Arctic GISS Temps

still no response to why your heroes Mann and Jones used funky methods and faulty data to make exaggerated claims of warming in the arctic Old Rocks?


Im still waiting for your response to being shown that Mann and Jones used faulty data and made schoolboy mathematical mistakes to craft a paper thats sole pupose was to make a 'one in a million' claim. is it OK to you that these charlatans make these types of mistakes over and over again?
 
The United States Academy of Sciences reviewed the Mann paper. They found that there were errors in methods. They used their own methods, and came up with nearly the same graph as Mann. Perhaps you wish to state that the Academy of Sciences is also populated by incompetants?

Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature

Do you ever actually investigate these inquiries or do you just suck on the teat at Real Climate? Damage control is a wonderful thing when you can control the media. It never seems to matter to you that these papers are shown to be totally fucked up, and when caught out, the climate science community scraps up something that looks sorta close and then says it doesnt matter because we 'improved it'.


How do you justify Mann and Jones using those bad methodologies and bad data to make that sensationalistic report for Sveldsbard (sp)?
 
This is not in the least surprising and just goes to show you how incredibly stupid and inept governments typically are at anything but providing security.
 
The United States Academy of Sciences reviewed the Mann paper. They found that there were errors in methods. They used their own methods, and came up with nearly the same graph as Mann. Perhaps you wish to state that the Academy of Sciences is also populated by incompetants?

Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature

Perhaps you can provide the context of their opinion as most of us cannot access that site without registering? And I did note this subtitle that you sort of left off your headline there:
But it criticizes the way the controversial climate result was used.\

I will also point out that your article was dated 2006 when the Hockey Stick theory was all the chatter on the boards, but it has been pretty well debunked since then. The IPCC isn't even using it as an illustration anymore.

I did see the following brief composite of scientific opinion re climate change over the years. I didn't take time to access every link but you can find all the links at Redstate today here:
The Climes They Are A-Changin’ | RedState


1977, a Year of Weather Extremes,
Causing Concern Among Experts

By JAMES P. STERBA Special to The New York Times July 14, 1977
HOUSTON, July 13 The year began with a blizzard of superlatives: It was among the coldest winters in history in the East, the driest in the West. People froze in New York, tomatoes glaciated in Florida, streams ran dry in Oregon and bears sweated in Alaska in January.

[This was the summer before the record cold winter of 1977-78. - Ed.]


Experts Fear Great Peril If SST Fumes Cool Earth
By WALTER SULLIVAN December 21, 1975,
A federally sponsored inquiry into the effects of possible climate changes caused by heavy supersonic traffic in the stratosphere has concluded that even a slight cooling could cost the world from $200 billion to 500 times that much in damage done to agriculture, public health and other effects.


Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing - Major Cooling May Be Ahead
By WALTER SULLIVAN May 21, 1975
The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.


Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output
By HAROLD M. SCHMECK Jr. August 08, 1974
Scientists View Global Climate Changes as Threat to World’s Food Output; Soviet Estimate Rises New Pattern Emerging; 7th Year of Draught Problems in Iowa; Benefits of Technology


Worrying About a New Ice Age
WALTER SULLIVAN February 23, 1969
For the past few hundred thousand years the climate of the earth has oscillated enough to produce a succession of frigid ice ages and warm interglacial periods. It has generally been assumed that these climate changes were gradual, but new theories that they occur with devastating suddenness are now being tested.

[... and there's this, also by Walter Sullivan, three days previous. - Ed.]

Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be an Open Sea -
Catastrophic Shifts in Climate Feared if Change Occurs; Other Specialists See No Thinning of Polar Ice CapBy WALTER SULLIVAN February 20, 1969
Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.


SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER;But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change
By WALTER SULLIVAN January 30, 1961
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.

[What do you call it when "scientists agree"? Oh, yeah ... a consensus! - Ed.]


Winters Since ‘40 Found Colder In Studies by Weather Bureau;
Data Indicate, a Reversal of a Warming Trend That Began in 1888

By WALTER SULLIVAN. January 25, 1961
Winters throughout the world have been getting steadily colder since 1940, according to a study carried out by the United States Weather Bureau.

ICE IN ANTARCTIC REPORTED ON RISE; Sheet Growing at Rate of 293 Cubic Miles Yearly, Soviet Expert Says; I.G.Y. DATA DISCLOSED; Hoarfrost Is Said to Fall the Year Around in Heart of Polar Continent; ICE IN ANTARCTIC IS FOUND PILING UP
By WALTER SULLIVAN Special to The New York Times. August 04, 1960
HELSINKI, Finland, Aug. 3 — The immense mass of Antarctic ice is growing at the rate of about 293 cubic miles a year, a Soviet glaciologist estimates.

["I.G.Y." was the International Geophysical Year. - ed.]


CLIMATE WARMING IN THE ANTARCTIC5-Degree Rise Over the Last Half Century Is Recorded at Little America; ICE IS FOUND THICKER; Director of U. S. Program Says Sheet Drops 10,000 Feet in Many Areas
By WALTER SULLIVAN May 31, 1958,
An analysis of weather records from Little America shows a steady warming of climate over the last half century. The rise in average temperature at the Antarctic outpost has been about five degrees Fahrenheit.


Carbon Dioxide Due to Change Climate
The New York Times, June 1956
Why Earth Warms;
Scientist Blames Man-Made Changes on Earth’s Surface

NY Times, September 25, 1955Dr. John G. Hutton of the General Electric Company’s engineering laboratory in Schenectady, N.Y., told the Cleveland section of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers last week that the man-made increase in the belt of carbon dioxide around the earth may be “having a greenhouse effect on our climate.”


50-YEAR FORECASTS TIED TO SUN’S HEATAstrophysicist Says There Is Definite Link Between Solar Radiation and Weather
Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES. August 16, 1953
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — A farmer or a resort owner may some day be able to look at a chart and accurately determine certain general weather trends that will tell him years in advance about when there will be rain and about when there will be drought.


Is Climate Changing?; Habits of Mammals and Birds Suggest World Is Warmer


October 15, 1950Is the world warming up? Dr. Joseph J. Hickey, Professor of Wildlife Management at the
University of Wisconsin, holds that it is. He has drawn his evidence from the changing habits of some half-dozen species of mammals …


EXPERTS DO NOT BLAME RADIO FOR RAIN AND CHILLY SPRINGWeather Man Disagrees With Theory of Paul Painleve — Says Radio Cannot Control Elements — Sun Spots Responsible

The New York Times, June 1926AMERICAN radio men and weather forecasters do not agree with Paul Painleve, the French Minister of War, that radio waves are responsible for the rainy, chilly weather that has persisted this Spring. The Minister of War called attention to the fact that the introduction of radio waves into a tightly closed room where the air is absolutely transparent cause little drops of water to form on the faces of those in the room.

[Editor's note: This observation predated the formation of the Black Eyed Peas by some 80 years.]


CHANGE IN CLIMATE KILLING PARK TREES;There Has Been a Decided Decrease in Rainfall and Humidity Here in Five Years.HAVOC IN CENTRAL PARK Record Cold Killed 4,000, but Poor Soil Is Chief Cause of Loss–Suggestions for Restoration.

The New York Times, November 9, 1919New York’s climate has changed considerably in the last twenty years, and that is one of the reasons for the wholesale death of trees in Central Park, according to Charles Lathrop Pack, President of the American Forestry Association, who has written in the current issue of American Forestry an extended review of the causes of tree failure in Central Park, …


THE CLIMATE OF AUSTRALIA; IT IS ONE OF SUDDEN AND VIOLENT CHANGES.NY Times May 21, 1893
With and Bad Drainage of Melbourne — Sydney and Auckland Remarkable for the Severity of Rains — Queensland and New South Wales Have Ideal Winters — Tasmania Has the Healthiest of Climates — Easy of Access to Invalids — Air Good for Consumptives.


IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING?
The New York Times, February 3, 1889
An article in the Forum for February is upon the subject of the much-talked-of change in our climate. The writer, Prof. CLEVELAND ABBE, says that the notion that it is possible for a climate to change to a modern one. Our ancestors lived in a region …


Is Climate Changing?
NY Times, March 25, 1888
Formerly wine was made in England, the change of climate might be the principal reason that this manufacture does not now flourish. There are, however, many reasons why British wine does not command a market at present. At the best it must have been sorry stuff;
 
what?!? climate has always been changing and people have always predicted doom? what a surprise!
 
what?!? climate has always been changing and people have always predicted doom? what a surprise!

Yep, but there have always been differences of opinion re what changes were actually occurring as well as what was causing the changes going back at least as far as those old clippings that date back more than a 100 years. We have only had satellite imaging of the Arctic and other remote areas for a little over 30 years now. Record keeping has been sketchy and localized and also recorded for a relatively short period on Planet Earth, but nevertheless year after year after year record cold and record heat is reported somewhere on the planet on almost any given day. With so many 'records' being reported at such regular intervals, we should at least consider that a few decades of recorded trends doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in the grand scheme of things.

And evenmoreso, who is so naive to think there is no profit motive in attributing to AGW every anomaly that occurs on the planet these days?

Warmer than usual? Global warming.
Colder than usual? Global warming.
More rain? Global warming.
Less rain? Global warming.
More tornadoes? Global warming.
Fewer tornadoes? Global warming.
More hurricanes? Global warming.
Fewer hurricanes? Global warming.

And nobody seems to be able to explain why there has been no significant increase in average mean Earth temperatures in the last ten years despite the fact that greenhouse gasses have increased substantially? Perhaps it is time to start rethinking some of this stuff? Or at least paying attention to those scientists who have?
 
The United States Academy of Sciences reviewed the Mann paper. They found that there were errors in methods. They used their own methods, and came up with nearly the same graph as Mann. Perhaps you wish to state that the Academy of Sciences is also populated by incompetants?

Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature

Do you ever actually investigate these inquiries or do you just suck on the teat at Real Climate? Damage control is a wonderful thing when you can control the media. It never seems to matter to you that these papers are shown to be totally fucked up, and when caught out, the climate science community scraps up something that looks sorta close and then says it doesnt matter because we 'improved it'.


How do you justify Mann and Jones using those bad methodologies and bad data to make that sensationalistic report for Sveldsbard (sp)?


Old Rocks- I really would like to know if you approve of Mann and Jones misuse of methods and data. they are supposedly top of their field, so do you think their obviously sophomoric mistakes were done on purpose to exaggerate their results or do you think they really are so bad at their occupation that they honestly made the mistakes? or is there some other excuse that you think is more reasonable?
 
The United States Academy of Sciences reviewed the Mann paper. They found that there were errors in methods. They used their own methods, and came up with nearly the same graph as Mann. Perhaps you wish to state that the Academy of Sciences is also populated by incompetants?

Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature

Do you ever actually investigate these inquiries or do you just suck on the teat at Real Climate? Damage control is a wonderful thing when you can control the media. It never seems to matter to you that these papers are shown to be totally fucked up, and when caught out, the climate science community scraps up something that looks sorta close and then says it doesnt matter because we 'improved it'.


How do you justify Mann and Jones using those bad methodologies and bad data to make that sensationalistic report for Sveldsbard (sp)?


Old Rocks- I really would like to know if you approve of Mann and Jones misuse of methods and data. they are supposedly top of their field, so do you think their obviously sophomoric mistakes were done on purpose to exaggerate their results or do you think they really are so bad at their occupation that they honestly made the mistakes? or is there some other excuse that you think is more reasonable?

Old Rocks- why wont you answer the question? it is obvious that you consider any opinion supporting AGW alarmism as important and righteous no matter the method used so why dont you just say so?
 
Do you ever actually investigate these inquiries or do you just suck on the teat at Real Climate? Damage control is a wonderful thing when you can control the media. It never seems to matter to you that these papers are shown to be totally fucked up, and when caught out, the climate science community scraps up something that looks sorta close and then says it doesnt matter because we 'improved it'.


How do you justify Mann and Jones using those bad methodologies and bad data to make that sensationalistic report for Sveldsbard (sp)?


Old Rocks- I really would like to know if you approve of Mann and Jones misuse of methods and data. they are supposedly top of their field, so do you think their obviously sophomoric mistakes were done on purpose to exaggerate their results or do you think they really are so bad at their occupation that they honestly made the mistakes? or is there some other excuse that you think is more reasonable?

Old Rocks- why wont you answer the question? it is obvious that you consider any opinion supporting AGW alarmism as important and righteous no matter the method used so why dont you just say so?

Don`t hold Your breath Ian, he won`t answer!..Like any organ grinder he leaves town and does his thing somewhere else!

He dodged all that too:
Andreas K Muenchow - Experts at University of Delaware - Experts@UD
test.png


And that:
Climate of the Arctic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
to produce a best estimate of the weather conditions over the entire globe during the last 50 years, filling in regions where no observations were made. These reanalysis datasets help compensate for the lack of observations over the Arctic.

And how the con artists got caught using all random data errors since 1980 only above zero line and before 1980 everything below the mean in their favor
temp_stock_anomaly.gif

..."by accident"...so they say now after having been grilled by the British Parliament if there was intentional fraud at work here.

Their excuse was , that this error was "within the margin of error" and was not intentional.
Lucky for them, they were investigated under the Anglo-Saxon legal system, where you remain innocent till proven guilty!

So they keep right on going:
Temperature Trends
Interactive Regression - Interactive regression allows the user to calculate the best fit for a user selected time span, in this case, 1950 - 2005. Stockholm has experienced an increase of 0.039oC per year increase since 1950, equivalent to 3.9 oC per century, a high temperature increase rate.
temp_stock_ann_trend.gif

0.039oC per year increase


See, this is how "climate science" works!...there is not a thermometer in the world that could measure Temperature that accurate!...The best one and the only one approved for temp measurement within +/- 1/100 deg C is the Beckman thermometer...else Your "study" is out the window right then and there.

"Climate science" does not need an atomic clock either, like the rest of us "stupid" scientists :
atomic-clock.jpg


They take 350 or so Timexes:
3054051156_c9a818fc88.jpg


and "average out" the 5 second +/- error, thus allowing them precision time measurement right down to a0.014285714285714285714285714285714 second accuracy
 
Last edited:
Flat Earth EnviroMarxists (aka: Warmers) take note of the following scientific formula

CCM%20V4.0%20Stick.jpg


+

17575_Michael_Mann_Tree.jpg


=/=

Real Science
 
The fact is there are a few fanatics on both sides of the debate. It's the hypocrisy within the debate that is so frustrating to those of us who want to know what the truth is about all the AGW/greenhouse gasses/climate change hysteria.

You can find articles in popular magazines and newspapers all over the world accusing the skeptics of error in past data and holding those errors up as evidence that the skeptics are not trustworthy today. Those same writers however don't hold the AGW proponents to the same standard and either ignore wrong conclusions in their past research or dismiss errors as inadvertent or unimportant.

And ditto the skeptic group. Some won't agree that there is some support for the pro AGW doctrines while promoting as gospel the opinions of the skeptics.

Evenso my own perception is that the skeptics have built the better argument thus far and for the most part have done so without prejudice or for personal profit. Some have done so at great personal cost as their fellows in the scientific community have dismissed them, marginalized them, and sometimes demonized them because they dare dissent from the politically correct opinions.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen a lot of scientific opinion supporting AGW by persons who did not stand to gain personaly or professionally with politically correct opinions.

So I still have not decided and want to learn and know more. I do lean to the skeptic side for reasons stated above. I want to know the truth as close as we can get it though before I consent to having my freedoms, options, choices, opportunities taken away, before I agree to additional blows to an already faltering economy, and before I agree to condemn hundreds of milllions of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are not able to exploit their own natural resources as we have already done.
 

Forum List

Back
Top