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.
^^^^^ this what ignorant and stupidity look like when mixed in an alarmist. They don't know even the basics of the problem but will gladly spout deception as fact.Never underestimate the stupidity of the deniers. That is their specialty. The fact that they are still arguing the Mann graph after it has been verified multiple times demonstrates their basic dishonesty and idiocy.
Some of the graphs I posted cover 1,000 years, so any argument about 200 years is just a diversion.
Here is a 1,000 year graph with a 50 year smoothing plot.
Your mixing differing context again. Spatial and temporal resolutions of different proxies make your 50 year smoothed incomparable. Yet here it is again...Some of the graphs I posted cover 1,000 years, so any argument about 200 years is just a diversion.1800 to 2019 is 1,219 years, and using a 100 year plot there should have been 12 data points.HA HA HA,Sure, a 100 year plot on a 40 year graph, and you deniers say I'm dumb!!!!!
you just make clear you have no idea what the last chart showed. It is plotted from 1800 to 2019, with negligible change in the resolution at the left edge. There is a reason why it has only ONE data point left on it, you are way over your head on this.
You are looking VERY ignorant right now!
It is YOU who is DUMB!
Just admit it you are a premeditated liar or you are too stupid to do simple arithmetic.
1800 to 2019 is only 218 + years.
You have yet to realize that resolution goes DOWN with each successive chart in his link, it make that clear on left edge of the chart.
Think man, THINK!
Here is a 1,000 year graph with a 50 year smoothing plot.
Multiproxy reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature variations over the past millennium (blue), along with 50-year average (black), a measure of the statistical uncertainty associated with the reconstruction (gray), and instrumental surface temperature data for the last 150 years (red)
GISP2 Greenland Ice Core Data, RBAlley (2000) by OldNick_nor, on Flickr
Of course it won't show the hockey stick, it stops at 1905.Here's a HIGH resolution ice core sample from Greenland that covers most of the hockey stick period. NOTE the Roman warm period is there, as is the MedWarm period and the Little Ice Age. Doesn't look ANYTHING like the GLOBAL hockey sticks but yet it recorded events WE KNOW HAPPENED.
Of course it won't show the hockey stick, it stops at 1905.
But the problem remains in most all of the current studies. Its as if this behavior was deemed "acceptable" even when it is shown deceptive and contrary to the scientific context. And here is where we are today. Every single paper alarmist claim are good science commit this fraud.That was "the trick" the Cabal got caught doing in the ClimateGate emails. They did not LIKE the proxy results for the modern era --- so they decided to just cut/paste the modern instrumentation record ONTO their proxy studies. That's the dishonesty and scam here.
LIAR!That was "the trick" the Cabal got caught doing in the ClimateGate emails. They did not LIKE the proxy results for the modern era --- so they decided to just cut/paste the modern instrumentation record ONTO their proxy studies. That's the dishonesty and scam here.
But the problem remains in most all of the current studies. Its as if this behavior was deemed "acceptable" even when it is shown deceptive and contrary to the scientific context. And here is where we are today. Every single paper alarmist claim are good science commit this fraud.That was "the trick" the Cabal got caught doing in the ClimateGate emails. They did not LIKE the proxy results for the modern era --- so they decided to just cut/paste the modern instrumentation record ONTO their proxy studies. That's the dishonesty and scam here.
he full quotation from Jones’s e-mail was, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Your lie was explained to you in the part you edited out, so you know you are lying by what you edited out and can't pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.he full quotation from Jones’s e-mail was, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Hey DUDE !! That quote is EXACTLY what I just told you that they did. And it's designed to mislead the public and to allow them to jump to conclusions that are NOT PROVEN by the ACTUAL proxy data itself.
There WAS NO ACCURATE proxy data for the last 50 or 100 years. And in several studies, their PROCESSED proxy data for the modern era showed a decline. So instead of publishing what they got or LOPPING off the right side at 1940 or so -- They just COVERED the PROXY DATA DECLINE with modern error instrumentation records.
Have you never understood what "hiding the decline" meant????
REAL science would never splice two PROFOUNDLY different sets of data like that without EXPLAINING the fundamental parametric differences in the 2 sets.
Paleoclimatic records show that the Greenland Ice Sheet consistently has lost mass in response to warming, and grown in response to cooling. Such changes have occurred even at times of slow or zero sea-level change, so changing sea level cannot have been the cause of at least some of the ice-sheet changes. In contrast, there are no documented major ice-sheet changes that occurred independent of temperature changes. Moreover, snowfall has increased when the climate warmed, but the ice sheet lost mass nonetheless; increased accumulation in the ice sheet's center has not been sufficient to counteract increased melting and flow near the edges. Most documented forcings and ice-sheet responses spanned periods of several thousand years, but limited data also show rapid response to rapid forcings. In particular, regions near the ice margin have responded within decades. However, major changes of central regions of the ice sheet are thought to require centuries to millennia. The paleoclimatic record does not yet strongly constrain how rapidly a major shrinkage or nearly complete loss of the ice sheet could occur. The evidence suggests nearly total ice-sheet loss may result from warming of more than a few degrees above mean 20th century values, but this threshold is poorly defined (perhaps as little as 2 C or more than 7 C). Paleoclimatic records are sufficiently sketchy that the ice sheet may have grown temporarily in response to warming, or changes may have been induced by factors other than temperature, without having been recorded.An Antarctic ice core for example has a realistic time resolution limit of 140 yrs no matter how thin you slice the core or what tricks you use. OTH -- Ice cores from Greenland can be sliced thin enough (if you have enough time and money) to get about 80 years limiting resolution.
This is because Antarctica is a desert. Very slow ice building. While Greenland is many times as rapid. So there might 8 times more YEARS per slice in a Vostok core than a Greenland per centimeter.
Here's a HIGH resolution ice core sample from Greenland that covers most of the hockey stick period. NOTE the Roman warm period is there, as is the MedWarm period and the Little Ice Age. Doesn't look ANYTHING like the GLOBAL hockey sticks but yet it recorded events WE KNOW HAPPENED.
Yes, major changes in Greenland. As we are seeing right now, a little warming in the temperate zones equals a major warming in the Arctic. So, yes, the ice core is telling us a tale, but it is a local tale.Proxy above DOES show major events with RAPID rates of change and swings of OVER a degC per century even with the reduced time resolution of the proxy.
YOU CAN find deductions on ancient climate from individual proxies like this. You can't do it when you merge so many bad and sketchy data sample from all over the world...
No, that's what it looks like when you simply photoshop the real graph!This is what it should (approximately) look like, properly pointed at 250 year resolution.
View attachment 190193
Edits in yellow highlight are mine
How do you readings accurate to a tenth of a degree on a data set that's 1,000 years old?
Paleoclimatic records show that the Greenland Ice Sheet consistently has lost mass in response to warming, and grown in response to cooling. Such changes have occurred even at times of slow or zero sea-level change, so changing sea level cannot have been the cause of at least some of the ice-sheet changes. In contrast, there are no documented major ice-sheet changes that occurred independent of temperature changes. Moreover, snowfall has increased when the climate warmed, but the ice sheet lost mass nonetheless; increased accumulation in the ice sheet's center has not been sufficient to counteract increased melting and flow near the edges. Most documented forcings and ice-sheet responses spanned periods of several thousand years, but limited data also show rapid response to rapid forcings. In particular, regions near the ice margin have responded within decades. However, major changes of central regions of the ice sheet are thought to require centuries to millennia. The paleoclimatic record does not yet strongly constrain how rapidly a major shrinkage or nearly complete loss of the ice sheet could occur. The evidence suggests nearly total ice-sheet loss may result from warming of more than a few degrees above mean 20th century values, but this threshold is poorly defined (perhaps as little as 2 C or more than 7 C). Paleoclimatic records are sufficiently sketchy that the ice sheet may have grown temporarily in response to warming, or changes may have been induced by factors other than temperature, without having been recorded.An Antarctic ice core for example has a realistic time resolution limit of 140 yrs no matter how thin you slice the core or what tricks you use. OTH -- Ice cores from Greenland can be sliced thin enough (if you have enough time and money) to get about 80 years limiting resolution.
This is because Antarctica is a desert. Very slow ice building. While Greenland is many times as rapid. So there might 8 times more YEARS per slice in a Vostok core than a Greenland per centimeter.
Here's a HIGH resolution ice core sample from Greenland that covers most of the hockey stick period. NOTE the Roman warm period is there, as is the MedWarm period and the Little Ice Age. Doesn't look ANYTHING like the GLOBAL hockey sticks but yet it recorded events WE KNOW HAPPENED.
https://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/jbg/Pubs/AlleyetalQSR2010Greenl.pdf
Richard Alley’s name has been thrown around a bit by bloggers asserting that ice-core records from Greenland show that carbon dioxide has scant, if any, influence on climate. Dr. Alley, a glaciologist and climate scientist at Penn State, is a longtime contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, author of a nice history of ice and climate, “The Two-Mile Time Machine,” and — as many Dot Earth readers are aware — a teacher with musical and terpsichorean talents (see the YouTube video below for his orbital dance explaining how ice-age cycles help show the amplifying power of greenhouse gases).
Reality Check on Old Ice, Climate and CO2
Above is Dr. Alley's research and opinion on the affect of the present increase in CO2 by humans, and how it is warming the Earth.
Yes, major changes in Greenland. As we are seeing right now, a little warming in the temperate zones equals a major warming in the Arctic. So, yes, the ice core is telling us a tale, but it is a local tale.Proxy above DOES show major events with RAPID rates of change and swings of OVER a degC per century even with the reduced time resolution of the proxy.
YOU CAN find deductions on ancient climate from individual proxies like this. You can't do it when you merge so many bad and sketchy data sample from all over the world...
Your lie was explained to you in the part you edited out, so you know you are lying by what you edited out and can't pretend to be too stupid to know you are lying.he full quotation from Jones’s e-mail was, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Hey DUDE !! That quote is EXACTLY what I just told you that they did. And it's designed to mislead the public and to allow them to jump to conclusions that are NOT PROVEN by the ACTUAL proxy data itself.
There WAS NO ACCURATE proxy data for the last 50 or 100 years. And in several studies, their PROCESSED proxy data for the modern era showed a decline. So instead of publishing what they got or LOPPING off the right side at 1940 or so -- They just COVERED the PROXY DATA DECLINE with modern error instrumentation records.
Have you never understood what "hiding the decline" meant????
REAL science would never splice two PROFOUNDLY different sets of data like that without EXPLAINING the fundamental parametric differences in the 2 sets.
