Global warming

[mhaze]

It's a joke, sort of. The two series should be clearly separated and their respective error bounds noted. Short story: do not buy into this graph.

 

[CapelDodger]

Michaels lied to Congress in 1998 about the Mann et al 1988 model, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony. These are two different things.​

Exactly how crystal clear and focused your comment is speaks for itself.

Now which do you opine it was, some Mann Model or some Hansen model?

Perhaps a supermodel in the fashion show?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

It wasn't Hansen's Congressional testimony, was it? And Mann et al was a climate reconstruction, not a model. What we're left with ... is the Hansen et al 1988 model that Michaels lied about in 1998.

 

[mhaze]

What evidence would you consider better than that provided by the NAS?

Since I do link to and like the NAS report, here is more evidence that the hockey stick is not a zombie risen from the dead.

Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from the Polar Ural Mountains, Russia. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

Oops... Oops...

What is this? A MWP every week?

 

[mhaze]

Michaels lied to Congress in 1998 about the Mann et al 1988 model, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony. These are two different things.​

Originally Posted by mhaze
Exactly how crystal clear and focused your comment is speaks for itself.
​

Now which do you opine it was, some Mann Model or some Hansen model?
Perhaps a supermodel in the fashion show?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
​

CapelDodger;
It wasn't Hansen's Congressional testimony, was it? And Mann et al was a climate reconstruction, not a model. What we're left with ... is the Hansen et al 1988 model that Michaels lied about in 1998.

Hansen was no liar.
Please do not continue saying such things. They are not true.

 

[Schneibster]

Now it's getting surreal. Is everyone drunk?

First CD says Michaels lied about the Mann model.
Then mhaze says "Hansen was no liar."
I thought "polar Ural mountains" might be part of it, but it turns out that there really is a part of the Urals called "polar," which of course is nowhere near the pole (64 degrees N).

It must be Friday.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now it's getting surreal. Is everyone drunk?

I always post drunk in this thread.

It is to allow you a small chance.



What do you think about incorporating two differently derived data sets?

 

[mhaze]

It's not warming.


Only a tree ring can do that
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10323471750ecb5cb9.jpg

I must ask based on the picture....

What is a "Global Teleconnection Signal?

How do you find these "Teleconnections" in tree rings?

Are they cheaper than mobile phone plans?

Sounds very, very woo woo.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now it's getting surreal. Is everyone drunk?

I am. Rugby World Cup Final - what do you expect? Especially when our team won.

First CD says Michaels lied about the Mann model.

I was drunk then as well . Late Friday night - what do you expect?

 

[CapelDodger]

No, No. The Vostok ice core data does not show the last 6 or 7 years of data. The recent data is extracted from a different technique (possibly with a different accuracy) and incorporated into the Vostok data. You do see the potential problems with this sort of incorporation?

The graph covers four hundred thousand frickin' years. How many pixels do you reckon the last six or seven years occupy? Less than one? A lot less than one?

If you want to make a point about the last six or seven years, I suggest you pick a graph with a much shorter time-scale.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The graph covers four hundred thousand frickin' years. How many pixels do you reckon the last six or seven years occupy? Less than one? A lot less than one?

Enough pixels to present a SCARY circumstance for the proles.

If you want to make a point about the last six or seven years, I suggest you pick a graph with a much shorter time-scale.

That is the point; if you graph just the Vostok data it is not SCARY.

 

[mhaze]

I am. Rugby World Cup Final - what do you expect? Especially when our team won. I was drunk then as well . Late Friday night - what do you expect?

Whut, me drunk?

 

[CapelDodger]

Since I do link to and like the NAS report, here is more evidence that the hockey stick is not a zombie risen from the dead.

Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from the Polar Ural Mountains, Russia. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project's database, click here.

Oops... Oops...

What is this? A MWP every week?

" we conclude that the Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period."

That seems to be rash conclusion. The Current Warm Period only goes back three decades. How quickly does the tree-line advance in response to climate change? Less than instantly, I think. We don't know how high the tree-line will reach even in the current climate - we know it's climbing, but trees don't grow overnight. It may well be that the equilibrium tree-line in current conditions will be well above the MWP tree-line. We won't know until the tree-line stops climbing. Which it hasn't.

There's no great controversy about the MWP being as warm as the world was thirty years ago, possibly warmer. The important issue is how warm it is now, and how quickly it's changing. There's no refuge in the past - nor in CO2Science.

I'm not at all surprised that CO2Science promotes this paper, nor that you're impressed by it. It only takes a moment's thought - what's the reaction-time of the tree-line? - to see it for the obscurantist nonsense that it is.

I don't doubt the science that was done, but I do wonder about the way that CO2Science presents it. First the reference. And then "Description". Not "Abstract" - most papers include an abstract - but a description, courtesy of CO2Science to save you the trouble of looking at it.

In this description "and that "the vertical gradient of summer air temperature in the Polar Urals is 0.7°C/100 m" is inside quote-marks - suggesting a direct quote - while the conclusion I quoted above isn't - suggesting that it's an interpretation. By the people at CO2Science. For the benefit of people like you.

It really is possible to fool some of the people all of the time. And you're an example to us all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Enough pixels to present a SCARY circumstance for the proles.



That is the point; if you graph just the Vostok data it is not SCARY.

So we've gone from a different measurement technique at the end (2100) through the latest six (or seven) years of differently-derived of the last 400,000 to it being a scare-tactic.

As I view it, the light-blue line of recent CO2 increase occupies one pixel, and the projected red-line sits right on top of it. What's the less alarming alternative? Leave it out completely?

If you think there's something in the most recent six or seven years Vostok data (do they really bother with that?) that will save our sorry asses you'll have to present some evidence on a much shorter time-scale than hundreds of thousands of years.

At least mhaze can take comfort in the MWP lying right inside that light-blue pixel, which means CO2 levels could have been almost anything at the time.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you think there's something in the most recent six or seven years Vostok data (do they really bother with that?) that will save our sorry asses you'll have to present some evidence on a much shorter time-scale than hundreds of thousands of years.

I am not talking about the projected data.

You are still missing the point.

The last 6 years of data are not from the Vostok study.

This data is derived differently and incorporated as if it is part of the same data set.

Does this incorporation and presentation not bother you?

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, if we're going to invoke the CRU, let's make sure we read everything they have to say.

The scarifying graph at the top has been played out, I think. Whether the even more alarming words around and below it are looked at is anybody's guess.

jerome's knee-jerk response was predictable. A CO2-graph, and he knows an answer from a trusted source. He's kinda hazy about it, but it's a kick-ass rebuttal, he loved it. Something about the recent past, and Vostok ice-cores, and scientists being devious and manipulative. Whatever, that's all in the past now.

 

[mhaze]

That seems to be rash conclusion. The Current Warm Period only goes back three decades. How quickly does the tree-line advance in response to climate change? Less than instantly, I think. We don't know how high the tree-line will reach even in the current climate - we know it's climbing, but trees don't grow overnight. It may well be that the equilibrium tree-line in current conditions will be well above the MWP tree-line. We won't know until the tree-line stops climbing. Which it hasn't.

There's no great controversy about the MWP being as warm as the world was thirty years ago, possibly warmer.

What they are getting at, if you didn't see it, is noting every week, another paper that shows the MWP, which Hansen does not in the Hockey Stick.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the comment "no great controversy ..." above. It isn't necessary to show definitely that prior periods have had a higher temperature than the current decades to smash the hockey stick.

It's only necessary to show they are in a similar temperature range to destroy the statistical significance of current warming.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The scarifying graph at the top has been played out, I think. Whether the even more alarming words around and below it are looked at is anybody's guess.

jerome's knee-jerk response was predictable. A CO2-graph, and he knows an answer from a trusted source. He's kinda hazy about it, but it's a kick-ass rebuttal, he loved it. Something about the recent past, and Vostok ice-cores, and scientists being devious and manipulative. Whatever, that's all in the past now.

Sorry, your accusation is incorrect.

I come-up with this stuff all by myself.

I am barley bright enough to type over the internet. I could not comprehend the intricateness of others presented information concerning this topic.

I notice that you declined to answer my question:

Does this incorporation and presentation not bother you?

I bet you were great at dodge-ball in primary school.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am not talking about the projected data.

You are still missing the point.

The last 6 years of data are not from the Vostok study.

This data is derived differently and incorporated as if it is part of the same data set.

Does this incorporation and presentation not bother you?

I guess I was wrong about this being played out.

Recent data is derived directly, by measuring CO2 in the actual atmosphere. But let's get to the point : how does incorporating six years of data differently change a graph covering 400,000 years? It doesn't, does it?

Forget the CO2 graph, it's getting you nowhere. Cut to the chase - what is it about the last six or seven years that you're fixated on?

 

[mhaze]

I am not talking about the projected data.

You are still missing the point.

The last 6 years of data are not from the Vostok study.

This data is derived differently and incorporated as if it is part of the same data set.

Does this incorporation and presentation not bother you?

500,000 years on a graph with some resolution every how often in Vostok?

Say on the right hand side, we had 3 minutes of data.

Nobody would think that was okay, because the time intervals between the samples taken over the 500,000 years could easily have missed a 3 minute period where a similar deviation occurred. Sampling could have missed hundreds of 3 minute periods.

Exaggerated, but the same general problem.

Not that that's the only problem with the graph. How well does it correlate with other historical CO2 indices, such as from stomata? Not well....

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Recent data is derived directly, by measuring CO2 in the actual atmosphere. But let's get to the point : how does incorporating six years of data differently change a graph covering 400,000 years? It doesn't, does it?

Correct, and the rest of the data is derived how?

Certainly not by the measurement of the atmosphere.

It is the last section which presents a divergence from the vast majority of other data. It is also this last section of data that was derived using a different method.

The common assumption in this circumstance in science when one sees that dramatic of a difference in the two data sets would be to try and determine why this is.

The graph just inserts the uniquely derived data and presents it as equal in collection to the rest of the data.

I ask again: Do you not see a problem here?