It ain't an April Fool joke, 15 inches of snow in Vt.

[mamooth]

There are LOCAL hi resolution proxies from ALL over the globe that show all those warming and cooling periods clearly. YOU just ignore them because they are not a GLOBAL study.

So, according to Flac, people who look at all the data are frauds, while proud cherrypickers like himself are the honest ones.

How it really works is that since Flac discards all the data the he doesn't like, which is most of the data, he's obviously the fraud.

And flac? You're an engineer, not a scientist. And doing electrical engineering work for different fields does not make you "multi-disciplinary".

 

[flacaltenn]

There are LOCAL hi resolution proxies from ALL over the globe that show all those warming and cooling periods clearly. YOU just ignore them because they are not a GLOBAL study.

So, according to Flac, people who look at all the data are frauds, while proud cherrypickers like himself are the honest ones.

How it really works is that since Flac discards all the data the he doesn't like, which is most of the data, he's obviously the fraud.

And flac? You're an engineer, not a scientist. And doing electrical engineering work for different fields does not make you "multi-disciplinary".

You have no fucking idea of my background or the papers I've written or what fields my expertise has been used in. All you got is ad hominen rage.. Because YOU are the "cherry picker". The one who wishes to IGNORE the PRIMARY RAW evidence from EVERY source of paleo climatology. Relying instead on failed attempts to divine climate variability from a few idiotic attempts to cover the globe with the same sub 100 LOCAL proxy data sets and resulting in virtually NO measurement of climate variability.

 

[flacaltenn]

The "fraud" was never the work in the actual "seminal" papers. The FRAUD was the purposeful MISINTERPRETATION of that work to the media and the public and to policy makers. NOT EVERY hockey stick creator PARTICIPATED in that fraud. And I've praised Marcott et al for being the HONEST PROFESSIONAL ones to admit the vaguarities and boundaries on what those GLOBAL studies are capable of telling...

For the 13th time.. Have no confidence that Squidward won't attack me personally and make the SAME accusations for the 14th time --- next week. Tired of the juvenile partisan horseshit in this forum..

 

[mamooth]

You have no fucking idea of my background or the papers I've written or what fields my expertise has been used in.

"Fields your expertise has been used in" being your way of saying that you're an expert in multiple fields because somebody else in those fields used your widget. It's just resume puffing.

I do see how your science and logic are consistently bad, you rarely back up your wild claims, you get very angry when people point that out, and you consistently use namecalling and insults to deflect from discussion of your failures.

You even fail badly in control theory and system response, which is supposedly your engineering specialty. Your "step input" theory of climate is contradicted by the evidence, so you ... ignore the evidence.

All you got is ad hominen rage.. Because YOU are the "cherry picker". The one who wishes to IGNORE the PRIMARY RAW evidence from EVERY source of paleo climatology. Relying instead on failed attempts to divine climate variability from a few idiotic attempts to cover the globe with the same sub 100 LOCAL proxy data sets and resulting in virtually NO measurement of climate variability.

If you didn't just make it up, please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming, as you just directly claimed. If you'd rather not back up your wild claims, we'll understand, being you've never backed them up before. You just toss them out and demand that everyone BELIEVE.

Tired of the juvenile partisan horseshit in this forum.

Being you're a primary generator of juvenile partisan horseshit, you can end it easily enough.

If you'd like, we can now talk about the problems with your step input theorem. I'd enjoy that. However, I imagine you'd rather keep screaming insults.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have no fucking idea of my background or the papers I've written or what fields my expertise has been used in.

"Fields your expertise has been used in" being your way of saying that you're an expert in multiple fields because somebody else in those fields used your widget. It's just resume puffing.

I do see how your science and logic are consistently bad, you rarely back up your wild claims, you get very angry when people point that out, and you consistently use namecalling and insults to deflect from discussion of your failures.

You even fail badly in control theory and system response, which is supposedly your engineering specialty. Your "step input" theory of climate is contradicted by the evidence, so you ... ignore the evidence.

All you got is ad hominen rage.. Because YOU are the "cherry picker". The one who wishes to IGNORE the PRIMARY RAW evidence from EVERY source of paleo climatology. Relying instead on failed attempts to divine climate variability from a few idiotic attempts to cover the globe with the same sub 100 LOCAL proxy data sets and resulting in virtually NO measurement of climate variability.

If you didn't just make it up, please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming, as you just directly claimed. If you'd rather not back up your wild claims, we'll understand, being you've never backed them up before. You just toss them out and demand that everyone BELIEVE.

Tired of the juvenile partisan horseshit in this forum.

Being you're a primary generator of juvenile partisan horseshit, you can end it easily enough.

If you'd like, we can now talk about the problems with your step input theorem. I'd enjoy that. However, I imagine you'd rather keep screaming insults.

Go fuck yourself. Meet me in the Flame Zone and we'll chat about ME .. As for your continuing personal atttacks, go fuck yourself again. And then SHOW ME --- where I EVER SAID anything about

""please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming,""

Start debating the stuff I DO say -- and quit making up shit that I didn't....

That made up crap doesn't even make sense -- since paleo data is INCAPABLE of measuring current warming. You're deranged about this personal vendetta.

 

[mamooth]

Go fuck yourself.

I have no interest in trading insults. I just want to discuss the science.

And then SHOW ME --- where I EVER SAID anything about

""please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming,""

Sure.

The one who wishes to IGNORE the PRIMARY RAW evidence from EVERY source of paleo climatology.

That was easy.

As the topic being discussed was the hockey stick, I assumed you were talking about the hockey stick. That is, the current warming.

That made up crap doesn't even make sense -- since paleo data is INCAPABLE of measuring current warming.

Then why were you bringing it up in response to a discussion of the hockey stick warming? Are you admitting it was a red herring, a deflection from the topic? In any case, don't blame me for your inability to explain yourself. Be clear. Exactly what are you claiming that EVERY paleo record shows?

You're deranged about this personal vendetta.

Once more, I'll try to move the topic away from your insults and back to the science. Let's talk about what you never want to talk about, the problems with your step input theory.

You say a step input in solar activity around 1940 caused the climate to start warming around 1970.

First there's the issue about heat hiding out for 30 years, invisible to all thermometers. That can't happen. Heat can't dive down to hide in the deep ocean without being in the shallow ocean first, and it wasn't ever measured there.

Then, there's the sensitivity issue. Step inputs create a [1 - exp(-kt) ] type response. They ramp up at first, then the ramp eventually levels off at a new equilibrium level.

According to you, we're still in the ramp phase, right near the beginning of the response. That would mean most of the temperature rise is still to come, and that the climate must be extremely sensitive to solar changes.

However, there's no evidence of such large sensitivity in any historical or paleo records. By your theory, the earth should have frozen solid during the Maunder Minimum. It didn't, so your theory has more problems.

 

[flacaltenn]

As the topic being discussed was the hockey stick, I assumed you were talking about the hockey stick. That is, the current warming.

That is so wrong and ridiculous that it appears you don't know what a paleo proxy study actually is. Ive featured you in an FZ thread if you want to discuss ME or my credentials. But AT LEAST -- TRY to follow to follow along and not put words in my mouth that only a MORON would assert...

 

[mamooth]

That is so wrong and ridiculous that it appears you don't know what a paleo proxy study actually is

You're evading again.

The question was simple.

You say EVERY paleo proxy study shows .... something. Something that shows scientists are engaging in fraud.

What is that something?

Given that you actively refuse to back up your accusations, despite being asked directly to do so many times, don't you think you should retract them?

Same with your step input theory. Given that you actively refuse to back it up, don't you think you should retract it?

I'm done with you here, Flac. My point was to show you're just making it all up. I succeeded.

 

[flacaltenn]

That is so wrong and ridiculous that it appears you don't know what a paleo proxy study actually is

You're evading again.

The question was simple.

You say EVERY paleo proxy study shows .... something. Something that shows scientists are engaging in fraud.

What is that something?

Given that you actively refuse to back up your accusations, despite being asked directly to do so many times, don't you think you should retract them?

Same with your step input theory. Given that you actively refuse to back it up, don't you think you should retract it?

I'm done with you here, Flac. My point was to show you're just making it all up. I succeeded.

Never said those words. Those words don't even make sense. "Every paleo study shows.... something". What does that mean? WhereTF did it come from.. You don't UNDERSTAND what I said?

I spent PAGES explaining that not all proxy studies have the same RESOLUTIONS and accuracy. I SAID that the HIGHER RESOLUTION studies capable of showing ANY Climate variability on scales less than a couple hundred years are INDIVIDUAL LOCAL proxy studies. I gave you REASONS WHY and statements by Marcott that NO ONE should ever expect to see 100 or 200 year transient temperature variability in a "Global" hockey stick handle.

I SHOWED you how much better resolution is available in Greenland Ice Cores than Vostok Ice Cores.

I explained EXACTLY where the fraud comes in.. Did you not recognize the words? The fraud is not in the actual data preparation of the "global" proxies.(although cherry-picking and misrepresenting proxies COULD be in play in some studies)

It's in the exaggerated claims that SOME of the authors made as to what the resultant underwhelming graphs meant in terms of comparing to the modern instrumentation record. Marcott ADMITS his hockey handle does not really PROVE anything about rates of rise or absolute MAXIMUM temperatures at any point of time. It's MERELY a running mean with no FULL resolution under 500 year periods.

If you don't GET THIS --- it ain't my fault.. You're handicapped too much to waste so much of your time here.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW -- the REAL honest scientist Marcott DOES show on his web notes some distributions of Max temperatures over the full Holocene period. And if he INCLUDES some higher resolution proxies, there are AMPLE periods of temperature anomalies exceeding the 1960 to 1990 mean.

These alternate proxy pools were not used in the MAIN study because they increased the "uncertainty" in the data prep as a whole. But he PROVIDED them..

 

[whitehall]

There you go again. No the planet will not destroy itself over a 2 C rise in temperature. But there will be major effects, and most of them will be negative. And, if you are in a third world nation, as starve as a result of that, I imagine that you would regard it as apocalyptic.

Why won't a 2 C increase in temperature and it's logical increase in rainfall be the best thing that ever happened to a 3rd world nation? The point is that that nuclear monster in the sky is a fickle beast and no matter how we try, mankind can't impact the climate.

 

[mamooth]

Never said those words. Those words don't even make sense. "Every paleo study shows.... something". What does that mean? WhereTF did it come from.. You don't UNDERSTAND what I said?

Obviously no, as making a clear point is not your strength. That would be why I asked.

I spent PAGES explaining that not all proxy studies have the same RESOLUTIONS and accuracy. I SAID that the HIGHER RESOLUTION studies capable of showing ANY Climate variability on scales less than a couple hundred years are INDIVIDUAL LOCAL proxy studies. I gave you REASONS WHY and statements by Marcott that NO ONE should ever expect to see 100 or 200 year transient temperature variability in a "Global" hockey stick handle.

So this is your "We can't absolutely prove sudden temperature spikes commonly occur, therefore they do, and therefore this is one of them" theory rehashed. Why didn't you just say so when I asked? We could have saved so much time.

I explained EXACTLY where the fraud comes in..

You mean where you imagined the fraud comes in. If you assume fraud and work backwards from that assumption, you'll manage to find it somehow.

Did you not recognize the words?

We can't absolutely prove fairies don't adjust temperature on a yearly basis. However, we do science based on the evidence we have, not the evidence we don't have.

You're the one with the very unusual theory of sudden global temperature spikes. You can't back it up, but you declare everyone who doesn't agree with it is a fraud. Not surprisingly, the scientific community does not agree with your POV.

 

[flacaltenn]

So this is your "We can't absolutely prove sudden temperature spikes commonly occur, therefore they do, and therefore this is one of them" theory rehashed. Why didn't you just say so when I asked? We could have saved so much time.

You're still not getting this. One of 2 probable reasons for that. Either you're denser than Uranium OR you're pretending to be to troll me because you refute what I ACTUALLY said.

YOU cannot actually comprehend that Climate variability shows up in paleo studies all over the world, like the Greenland higher resolution ice cores and dozens others that I've shown you from New Zealand and S. America and Indian Ocean. But it's MISSING from the HIGHLY FILTERED and lower resolution GLOBAL studies.

In that sense -- you're WORST than SDDS with his rejection of GH physics. Because I've TOLD you why that is. And you don't WANT to even discuss it. EVERYONE should be very careful about providing PROOF of ANYTHING from paleo proxy temp studies..

Whatever shit you spewed as my position above is just nonsense. I didn't EVER say it..
Not wasting time on your "hobby" of trolling me personally..

 

[flacaltenn]

Only way to have a conversation is to use my ACTUAL words, instead of the senseless garbage that you sarcastically attribute to me. Ask questions. Get clarifications on those words. Otherwise you're misquoting me and purposely mis-stating my quotes to dog me..

Can't "wing it" in science discussions, especially not on complicated issues of FACT -- like interpreting ancient temperature readings from ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells, like is done is in politics and current events.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have no fucking idea of my background or the papers I've written or what fields my expertise has been used in.

"Fields your expertise has been used in" being your way of saying that you're an expert in multiple fields because somebody else in those fields used your widget. It's just resume puffing.

I do see how your science and logic are consistently bad, you rarely back up your wild claims, you get very angry when people point that out, and you consistently use namecalling and insults to deflect from discussion of your failures.

You even fail badly in control theory and system response, which is supposedly your engineering specialty. Your "step input" theory of climate is contradicted by the evidence, so you ... ignore the evidence.

All you got is ad hominen rage.. Because YOU are the "cherry picker". The one who wishes to IGNORE the PRIMARY RAW evidence from EVERY source of paleo climatology. Relying instead on failed attempts to divine climate variability from a few idiotic attempts to cover the globe with the same sub 100 LOCAL proxy data sets and resulting in virtually NO measurement of climate variability.

If you didn't just make it up, please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming, as you just directly claimed. If you'd rather not back up your wild claims, we'll understand, being you've never backed them up before. You just toss them out and demand that everyone BELIEVE.

Tired of the juvenile partisan horseshit in this forum.

Being you're a primary generator of juvenile partisan horseshit, you can end it easily enough.

If you'd like, we can now talk about the problems with your step input theorem. I'd enjoy that. However, I imagine you'd rather keep screaming insults.

Go fuck yourself. Meet me in the Flame Zone and we'll chat about ME .. As for your continuing personal atttacks, go fuck yourself again. And then SHOW ME --- where I EVER SAID anything about

""please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming,""

Start debating the stuff I DO say -- and quit making up shit that I didn't....

That made up crap doesn't even make sense -- since paleo data is INCAPABLE of measuring current warming. You're deranged about this personal vendetta.

Do as I say, not as I do. That is what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. You have consistently misrepresented my position on climate change due to global warming. If you desire any respect or credibility, do not do what you accuse others of doing.

Were we to look back from ten thousand years at the last 180 years, we could definately see the warming, for it is accompanied by an increase in GHGs not seen in the atmosphere for several million years. And we are at just the start of the warming. Inertia in the system means that it will take at least 3 to 5 decades to see the results of the present level of GHGs in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Only way to have a conversation is to use my ACTUAL words, instead of the senseless garbage that you sarcastically attribute to me. Ask questions. Get clarifications on those words. Otherwise you're misquoting me and purposely mis-stating my quotes to dog me..

Can't "wing it" in science discussions, especially not on complicated issues of FACT -- like interpreting ancient temperature readings from ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells, like is done is in politics and current events.

In other words, if it conflicts with what you would like it to be, it is politics. If it agrees with you, it is science. Reality does not work that way, Mr. Flacaltenn.

 

[Old Rocks]

There you go again. No the planet will not destroy itself over a 2 C rise in temperature. But there will be major effects, and most of them will be negative. And, if you are in a third world nation, as starve as a result of that, I imagine that you would regard it as apocalyptic.

Why won't a 2 C increase in temperature and it's logical increase in rainfall be the best thing that ever happened to a 3rd world nation? The point is that that nuclear monster in the sky is a fickle beast and no matter how we try, mankind can't impact the climate.

Fucking dumb. How is it possible to create a 43%+ in CO2, and a 150%+ increase in CH4 without increasing the temperature of the Earth? And it is not the increase in temperature that is the problem, it is the rate of increase. Far too fast for our agriculture to keep up with the changing climate. The rainfall in Texas broke the drought. Great. Provided that you were not one of those that lost property to the extreme weather events that those rainfalls were. Two 1000 year events in the same place inside of a year. Just normal weather, right? Really good for crops in the field, right?

If blue green algae can completely change the makeup of our atmosphere, what makes you think that we cannot do the same?

 

[flacaltenn]

You have no fucking idea of my background or the papers I've written or what fields my expertise has been used in.

"Fields your expertise has been used in" being your way of saying that you're an expert in multiple fields because somebody else in those fields used your widget. It's just resume puffing.

I do see how your science and logic are consistently bad, you rarely back up your wild claims, you get very angry when people point that out, and you consistently use namecalling and insults to deflect from discussion of your failures.

You even fail badly in control theory and system response, which is supposedly your engineering specialty. Your "step input" theory of climate is contradicted by the evidence, so you ... ignore the evidence.

All you got is ad hominen rage.. Because YOU are the "cherry picker". The one who wishes to IGNORE the PRIMARY RAW evidence from EVERY source of paleo climatology. Relying instead on failed attempts to divine climate variability from a few idiotic attempts to cover the globe with the same sub 100 LOCAL proxy data sets and resulting in virtually NO measurement of climate variability.

If you didn't just make it up, please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming, as you just directly claimed. If you'd rather not back up your wild claims, we'll understand, being you've never backed them up before. You just toss them out and demand that everyone BELIEVE.

Tired of the juvenile partisan horseshit in this forum.

Being you're a primary generator of juvenile partisan horseshit, you can end it easily enough.

If you'd like, we can now talk about the problems with your step input theorem. I'd enjoy that. However, I imagine you'd rather keep screaming insults.

Go fuck yourself. Meet me in the Flame Zone and we'll chat about ME .. As for your continuing personal atttacks, go fuck yourself again. And then SHOW ME --- where I EVER SAID anything about

""please demonstrate how EVERY source of paleo data says there's no warming,""

Start debating the stuff I DO say -- and quit making up shit that I didn't....

That made up crap doesn't even make sense -- since paleo data is INCAPABLE of measuring current warming. You're deranged about this personal vendetta.

Do as I say, not as I do. That is what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. You have consistently misrepresented my position on climate change due to global warming. If you desire any respect or credibility, do not do what you accuse others of doing.

Were we to look back from ten thousand years at the last 180 years, we could definately see the warming, for it is accompanied by an increase in GHGs not seen in the atmosphere for several million years. And we are at just the start of the warming. Inertia in the system means that it will take at least 3 to 5 decades to see the results of the present level of GHGs in the atmosphere.

What do you THINK "we learned" from the past 10,000 years of GLOBAL proxy evidence is what's in question. Why don't you state it? So that there's no CHANCE of me misrepresenting your position.

 

[flacaltenn]

Only way to have a conversation is to use my ACTUAL words, instead of the senseless garbage that you sarcastically attribute to me. Ask questions. Get clarifications on those words. Otherwise you're misquoting me and purposely mis-stating my quotes to dog me..

Can't "wing it" in science discussions, especially not on complicated issues of FACT -- like interpreting ancient temperature readings from ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells, like is done is in politics and current events.

In other words, if it conflicts with what you would like it to be, it is politics. If it agrees with you, it is science. Reality does not work that way, Mr. Flacaltenn.

No. Not at all. Didn't say that. I referred to politics only because the "discussions" for those issues are EMOTIONAL and personal preferences are ALLOWED to enter into it.. You know what I meant. Don't overthink it..

 

[RollingThunder]

What do you THINK "we learned" from the past 10,000 years of GLOBAL proxy evidence is what's in question. Why don't you state it? So that there's no CHANCE of me misrepresenting your position.

It looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene -- after the end of the last Ice Age -- global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)
(From: The Hockey Stick Graph Reality)