Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[SSDD]

The world's climate scientists, as reported in the IPCC's assessment reports, have amassed mountains of evidence that the globe is warming, that humans are responsible and that the threat is real, severe and imminent. The contentions of deniers are based on the assumption that almost every single one of the thousands of degreed scientists doing climate research around the world are either universally incompetent or all involved in a massive and perfectly maintained conspiracy to lie to the public in order to obtain research funding. No one of reasonable intelligence (say, 8th grade or above) can find such a contention reasonable. That almost every single denier is very conservative politically and hold strongly antagonistic feeling towards liberals, tells me that they are allowing their political biases to strongly influence whatever rational judgement they actually possess.

not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

and not a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the hypothetical warming supposedly caused by our activities has been empirically quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hello Ian. Long time no see.

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

• 
  
  
  • Eugene R. Wahl
  • Caspar M. Ammann

Article
First Online: 31 August 2007

• 
  
  
  • 70 Shares
    
  • 589 Downloads
    
  • 49 Citations

Abstract
The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05∘), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. Our results are also used to evaluate the separate criticism of reduced amplitude in the Mann et al. reconstructions over significant portions of 1400–1900, in relation to some other climate reconstructions and model-based examinations. We find that, from the perspective of the proxy data themselves, such losses probably exist, but they may be smaller than those reported in other recent work.

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

A paper that could not be published because if its inherent errors and massive conjecture... And your trying to use it as proof?

The only thing robust in that piece of fiction is the bull shit devoid of any scientific backing...

If you cant baffle em' with brilliance, Baffle em' with bull shit!

 

[Crick]

What couldn't be published? Obviously, MBH 98 and 99 were published, as well as later versions. So was "Robustness of MBH Reconstruction". All have been widely cited. So, what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[jc456]

I was 100% confident that you would claim the ability to refute anything I put up based on your insane interpretations of basic physics. You are a complete waste of time.

Did you notice that none of your buddies got in here and stood up with you? Perhaps they've got just that much more sense.

was the probe cooled or not? it's a rather simple question to answer. Well?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dimmer switch!!

 

[Crick]

What couldn't be published? Obviously, MBH 98 and 99 were published, as well as later versions. So was "Robustness of MBH Reconstruction". All have been widely cited. So, what the fuck are you talking about?

And... no answer

 

[Billy_Bob]

What couldn't be published? Obviously, MBH 98 and 99 were published, as well as later versions. So was "Robustness of MBH Reconstruction". All have been widely cited. So, what the fuck are you talking about?

And... no answer

Because they are garbage and they use THE EXACT SAME ERROR to come to the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION.... its called a CASCADE FAILURE.... This is why bad science will always cause failures when the error is not recognized.

 

[Crick]

You learn a new word and figure it goes anywhere. What error was repeated between MBH 98 and 99 that affected their conclusions. And, for the first time in your miserable existence, how about a FUCKING LINK?