For Crick- New Pages2k Data Paper

[threegoofs]

On what do you base your charge that he is paid to be here?

Simple! Because he looks like an amateur compared to me!

The clowning was swift and complete!

 

[jc456]

Don't waste your time Ian. threeturds is a troll and will never be anything but a troll. I have shown him plenty of links that refute his propaganda and he ignores everything.

in other words he's a paid propagandist who is here to talk AT people. Not with people.

Again, thanks for noting my professional demeanor and skills. Glad it comes across so well.

The 'plenty of links' are vomitus from denier blogs. Not science. It's like someone showing me creationist links and telling me it disproves human evolution.

yep we're smart enough to see a professional troll hired in an effort to infect a forum. But, that won't happen here I can tell you that. Tactics are challenged here and your pure avoidance is classic troll.

 

[threegoofs]

Don't waste your time Ian. threeturds is a troll and will never be anything but a troll. I have shown him plenty of links that refute his propaganda and he ignores everything.

in other words he's a paid propagandist who is here to talk AT people. Not with people.

Again, thanks for noting my professional demeanor and skills. Glad it comes across so well.

The 'plenty of links' are vomitus from denier blogs. Not science. It's like someone showing me creationist links and telling me it disproves human evolution.

yep we're smart enough to see a professional troll hired in an effort to infect a forum. But, that won't happen here I can tell you that. Tactics are challenged here and your pure lack of avoidance is classic troll.

Thanks again. I know you must think rational argumentation must be done by a professional.

Are you jealous that you know no one would ever pay you for your irrational posting?

 

[jc456]

Don't waste your time Ian. threeturds is a troll and will never be anything but a troll. I have shown him plenty of links that refute his propaganda and he ignores everything.

in other words he's a paid propagandist who is here to talk AT people. Not with people.

Again, thanks for noting my professional demeanor and skills. Glad it comes across so well.

The 'plenty of links' are vomitus from denier blogs. Not science. It's like someone showing me creationist links and telling me it disproves human evolution.

yep we're smart enough to see a professional troll hired in an effort to infect a forum. But, that won't happen here I can tell you that. Tactics are challenged here and your pure lack of avoidance is classic troll.

Thanks again. I know you must think rational argumentation must be done by a professional.

Are you jealous that you know no one would ever pay you for your irrational posting?

never had the need to solicit it. I have a career. As such, learned how to rationalize and think for myself and promote myself so I could hold onto the job in the same company for 39 years. I was an electronic engineer in the telecommunication industry and now am a manager.

Identifying trolls is easy work, you have all the patterns. You're consistent with your omissions. Classic troll. Oh, and the PeeWeeisms is also classic.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Much like the AGWCult itself, once we cut their funding, you'd see the posters advocating for it almost totally disappear

 

[jc456]

Much like the AGWCult itself, once we cut their funding, you'd see the posters advocating for it almost totally disappear

exactly. As long as there is money there will be accusations of global warming. End the money, and the global warming lies will stop. Funny how scientists who aren't funded by government never claim global warming is real.

As well, you never see one scientist funded by government arguing against global warming. If there were defectors out of the 97%, that means that 100% of government funded scientists agree. Sorry that's irrational.

Has anyone done that list? Let's see the list of the 97% and where their money comes from. Are any not funded by government money?

 

[IanC]

Bump for Wuwei. I especially like post #82

 

[Wuwei]

Bump for Wuwei. I especially like post #82

Well I read it. It seemed to be a graph of the output of instruments that were apples, oranges, and bananas put together. What puzzles me is the factor of 2 difference between the old and new models. The authors cavalierly mention it in the figure caption but nowhere else. I couldn't find any discussion of why there was a difference. Or maybe I missed it, and maybe I don't understand exactly how they got there.

What I found amusing is their last paragraph:

Finally, it should be noted that whereas these analyses are useful for quantifying some aspects of temperature sensitivity, they are poorly suited to determine the extent to which the records reflect long-term (centuries to millennia) changes in past temperature, or the stability of the modern relation back through time.​

That paragraph seemed to say that the paper they authored is pointless, but maybe I'm being too harsh.

I did look at your second reference and of course I didn't realize the graph was inverted. Embarrassing. It is hard to see that they were dishonest. It seems more like an oversight. Sort of like the Mars lander that crashed because one contractor used the metric system and another used the english system of measurements.

 

[westwall]

Bump for Wuwei. I especially like post #82

Well I read it. It seemed to be a graph of the output of instruments that were apples, oranges, and bananas put together. What puzzles me is the factor of 2 difference between the old and new models. The authors cavalierly mention it in the figure caption but nowhere else. I couldn't find any discussion of why there was a difference. Or maybe I missed it, and maybe I don't understand exactly how they got there.

What I found amusing is their last paragraph:

Finally, it should be noted that whereas these analyses are useful for quantifying some aspects of temperature sensitivity, they are poorly suited to determine the extent to which the records reflect long-term (centuries to millennia) changes in past temperature, or the stability of the modern relation back through time.​

That paragraph seemed to say that the paper they authored is pointless, but maybe I'm being too harsh.

I did look at your second reference and of course I didn't realize the graph was inverted. Embarrassing. It is hard to see that they were dishonest. It seems more like an oversight. Sort of like the Mars lander that crashed because one contractor used the metric system and another used the english system of measurements.

They continued to use it even after the error was pointed out to them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hey crick- there has been lots more discussion over at Climate Audit on the type of proxies used in Pages2K, their strengths and weaknesses, the methodologies, and comparisons to other papers done in the field.

It strikes me as a bit cowardly on your part that you won't even read about what may be wrong. If nothing else you would at least find out what proxies are being used.

His cult leaders have told him he can not listen or look to learn.. They have marked these people as evil becasue they expose them for what they are. Anti-Science and political whores.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On what do you base your charge that he is paid to be here?

What else do you think the AGW cult spends all that government money on? It sure isn't lab work

 

[IanC]

to recap this thread-

PAGES2K is used by IPCC AR5 to show recent warming is greater than the MWP

only Arctic and Australia show higher recent values than MWP. europe is supposed to be the only place the MWP happened but doesnt show it. Australia is based on the flawed Gergis paper that was withdrawn. that leaves the Arctic.

Kaufman, under pressure, admits to using a proxy upsidedown, Hvitarvatn. here is his graph showing the difference.

the bottom graph shows both versions, both in degrees C, BUT WITH DIFFERENT SCALES!!!! what's up with that??? obfuscation much? there is a 0.5C increase in the MWP and a tenth or so decrease in the LIA.

while it is good to see a mistake fixed, there is another near identical proxy still being used upsidedown

Figure 1. Varve thickness (mm). Purple – Hvítárvatn from Miller et al 2012 Figure 2D; blue – Big Round Lake (NCDC sheet 7 column 4) 30-year running mean. Both shown on same mm scale

it makes you wonder why he just didnt fix them both at the same time. I think I may have found out why.

wow, no wonder! if Hvítárvatn is fixed, it only changes PAGES2K. if Big Round, Baffin Island is changed it alters 8 out of 10 of the recent northern multiproxy reconstructions.

I can image poor Kaufman must have had his arm in a cast from being twisted behind his back so that he didnt screw everyone else up by admitting the more important error.

 

[Billy_Bob]

to recap this thread-

PAGES2K is used by IPCC AR5 to show recent warming is greater than the MWP

only Arctic and Australia show higher recent values than MWP. europe is supposed to be the only place the MWP happened but doesnt show it. Australia is based on the flawed Gergis paper that was withdrawn. that leaves the Arctic.

Kaufman, under pressure, admits to using a proxy upsidedown, Hvitarvatn. here is his graph showing the difference.

the bottom graph shows both versions, both in degrees C, BUT WITH DIFFERENT SCALES!!!! what's up with that??? obfuscation much? there is a 0.5C increase in the MWP and a tenth or so decrease in the LIA.

while it is good to see a mistake fixed, there is another near identical proxy still being used upsidedown

Figure 1. Varve thickness (mm). Purple – Hvítárvatn from Miller et al 2012 Figure 2D; blue – Big Round Lake (NCDC sheet 7 column 4) 30-year running mean. Both shown on same mm scale

it makes you wonder why he just didnt fix them both at the same time. I think I may have found out why.

wow, no wonder! if Hvítárvatn is fixed, it only changes PAGES2K. if Big Round, Baffin Island is changed it alters 8 out of 10 of the recent northern multiproxy reconstructions.

I can image poor Kaufman must have had his arm in a cast from being twisted behind his back so that he didnt screw everyone else up by admitting the more important error.

This is why PAL REVIEW is such a failure. His paper was PAL REVIEWED and not critically PEER REVIEWED by a multidisciplinary team. This is why they hate McIntyre, he is part of a multidisciplinary team which looks at the correct usage of the numbers. He shows their twisting of the fact to support an agenda. He exposes their lies and ANTI-SCIENCE (political science).

If you use the reconstructs properly our warming today is not even close to the RWP or MEWP. That would lay their game waste.

 

[IanC]

to recap this thread-

PAGES2K is used by IPCC AR5 to show recent warming is greater than the MWP

only Arctic and Australia show higher recent values than MWP. europe is supposed to be the only place the MWP happened but doesnt show it. Australia is based on the flawed Gergis paper that was withdrawn. that leaves the Arctic.

Kaufman, under pressure, admits to using a proxy upsidedown, Hvitarvatn. here is his graph showing the difference.

the bottom graph shows both versions, both in degrees C, BUT WITH DIFFERENT SCALES!!!! what's up with that??? obfuscation much? there is a 0.5C increase in the MWP and a tenth or so decrease in the LIA.

while it is good to see a mistake fixed, there is another near identical proxy still being used upsidedown

Figure 1. Varve thickness (mm). Purple – Hvítárvatn from Miller et al 2012 Figure 2D; blue – Big Round Lake (NCDC sheet 7 column 4) 30-year running mean. Both shown on same mm scale

it makes you wonder why he just didnt fix them both at the same time. I think I may have found out why.

wow, no wonder! if Hvítárvatn is fixed, it only changes PAGES2K. if Big Round, Baffin Island is changed it alters 8 out of 10 of the recent northern multiproxy reconstructions.

I can image poor Kaufman must have had his arm in a cast from being twisted behind his back so that he didnt screw everyone else up by admitting the more important error.

This is why PAL REVIEW is such a failure. His paper was PAL REVIEWED and not critically PEER REVIEWED by a multidisciplinary team. This is why they hate McIntyre, he is part of a multidisciplinary team which looks at the correct usage of the numbers. He shows their twisting of the fact to support an agenda. He exposes their lies and ANTI-SCIENCE (political science).

If you use the reconstructs properly our warming today is not even close to the RWP or MEWP. That would lay their game waste.

I disagree with you. I think the warming in the MWP and RWP were very similar to the recent warming. we dont know what caused the previous warming cycles but we are being told that whatever caused them isnt causing the present one. ??? how does that make sense?

climate science is a soft science with very fuzzy boundaries. and proxies are even fuzzier than most of the other evidence. they are data mined for correlations. spurious good correlations are welcomed and given special treatment, poor ones are simply ignored. just how good is a proxy when one scientist uses it in one orientation but another scientist uses it flipped upsidedown? and these arent meaningless additions to the pool of proxies. they often contribute a large portion of the overall shape due to preferential weighting of outliers. eg the six sigma outlier YAD061 treering was used in a collection of less than two dozen trees that lived to the present. are you kidding me? not only is it statistically wrong to use outliers in small pools of data but.....why are they only using two dozen trees for present day values? we have been making trillion dollar decisions on one tree in two dozen. perhaps we should sample a few more?

actually there have been some updates to treering studies. in every case they clawback the hockeystick and add to the MWP and LIA. eg Briffa2012.

because of strident warnings from people like McIntyre, other proxies are no longer being used, or not being used upsidedown, or not being used with contaminated portions still contained.

for much of the last two decades climate scientists almost seemed like little children competing with each other to see how much bad behaviour they could get away with. one can only hope that the tide has, or will, turn.

 

[Crick]

Hockeystick graphs are being "clawed back"? This is in AR5

 

[IanC]

Hockeystick graphs are being "clawed back"? This is in AR5

Dude!!!! step up your game. youre too young to be as sclerotic and retarded as Old rocks!

one, you should be able to recognize that graph. it's from AR4, in defense of Mann's broken hockey stick. look at the dates on the studies.

two, I have discussed several of those studies, by showing how the updated version is exactly like I said, increased warmth in the MWP and decreased warmth in the LIA. dont you remember? or do you forget on purpose?

eg. the borehole studies

before Mann, using 6000 boreholes across all continents.

the seemingly made-to-order one to go into the spaghetti graph using ~500 boreholes

the latest version, when the authors decided they better correct their 'odd' version. using about 2500 boreholes, if I remember correctly, and incorporating recent temps in an peculiar fashion.

here are the three studies overlaid on each other for easy comparison.

should we bump the thread to see if you were there? or do you remember now?

boy, those proxies sure are precise and accurate huh? the results are almost exactly the same! /sarc off

 

[IanC]

Hey crick. So which one is right? Or are they all right?

Still think proxy reconstructions are all precise and accurate?

How many examples will it take before you admit to yourself that perhaps thing are not as certain as you would like to believe?

 

[Crick]

I have no recollection of you or anyone else posting Huang and Pollock. If you think it's important, please go dig them up and show my participation in the thread.

And then keep in mind that as you seem to forget, I put virtually no value in historical data as a means of diagnosing the causation of present warming. The absolute value of the changes we've already experienced and the changes that the most conservative of projections show we will likely undergo, are a threat that deserve our committed attention.

If you have some example of me, arguing for the accuracy and precision of proxy data, I'd like to see it pointed out. Otherwise, you seem to be going after a straw man.

 

[Crick]

Pages2K proxy data hockey stick vs MBH 98 and 99 and others

 

[jc456]

Hockeystick graphs are being "clawed back"? This is in AR5

that's impossible to be AR5 since they admitted a 15 year pause. Dude, holy crap can you read?
Judith Curry Climate, Etc.
"The IPCC draws the following conclusion:
In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend."