MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[ding]

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

 

[westwall]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You can't remember shit!

I QUOTED Marcott own words and posted it over a DOZEN times and here you are asking for a link...... again!



Here it is again!

Post 59 and just 10 weeks ago.




"You as usual didn't bother to read Bobs SOURCE link where it shows what Marcott himself states about that uptick:

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

===

Marcott's ORIGINAL chart:

View attachment 645895

===

3 1/2 years ago YOU saw this at Post 21.

Marcott ADMITTED that the Instrumental part of his chart is NO GOOD!

Shakun's paper is junk science since he did some serious statistical malpractice as shown in detail HERE and failed to be honest about the CO2 data as shown HERE.

Number of citations are irrelevant, reproducibility with full data access is.

=====

and Post 65 you saw 9 weeks ago,

"The Shakun paper has been exposed as nonsense, in a series of 4 posts here is the last one of the four:

Shakun The Last, I Hope​

"In three previous posts here, here, and here, I discussed problems with the paper by Shakun et al., “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” (PDF, hereinafter S2012)"

===

Post 32 3 1/2 years ago YOU saw this,


"This is why you are so gosh darn ignorant!

You didn't even try to see what Willis exposed with the CO2 deception and the temperature proxy data that was all over the map. It was played out in his 4 postings using Shakun's own data and additional data, Shakun deliberately left out. Since you continue to refuse to see what he presents, you have no idea what he exposed, which is why you are a fool for being so closeminded.

Here is a key part in why Willis effectively destroyed the Shakun paper:

"Today I was thinking about that single record that they used for the CO2 changes. I got to wondering what other ice core CO2 records might show about the change in CO2. So I went and downloaded every ice core CO2 record that I could find that covered the time period 26,000 BC to modern times. I found a number of ice core records that cover the period.

Then I collated all of them in Excel, saved them as a CSV file, opened the file in R, and plotted every ice core CO2 record that covered the record from 26,000 BC up to the present. I standardized them over the same period covered by the Shakun2012 CO2 data. There was excellent agreement between the Shakun2012 data and the ice core records I had downloaded … but there was also a surprise.

Figure 2 shows the surprise …



Figure 2. As in Figure 1. Black circles show Shakun2012 CO2. Additional colored dots show the ice core CO2 records which have data from 26,000 BC to the present.

Dang, I didn’t expect that rise in CO2 that started about 6,000 BC. I do love climate science, it always surprises me … but the big surprise was not what the ice core records showed. It was what the Shakun2012 authors didn’t show.

I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …

I leave the readers to consider the fact that for most of the Holocene, eight centuries millennia or so, half a dozen different ice core records say that CO2 levels were rising pretty fast by geological standards … and despite that, the temperatures have been dropping over the last eight millennia …"

Meanwhile your education and Authority fallacy is a truly stupid argument to make since it doesn't prove anything. It is all about the efficacy of the argument that matters, which you are losing very badly here since you REFUSE to see the valid criticism laid against DR. Shakun's garbage paper. I am sure you will ignore DR. Easterbrook's TWO PART review of the Shakun paper since he finds serious problems with it.

HERE

HERE

Your deflection has failed since you NEVER have answered several questions I posed for you, that Polar Bears are NOT in decline even with that significant drop in ice cover extent. That you ignore research showing that Polar Bears get most of their calories for the year from March-July when there are ALWAYS sufficient sea ice cover. You keep ignoring published research of little to NO sea ice cover in the Summer for centuries, while Polar Bears and Eskimos survived and the world was not devasated.

You make clear you prefer far into the future models over valid research and ignore inconvenient research that destroys your warmist/alarmist claims."

===

You can't remember shit and you never address what I posted either just ignore or deny it.

You are one of the few warmist/alarmist idiots left who continues use those long discredited papers today.

His memory is fine. His honesty is non existant.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're beginning to make me think you have no interest in actual debate.

View attachment 645494

This data is inconsistent with the ice core data ... do you have an explanation? ...

For t = -20,000, temperature was 8ºC below the 1900-2000 average ... and for t = -8,000, temperature was 4ºC above ... you should source your graphs ... otherwise it looks like you're lying ...

You don't like being called a liar ... now do you? ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

His memory is fine. His honesty is non existant.

Maybe so but I quoted what Marcott said about a dozen times to keep correcting that jackass!

 

[westwall]

Maybe so but I quoted what Marcott said about a dozen times to keep correcting that jackass!

That's why I said he is intellectually dishonest.

 

[ding]

That's why I said he is intellectually dishonest.

Without being all that intellectual.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This data is inconsistent with the ice core data ... do you have an explanation? ...

For t = -20,000, temperature was 8ºC below the 1900-2000 average ... and for t = -8,000, temperature was 4ºC above ... you should source your graphs ... otherwise it looks like you're lying ...

You don't like being called a liar ... now do you? ...

The chart is based on two discredited papers which is why it is wrong.

 

[Orangecat]

It's a beautifully warm day today. I'd like to personally thank anyone who has contributed to global warming.

 

[Papageorgio]

Man, what beating crick has taken. I haven't seen a beatin' like that since somebody stuck a banana in my pants and turned a monkey loose.

 

[Crick]

This data is inconsistent with the ice core data ... do you have an explanation? ...

For t = -20,000, temperature was 8ºC below the 1900-2000 average ... and for t = -8,000, temperature was 4ºC above ... you should source your graphs ... otherwise it looks like you're lying ...

You don't like being called a liar ... now do you? ...

Are you actually unfamiliar with the work of Marcotte and Shakun? Little hint: it's not ice core data. Pardon me for failing to provide a source, but I've posted the exact same data four times in the last three days and I assumed everyone knew what it was. I guess I was wrong. For this particular graphic: Skeptical Science Search Results. The data come from http://www.antarcticglacier.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/ and http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.tS+dSST.txt. The original Marcott paper behind a paywall is at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026

And, I don't lie. I certainly make mistakes now and then but I do not intentionally tell a falsehood; which seems to be precisely what you're doing now. You know exactly how Marcott and Shakun produced their data and you know there is no reason whatsoever to expect it to match up with ice core data.

 

[ReinyDays]

Are you actually unfamiliar with the work of Marcotte and Shakun? Little hint: it's not ice core data. Pardon me for failing to provide a source, but I've posted the exact same data four times in the last three days and I assumed everyone knew what it was. I guess I was wrong. For this particular graphic: Skeptical Science Search Results. The data come from http://www.antarcticglacier.org/glaciers-and-climate/climate-change/ and http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.tS+dSST.txt. The original Marcott paper behind a paywall is at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026

And, I don't lie. I certainly make mistakes now and then but I do not intentionally tell a falsehood; which seems to be precisely what you're doing now. You know exactly how Marcott and Shakun produced their data and you know there is no reason whatsoever to expect it to match up with ice core data.

I'm not on the internet as much during warm weather ... do you think I'm stalking you such that I know everything you post? ... you think way too much of yourself ...

Why does Marcotte and Shakun reject the ice core data? ... more important, why do you reject the ice core data? ... I'm sorry ... you intentionally lie by "omitting" this information ...

It's called a "lie of omission" ... and liars use this all the time ... and Skeptical Science is one of the worst websites for this ... all the proxies line up with the ice, not your Marcotte ... and Antarctic Glacier is a dead link ... try again ...

 

[Crick]

I'm not on the internet as much during warm weather ... do you think I'm stalking you such that I know everything you post? ... you think way too much of yourself ...

Why does Marcotte and Shakun reject the ice core data? ... more important, why do you reject the ice core data? ... I'm sorry ... you intentionally lie by "omitting" this information ...

It's called a "lie of omission" ... and liars use this all the time ... and Skeptical Science is one of the worst websites for this ... all the proxies line up with the ice, not your Marcotte ... and Antarctic Glacier is a dead link ... try again ...

Marcott and Shakun do not reject the ice core data. Man, you need to get your thinking cap on. Ice core data records the temperature at the geographical location at which the ice accumulated, not the planet as a whole. Greenland ice cores, for instance, are notorious for deviating from global data. Marcott and Shakun compiled temperature proxy data from all over the planet. That data is global temperature. That's why it doesn't match ice core numbers.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Marcott and Shakun do not reject the ice core data. Man, you need to get your thinking cap on. Ice core data records the temperature at the geographical location at which the ice accumulated, not the planet as a whole. Greenland ice cores, for instance, are notorious for deviating from global data. Marcott and Shakun compiled temperature proxy data from all over the planet. That data is global temperature. That's why it doesn't match ice core numbers.

You never read the papers or the valid well supported criticisms against them.

Marcott specifically stated which you will ignore for the 20th time:

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

LINK

bolding mine

=====

You should stop LYING!

 

[westwall]

You never read the papers or the valid well supported criticisms against them.

Marcott specifically stated which you will ignore for the 20th time:

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

LINK

bolding mine

=====

You should stop LYING!

That's like asking a bear to stop pooping in the woods.

 

[Crick]

You never read the papers or the valid well supported criticisms against them.

Marcott specifically stated which you will ignore for the 20th time:

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

LINK

bolding mine

=====

You should stop LYING!

The data I posted is clearly identified in a simple legend: temperatures beyond the end of their proxy data come from HadCrut and a model. It goes to the year 2100 for Christ's sake. Do you think I was trying to claim they had proxy data to the year 2100? Stop being such a stupid ass.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The data I posted is clearly identified in a simple legend: temperatures beyond the end of their proxy data come from HadCrut and a model. It goes to the year 2100 for Christ's sake. Do you think I was trying to claim they had proxy data to the year 2100? Stop being such a stupid ass.

The chart you keep posting is a FRAUD you idiot!

They graft a high-resolution temperature data set onto a low-resolution proxy data set that is why it is junk!

Your desperate backtrack is too late since you know perfectly well why I keep telling you that chart is JUNK!

 

[westwall]

The data I posted is clearly identified in a simple legend: temperatures beyond the end of their proxy data come from HadCrut and a model. It goes to the year 2100 for Christ's sake. Do you think I was trying to claim they had proxy data to the year 2100? Stop being such a stupid ass.

You have posted NO data. You posted up a fraudulent chart. YOU have been walked through why it is fraudulent, yet here you are posting the crap up again.

Why?

Why do you insist on posting things up that are known to be fraudulent?

 

[Sunsettommy]

You have posted NO data. You posted up a fraudulent chart. YOU have been walked through why it is fraudulent, yet here you are posting the crap up again.

Why?

Why do you insist on posting things up that are known to be fraudulent?

That's like asking a bear to stop pooping in the woods.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you insist on posting things up that are known to be fraudulent?

He does it for the children.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He does it for the children.

Good god! I hope he didn't spawn vegetables on the world.