Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A blog from a known liar with zero scientfic credentials or credibility.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Mann08 used both stripbark treering proxies and the infamous upsidedown Tiljander cores. there is no hockeystick without one or the other. without both the validity ends at ~1650. 350 years is not two millenia.
I wonder what his argument would be for that mid evil warming period, the one that had temps higher than we have now?
Since the worldwide increase for temperature in the "mid evil"warming period was 0.2 c, while we have already experianced over 0.8C increase in the last 150 years, what you state is simply wrong.
New paper confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago | Watts Up With That?
A blog from a known liar with zero scientfic credentials or credibility.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Mann08 used both stripbark treering proxies and the infamous upsidedown Tiljander cores. there is no hockeystick without one or the other. without both the validity ends at ~1650. 350 years is not two millenia.
but you knew this already and you have even seen the Gavin Schmidt quote admitting this because I have shown it to you.
why do you support junk science, and continue to link to it after it has been repudiated?
And they call me a denier
And they're right.
But then I've always called you an extremely retarded denier, which is a bit more accurate.
A classic symptom of that extreme retardation would be your obvious inability to comprehend the difference between a cold day in your backyard and global climate.
One of these days I will meet someone that knows at least as much about science in general as I do, then I will be able to discuss why they think an increase in temperature is going to mean the end of life on Earth, and why they think that is a bad thing.
In the meantime, I will continue to mock the idiots on both sides of the discussion.
Mann08 used both stripbark treering proxies and the infamous upsidedown Tiljander cores. there is no hockeystick without one or the other. without both the validity ends at ~1650. 350 years is not two millenia.
I'm sorry Ian but that is complete bullshit. The world is filled with hockey stick temperature graphs because that is what global temperatures have done.
Would you be one of those folks who think the most important feature of any temperature graph of the last thousand years is how it portrays the MWP?
You know, I can play perfectly good hockey with a stick that swoops and bends and twists, but if you take away that blade, I'm just scrabbling at the ice with a broken branch. The most significant parameter in the temperature record of the last thousand years is what it's done in the last one hundred. The climate's current behavior is not a recurrence of the MWP and thus details about the MWP are completely irrelevant to our current situation.
A blog from a known liar with zero scientfic credentials or credibility.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Mann08 used both stripbark treering proxies and the infamous upsidedown Tiljander cores. there is no hockeystick without one or the other. without both the validity ends at ~1650. 350 years is not two millenia.
but you knew this already and you have even seen the Gavin Schmidt quote admitting this because I have shown it to you.
why do you support junk science, and continue to link to it after it has been repudiated?
Repudiated by whom? That is a National Academy of Science publication, not some idiotic blog by an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. You might also note that there are a number of other names on that study. Names with powerful academic credentials behind them.
A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.
A blog from a known liar with zero scientfic credentials or credibility.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Oh of course HockeyShtick 2.0... I prefer to browse the unadulterated ORIGINAL proxy studies that show GREATER warming in spots all over the world during the Med Warm Period.. That's what the data is good for..
When you decide to try to reconstruct a "global or hemispheric" AVERAGE from a collection of tree rings, ice cores, and mud bug borrows --- the results are pretty silly. And you are DESPARATE to win public opinion and get your face into the news.. Just like the lead author of that paper..
You folks are all the time going on about getting your hands on the "original data". For a group whose central meme is that GW is the result of UHI, the idea that raw data is the most accurate is an odd one.
Were the raw ARGOS data the most accurate? No.
Were the raw satellite data (pick damn near any satellite you want) the most accurate? No.
Were the raw HCN data the most accurate? No.
Were the raw XBT data the most accurate? No.
Pray tell, what hard, objective evidence do you have that these ORIGINAL DATA you're always pining for will give you more accurate results?
A blog from a known liar with zero scientfic credentials or credibility.
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
Mann08 used both stripbark treering proxies and the infamous upsidedown Tiljander cores. there is no hockeystick without one or the other. without both the validity ends at ~1650. 350 years is not two millenia.
but you knew this already and you have even seen the Gavin Schmidt quote admitting this because I have shown it to you.
why do you support junk science, and continue to link to it after it has been repudiated?
Repudiated by whom? That is a National Academy of Science publication, not some idiotic blog by an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. You might also note that there are a number of other names on that study. Names with powerful academic credentials behind them.
Really?
In a 2004 Technology Review article,[9] Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium, on the grounds that it did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA).[10] In the article, Richard Muller stated:
McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions." Muller's statements were widely quoted on skeptical blogs, and his status as a believer in global warming made his criticism of the "hockey stick" particularly damaging. In response, Mann criticized Muller on his blog RealClimate.[11] Marcel Crok, a reporter for the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, later did a story on the incident.[12]
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?[9]
A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.
RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small upticks or downticks in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
And they call me a denier
And they're right.
But then I've always called you an extremely retarded denier, which is a bit more accurate.
A classic symptom of that extreme retardation would be your obvious inability to comprehend the difference between a cold day in your backyard and global climate.
One of these days I will meet someone that knows at least as much about science in general as I do
A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.
You're really not getting much from your Geology classes are you?
What is the time resolution of proxies studies going back more than a couple hundred years?
Here... Let Marcott, the author of recent "global proxy study" help you out here...
RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.
Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
So any warmer claiming they know ANYTHING about MAGNITUDES or RATES that are comparable to the Common Era warming ---- they're just peeing down their own leg..
The current weather at your location does not prove or disapprove "global warming".
The current weather at your location does not prove or disapprove "global warming".
Neither does your post.
It is the trend over decades that matters when it comes to global climate.
A temperature spike like that we have experiance since 1850 would show up loud and clear. In everything from seabottom sediments to glacial ice.
hahaha. sure, like the proxy records that had to be amputated from the record in Mann98. or dont you remember 'hide the decline'?
Rock it by me baby and tell me why I should fucking care.
