What is the IPCC

[CrusaderFrank]

thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to
550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and From and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonselius et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007. The results of Ernst-Georg Beck’s monumental study of a large body of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements from the 19th and 20th Century, smoothed as five-year averages, are presented in Figure 5. The measurements show that the most important political message of the IPCC in 2007 is wrong: It is not true that the CO2 atmospheric level during the pre-industrial era was about 25 percent lower than it is now, and it is not true that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have caused what is actually our beneficially warm climate today. Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007): Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855,

But no link to the source?

I guess you ignored the link on the post directly above this one.................MAYBE!

I see. Really difficult to put the link into the post with the quote? Oh well, here is what the author says further into the paper.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf

A similar projection, based on observations of the cyclic activity of the Sun, was announced from the Pulkovo Observatory, near St. Petersburg, Russia. The head of the Space Research Laboratory of the Observatory, Prof. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, stated that instead of professed
global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015.

Hmmmmmmmm........................... 2014 warmest year on record, 2015 already looking like it will exceed 2014. That fellow is just full of shit.

But you didn't read the article, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whenever someone mentions IPCC just imagine they're saying "Bernie Madoff's accountant" because they have the same standards for truth and accuracy

 

[IanC]

How does Ljungqvist s reconstruction compare to others

Climate Myth...
Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick

"[Ljungqvist 2010 shows that] there is nothing unusual, nothing unnatural or nothingunprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, seeing it was just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today. And this latter observation, together with the realization that earth's climatenaturally transits back and forth between cooler and warmer conditions on a millennial timescale, demonstrates that there is absolutely no need to associate the planet's current level of warmth with its current higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, in clear contradiction of the worn-out IPCC and climate-alarmist claim that the only way to explain earth's current warmth is to associate it with the greenhouse effect of CO2" (NIPCC)


Fredrik Ljungqvist created a 2000-year temperature history of the extra-tropical portion of the Northern Hemisphere (30-90°N) based on 30 proxy records. Certain "skeptics" have argued that his reconstruction shows greater natural variability than previousreconstructions, and that it shows the peak of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) hotter than today's surface air temperatures.

Ljungqvist Compared to other Reconstructions
However, Ljungqvist's reconstruction is not substantially different from the many other millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions, as the author himself states in his paper:

“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”
Indeed by plotting Ljungqvist's data along with Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008), and the surface temperature record, we can confirm that the three reconstructions are very similar (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Moberg et al. 2005 NH (blue), Mann et al. 2008 EIV NH (red), and Ljungqvist 2010 NH (green). Courtesy of Robert Way and John Cook.

MWP Peak vs. Current Temperature
Contrary to "skeptic" claims that his reconstruction shows the peak of the MWP as hotter than today's temperatures, Ljungqvist says the following when combining his proxyreconstruction with recent instrumental temperature data:

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

Hmmm........................

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

every attempt at producing a proxy only hockeystick graph for recent times has had serious methodological flaws that border on fraudulent. every reconstruction that uses standard methods and well established proxies has shown that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present.

 

[Crick]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

Because its only as good as the people doing the reconstruction and when those people have a track record of fraud and deceit, we're suspicious. When they outright tell us they use the altered information to redistribute wealth, we reject it outright

 

[Crick]

The people doing "the reconstruction" are the best there are. Those people do NOT have a record of fraud and deceit - you do. No one - not even Otmar Edenhofer - ever told you they were using dishonestly altered information for anything, and Edenhofer certainly has NOTHING to do with any proxy reconstructions; the man's an economist.

So, Frank, do you come up with these reasons because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

 

[Crick]

Ian? I'm still wondering what your actual objection to this open merge of data might be.

 

[mamooth]

If they didn't show the large annual variation in CO2 coming from the oceans --- then they must be broken.

Some spots in the oceans are sinks or sources at different times, yes.

However, we know the oceans aren't the source of the wiggles in the Keeling Curve.

Why? Isotope ratios. Plants favor inhaling/releasing certain isotopes. The ocean absorption/outgassing don't favor one isotope over another. Hence, the isotope ratios reveal the source of the fluctuations, which is the land plants.

 

[Dot Com]

Mammoth:

Do you even know what the subject is? Or is this just a spin the wheel response? No. The observations I have made about the complex response of the climate being modeled by conventional System Analysis methods can't crash. In fact, in the past couple years, MOST of what I was saying has been picked up as the excuses coming from your beleagured heroes to explain why their models and dire predictions are the actual "crash" dummies. .

More and more papers on heat storage and lags and variable inter-dependencies for feedback conditions in the Climate system. And how the expectation that temperature rise would look exactly like the intitiating stimuli is (and always was) a juvenile expectation...

You're beyond useless as a foil.. And you do nothing but damage to your cause..

link? THEN you can do what you enjoy most down here- ad homs

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The people doing "the reconstruction" are the best there are. Those people do NOT have a record of fraud and deceit - you do. No one - not even Otmar Edenhofer - ever told you they were using dishonestly altered information for anything, and Edenhofer certainly has NOTHING to do with any proxy reconstructions; the man's an economist.

So, Frank, do you come up with these reasons because you're dishonest or because you're ignorant?

Its from dealing with the AGWCult. For example, I only looked up Ottmar because I suspected you lying when you said he was a nobody expressing his personal opinion.

Look how that turned out

 

[flacaltenn]

How does Ljungqvist s reconstruction compare to others

Climate Myth...
Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick

"[Ljungqvist 2010 shows that] there is nothing unusual, nothing unnatural or nothingunprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, seeing it was just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today. And this latter observation, together with the realization that earth's climatenaturally transits back and forth between cooler and warmer conditions on a millennial timescale, demonstrates that there is absolutely no need to associate the planet's current level of warmth with its current higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, in clear contradiction of the worn-out IPCC and climate-alarmist claim that the only way to explain earth's current warmth is to associate it with the greenhouse effect of CO2" (NIPCC)


Fredrik Ljungqvist created a 2000-year temperature history of the extra-tropical portion of the Northern Hemisphere (30-90°N) based on 30 proxy records. Certain "skeptics" have argued that his reconstruction shows greater natural variability than previousreconstructions, and that it shows the peak of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) hotter than today's surface air temperatures.

Ljungqvist Compared to other Reconstructions
However, Ljungqvist's reconstruction is not substantially different from the many other millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions, as the author himself states in his paper:

“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”
Indeed by plotting Ljungqvist's data along with Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008), and the surface temperature record, we can confirm that the three reconstructions are very similar (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Moberg et al. 2005 NH (blue), Mann et al. 2008 EIV NH (red), and Ljungqvist 2010 NH (green). Courtesy of Robert Way and John Cook.

MWP Peak vs. Current Temperature
Contrary to "skeptic" claims that his reconstruction shows the peak of the MWP as hotter than today's temperatures, Ljungqvist says the following when combining his proxyreconstruction with recent instrumental temperature data:

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

Hmmm........................

Of course Ljungqujit can make that last statement with a straight face to avoid being shunned by the AGW cult. Of Course modern Iinstrumental data would show the current small warm spike HIGHER than his overprocessed historical data. Because ORocks, you have to filter the bloody hell out of any of that proxy data to get a result. What that means is that you should NEVER assert that the old proxy data would show 50 or 70 yr relative maximums. ITS Attentuated.. Just like when you put the daily Dow close thru a 30 day moving average. Information about PEAKS AND SPIKES are lost. You have to be a math illiterate to be confused here about Claims that are made. Ljundquist didnt lie, he just spun it like a Clinton.

 

[flacaltenn]

How does Ljungqvist s reconstruction compare to others

Climate Myth...
Ljungqvist broke the hockey stick

"[Ljungqvist 2010 shows that] there is nothing unusual, nothing unnatural or nothingunprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, seeing it was just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today. And this latter observation, together with the realization that earth's climatenaturally transits back and forth between cooler and warmer conditions on a millennial timescale, demonstrates that there is absolutely no need to associate the planet's current level of warmth with its current higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, in clear contradiction of the worn-out IPCC and climate-alarmist claim that the only way to explain earth's current warmth is to associate it with the greenhouse effect of CO2" (NIPCC)


Fredrik Ljungqvist created a 2000-year temperature history of the extra-tropical portion of the Northern Hemisphere (30-90°N) based on 30 proxy records. Certain "skeptics" have argued that his reconstruction shows greater natural variability than previousreconstructions, and that it shows the peak of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) hotter than today's surface air temperatures.

Ljungqvist Compared to other Reconstructions
However, Ljungqvist's reconstruction is not substantially different from the many other millennial northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions, as the author himself states in his paper:

“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”
Indeed by plotting Ljungqvist's data along with Moberg et al. (2005), Mann et al. (2008), and the surface temperature record, we can confirm that the three reconstructions are very similar (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Moberg et al. 2005 NH (blue), Mann et al. 2008 EIV NH (red), and Ljungqvist 2010 NH (green). Courtesy of Robert Way and John Cook.

MWP Peak vs. Current Temperature
Contrary to "skeptic" claims that his reconstruction shows the peak of the MWP as hotter than today's temperatures, Ljungqvist says the following when combining his proxyreconstruction with recent instrumental temperature data:

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

Hmmm........................

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

every attempt at producing a proxy only hockeystick graph for recent times has had serious methodological flaws that border on fraudulent. every reconstruction that uses standard methods and well established proxies has shown that the MWP was as warm or warmer than the present.

Its a simple mathematical case Ian, About 6th grade math concepts. But the public debate over the veracity of the wild warmer claims just never get past 3rd grade level. EVERYONE in the news is stretching the truth by making deceptive claims. They are not exactly lies, but they are calculated to rely on laziness and stupidity of the press and the public in general. We Are Doomed.. not because of GW debate failure. But because this manipulation of truth is now its own science and sadly is now TOTALLY Moral.

 

[flacaltenn]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

 

[IanC]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's exactly it Ian. It's no different in Medicine or Economics. If you have a vested interest in the "interpretation" of your work -- you can bend the rules in making that product, or compare fruit to vegetables.

It's really no different than the bookkeeping fiction of the Soc Sec Trust Fund or the monthly labor/economic reports. The ignorance and complacentcy of the press and public is so complete, that it really doesn't take much to propagate a lie that is completely supported by some numbers that dont' mean what the lie states. It's the reason that nobody actually takes the time or effort to EDUCATE or oppose this propaganda. Because it's a hard road to correct the mis-interpretations in a 2.4 minute press interview.

"A good lie will spread half-way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on"

God bless Samuel Clemens..

 

[Crick]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

 

[Kosh]

This says it all about the IPCC and the AGW cult..

 

[IanC]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

 

[Crick]

obviously we will never agree because you think it is applicable to splice high resolution modern instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, and I dont. apples and eggs. proxy data would not pick up a temperature spike like the 90's back in the MWP so it is incorrect to use instrumental data in proxy reconstructions for the last several decades.

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

 

[westwall]

Ian,

precisely what HARM is done by adding more accurate, higher precision data to a dataset?

In the preinstrumented era, we have only proxy data. In contemporary times we have instrument data. The two time periods run into each other. The Earth's temperature DID exist as a continuous value across the entire period. Why are you so opposed to attempting to reconstruct the transition?

well then, why dont we just "estimate" your historical gain of knowledge on AGW by sampling a couple of Abrahams oldest posts and then splice the results with a series of pop quizes from the next coupke weeks?

We will take 2 samples a year of your first attempts at posting and compare that to actual measured knowledged knowledge. What a tremendous example of not understanding science and interpreting data.

BTW Have you done everything possible to convince folks of the honesty and objective goals of the IPCC? If so, you kinda got your ass kicked and now you are deflecting.

poor Crick simply doesnt understand how science works. there are rules in place that help avoid making false conclusions if the rules are being followed. unfortunately climate science is even worse than medicine for cheating by cherrypicking and 'peeking' at results before the methodology is fixed into place.

I suppose I could mock paleo reconstruction claims of precision and accuracy by showing (again) that virtually none of the individual proxies resemble the finished result. or that stop and start dates often make huge differences to the product. or bizarre statistical methodologies that give massive over-representation to outliers which skew the results.

I am OK with proxy reconstructions, as long as they are taken for the generalization that they are. they are our best guess at what happened in the past. obviously you can find two proxy reconstructions with different results even if they are supposedly measuring the same thing. both will have an estimation of error, but they may have no or little overlap, they may have a significantly different shape, and the authors of both will quite naturally think his study gives the right answer.

Ian, that you should believe climate scientists are all involved in a massive conspiracy or, for some other unspecified reason, are nearly universally violating the rules of the scientific method is not an indication that you enjoy a superior understanding of how science works.

What do you believe is the significance of proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate behavior with respect to anthropogenic global warming from CO2 emissions?

massive conspiracy? why are you back with that nonsense again?

physics is a 'hard' science, and they dont trust any results until the uncertainty is down to about 5 sigma. and reproduced by several independent groups.

sociology is a 'soft' science and they accept just about anything, and dont particularly care about having their results reproduced. if they can get an r^2 of 0.1 and a p of 0.5 they are ecstatic.

where does climate science exist between hard and soft science? most of the time it lies very close to the soft end of the spectrum. even when they get reasonably good data they screw it up by mixing it with poor data, or use inappropriate methodologies to analyze it. cherrypicking and data snooping is rampant. drug researchers would go to jail if they tried to use the slovenly flawed methods used in climate science. yet the average climate scientist doesnt even complain. perhaps because they know that if there were high standards to be met then there would be few results to publish.

Climate science is the study of a large, complex and deeply chaotic system. That you would expect the sort of determinism achievable in physics tells us first and foremost that either you don't understand that basic and fundamental point or that you don't care whether or not your comments are based on reality.

No, what is clear beyond doubt, is the "simple" computer models that define modern day climate science are just that...incredibly simple models that are so poor they can't be used for anything more than the commission of fraud.