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.
You didn't read Shakun's methodology, did you. You should have.
...The global temperature stack is not particularly sensitive to interpolation resolution, areal weighting, the number of proxy records, radiocarbon calibration, infilling of missing data or proxy type...
The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service
Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)
You didn't read Shakun's methodology, did you. You should have.
We used Monte Carlo simulations to quantify pooled uncertainties in the age models and proxy temperatures, although we do not account for analytical uncertainties or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set... Details on the experimental design of the transient model simulations can be found in ref. 25. The temperature stacks and proxy data set are available in Supplementary Information....
You didn't read Shakun's methodology, did you. You should have.
We used Monte Carlo simulations to quantify pooled uncertainties in the age models and proxy temperatures, although we do not account for analytical uncertainties or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set... Details on the experimental design of the transient model simulations can be found in ref. 25. The temperature stacks and proxy data set are available in Supplementary Information....
did you examine the experimental design of the transient model simulations? would you be capable of seeing their strengths and weaknesses? or are you just happy to pass along anything that sounds good to you?
You didn't read Shakun's methodology, did you. You should have.
We used Monte Carlo simulations to quantify pooled uncertainties in the age models and proxy temperatures, although we do not account for analytical uncertainties or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set... Details on the experimental design of the transient model simulations can be found in ref. 25. The temperature stacks and proxy data set are available in Supplementary Information....
did you examine the experimental design of the transient model simulations? would you be capable of seeing their strengths and weaknesses? or are you just happy to pass along anything that sounds good to you?
You didn't read Shakun's methodology, did you. You should have.
We used Monte Carlo simulations to quantify pooled uncertainties in the age models and proxy temperatures, although we do not account for analytical uncertainties or uncertainties related to lack of global coverage and spatial bias in the data set... Details on the experimental design of the transient model simulations can be found in ref. 25. The temperature stacks and proxy data set are available in Supplementary Information....
did you examine the experimental design of the transient model simulations? would you be capable of seeing their strengths and weaknesses? or are you just happy to pass along anything that sounds good to you?
You're ignoring the fact that your original complaints about his dataset (alignment, deviation) all fell on their faces.
Not if they involve graphs...crick can't make heads nor tails from a graph...
Not if they involve graphs...crick can't make heads nor tails from a graph...
Crick never mastered one of these.
What gets me the most about most of these AGW threads is that actual hard data in the faces of the same goldfish, namely oldcocks and Crick and they can never refute it with anything beyond insinuations it's corrupted by oil interests, the Kochs or whatever delusional conspiracy nonsense they cut and paste..
The very fact that Lief Erikson governed settlements (IIRC) on Greenland 1000 years ago when the land was liveable has to be ignored by them.
It got real fucking cold after that and only recently has the ice receded to what it was 1000 years ago. That fact must be ignored also because they didn't refine gasoline 1000 years ago to affect some "climate change".
Just like bed wetter hysteria about guns, social security being taken away (as opposed to run into insolvency), blacks rounded up and enslaved again and the Ohio River once again being set on fire. It's all based on bullshit, it's been proven to be utter bullshit, and here these same tools are regurgitating the same insipid and vacuous lies as if they're valid retorts.
They can't be this ignorant. The agenda is to undermine the industrial might of the US. Don't doubt that for a second.
.
Pleased to meet you asshole.
What "actual hard data"? The MWP and the LIA do nothing to refute AGW.
They also worship Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. If you have not heard of them, you should look them up, by typing, Howard Zinn Lies, or Noam Chomsky sucks. Much of what the liberals worship comes from these two idiots as well.It is all dogma BTW, because libturds are zealots. Ultimately they worship Karl Marx but they have their modern messiahs and shit. They have "saints" like Ted Kennedy who can kill women and avoid any legal consequence. They have "healers" who can "unify the country" (but they're on strike because of Bush) They have "scholars" who refuse to let the world see their actual academic record and "profits" who can regulate the temperature (but need lots of cash to power the magic dildo). They even have a "heaven" where there is no morality, no guns or self defense, no work, no God and everyone is "equal" (except of course for the commissars who "deserve" more because of their devotion to the great leader).
They also worship Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. If you have not heard of them, you should look them up, by typing, Howard Zinn Lies, or Noam Chomsky sucks. Much of what the liberals worship comes from these two idiots as well.
So, you are too fucking dumb of an asshole to know that many agricultural areas around the world depend on summer glacial melt for irrigation water. And, warm enough to melt the glaciers, warm enough to melt the permafrost. Which, of course, means absolutely nothing to you.
No, it is not. So say all the physicists and geologists in all the scientific societies of both in the world. I will go with the assessment of the AGU and the GSA rather than with that of an anonymous poster that has been caught in many outright lies.So, you are too fucking dumb of an asshole to know that many agricultural areas around the world depend on summer glacial melt for irrigation water. And, warm enough to melt the glaciers, warm enough to melt the permafrost. Which, of course, means absolutely nothing to you.
Good gosh but you're a hysterical twat. This is all entirely natural. Has always been, and will always be.
No, it is not. So say all the physicists and geologists in all the scientific societies of both in the world. I will go with the assessment of the AGU and the GSA rather than with that of an anonymous poster that has been caught in many outright lies.So, you are too fucking dumb of an asshole to know that many agricultural areas around the world depend on summer glacial melt for irrigation water. And, warm enough to melt the glaciers, warm enough to melt the permafrost. Which, of course, means absolutely nothing to you.
Good gosh but you're a hysterical twat. This is all entirely natural. Has always been, and will always be.
Natural variation?
Are you really that stupid?
2000 years of "reconstructed" global temps? Seriously dude? Is there nothing you won't swallow?Do you not recall writing this?
the min and max are different in every case, the shape is different in every case, the amplitude is different in every case. taking the average will disagree with every proxy, both in timing of events and the magnitude of variation. Shakun's graph claims certainty of +/- a few tenths of a degree. obviously exaggerated certainty, precision and accuracy, as well the timing of events is also in question.
Do you not recall writing this?
the min and max are different in every case, the shape is different in every case, the amplitude is different in every case. taking the average will disagree with every proxy, both in timing of events and the magnitude of variation. Shakun's graph claims certainty of +/- a few tenths of a degree. obviously exaggerated certainty, precision and accuracy, as well the timing of events is also in question.
Have you examined the proxies against the final exaggeratedly thin line of Shakun's graph? None of them match. How did my comment fall on its face?
In 1794 Vancouver charted the location of Glacier Bay glacier and its thickness of 3,900 feet. When John Muir went there in 1888 the glacier had receded 44 miles into the bay. Understand and grasp those years - 1794 to 1888.I was treated to an outrageous bit of warmer wacko propaganda this morning when I visited this board...The posts that led to this thread are on the thread titled "why is it"....
As usual, I was asking for, and not getting any actual observed evidence that man is causing the global climate to change...finally the poster put this bit of pseudo famous warmer propaganda up as evidence that we are causing the climate to change...
When it was pointed out that glaciers have been melting back for thousands of years, his reply was that in the past, such loss took thousands of years...not mere decades. One of our well known warmist kooks jumped in claiming that it has been millions of years since this sort of melting has taken place...he said, and I quote "The things he is showing you in those photos have NOT happened within human history and they have probably not happened at that rate for the last 65 million years"
Now the picture above certainly paints a grim picture if this is the only information you have...and if you are a blithering idiot...easily fooled, and lacking any critical thinking skills at all, I suppose this photo could convince you that things are really looking bad...
The photo above is typical of warmer propaganda....it is tailored to fool those they lovingly identify as useful idiots...you know...those who believe even though there isn't the first bit of actual evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...those who post the sort of bullshit the photo above represents...
Well, let me get to the punchline of this story....What the propaganda photo above fails to show, and for obvious reason is any sort of interim photos...but then, that is the nature of propaganda...isn't it. Here, have one more look at the Muir glacier, taken in 1941 and then a second historical photo taken a mere nine years after the "before picture" in 1950...
Again...Before:
Nine years Later...1950:
Most of the glacier melting happened a mere 9 years after the first photo was taken...not thousands of years as the poster claimed was the case...and the last time we saw glaciers retreating at this speed certainly wasn't 65 million years ago as our well known warmer wacko claimed...
As an afterthought, it should be noted that in the earliest photo, the bottom right of the photo shows the end of the glacier...note that in the modern photo, there is a much longer view of the area giving the impression much more ice loss....note that the modern photo shows two points of land on the far shore...
And this is just one instance of the never ending stream of propaganda put out by climate science and their willing accomplices in the media to be gobbled up and regurgitated by an ever growing army of brain dead useful idiots....
