallen. As for the "increasing greatly claim - compare the decade of the 1930s to the 1990s or 2000s - where’s the increase?Actually, the Greenhouse Effect was first proven experimentally in 1859. Do you have any proof that scientists are not doing experiments on this data?
No scientists predicted the stall you mentioned because they don’t exist. Well, to be accurate, they do exist, but are so small they are insignificant. Predicting a 1% temperature stall over the course of 10 years when our temperature has been increasing greatly over the past hundred or so is like asking a meteorologist if the high temperature in a week will be 85° or 86°. The difference is so slight that it is well within acceptable error. The “declines” that you are obsessing over are so absurdly minute compared to the increases that i would some you were joking if you though someone could actually predict them, except that, unfortunately, I know you are serious.
The Birth Certificate comparison was just proving that, no matter much overwhelming evidence you show someone, it won’t make a difference if they’ve already made up their mind that you are wrong. In other words, conspiracy theorists don’t let facts get in the way of their opinions.
Just so you know, a 17 year stall in a 100 year cycle is 17% - not 1%.
E
estesbob
Guest
Can you show us a single model that predicted a 13 year “stall” in Global warming. ? The hoax is falling apart and thank God before we started destroying economies and killing people to solve a problem that doesn’t existActually, the Greenhouse Effect was first proven experimentally in 1859. Do you have any proof that scientists are not doing experiments on this data?
No scientists predicted the stall you mentioned because they don’t exist. Well, to be accurate, they do exist, but are so small they are insignificant. Predicting a 1% temperature stall over the course of 10 years when our temperature has been increasing greatly over the past hundred or so is like asking a meteorologist if the high temperature in a week will be 85° or 86°. The difference is so slight that it is well within acceptable error. The “declines” that you are obsessing over are so absurdly minute compared to the increases that i would some you were joking if you though someone could actually predict them, except that, unfortunately, I know you are serious.
The Birth Certificate comparison was just proving that, no matter much overwhelming evidence you show someone, it won’t make a difference if they’ve already made up their mind that you are wrong. In other words, conspiracy theorists don’t let facts get in the way of their opinions.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
“Before we started destroying economies and killing people???”Can you show us a single model that predicted a 13 year “stall” in Global warming. ? The hoax is falling apart and thank God before we started destroying economies and killing people to solve a problem that doesn’t exist
There’s no “before” to it if you live in West Virginia coal country. It’s right now.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yep, that is what ideologues do. They never let bad science get in the way of a liberal mantra.
Linus2nd
Linus2nd
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
Here is the reason for the myth:
newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
newscientist.com/article/dn11640-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-rising-as-temperatures-fell.html
WHy not read the entire article:
newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
Here is the reason for the myth:
newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
newscientist.com/article/dn11640-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-rising-as-temperatures-fell.html
WHy not read the entire article:
newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
B
Bill1940
Guest
God Bless you Ridgerunner. One need not be a scientist to realize the nature of the bunk being pedaled for other purposes regarding our ever changing climate. Just reading a little history should suffice. The wonderfully warmer-than-presently climate about the time of Christ and the medieval period were entirely beneficial to mankind and had no industrial revolution to fuel them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.