New Climate Scandal Exposed

[longknife]

Roger Pielke Jr April 2, 2013

Roger Pielke Jr documents the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct.

spot the difference

Read more @ Prison Planet.com » New Climate Scandal Exposed

 

[mamooth]

For the actual science backing Marcott et al, there's Tamino's 3 part series.

Global Temperature Change ? the Big Picture | Open Mind

The Tick | Open Mind

Regional Marcott | Open Mind

And on RealClimate, there's Marcott's response to the criticism.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

People actually interested in actual science should closely read all the scientific discussions there.

Political cultists, naturally, should avoid looking at such things, being the liberal propaganda might sully their moral purity. Instead, they should rage about the vast conspiracy which has to exist, being that some data disagreed with their cult's dogma.

 

[SSDD]

You know why marcott's response was released on Easter Sunday? If they had released it on Monday everyone would have taken it for an April Fool's joke rather than just an every day sort of joke.

 

[Rambunctious]

New Climate Scandal Exposed | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

 

[mamooth]

The denialist cult wants so badly to manufacture these phony scandals. It's funny, how they all echo the cult dogma in unison, and how butthurt they get when no one outside the cult pays them any attention.

In further news, the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case from the American Petroleum Institute which challenged EPA authority to regulate pollution. That leaves the Circuit Court ruling standing, which said the EPA does have the authority.

Justices reject challenge to EPA air pollution rule | Reuters

 

[skookerasbil]

For the actual science backing Marcott et al, there's Tamino's 3 part series.

Global Temperature Change ? the Big Picture | Open Mind

The Tick | Open Mind

Regional Marcott | Open Mind

And on RealClimate, there's Marcott's response to the criticism.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

People actually interested in actual science should closely read all the scientific discussions there.

Political cultists, naturally, should avoid looking at such things, being the liberal propaganda might sully their moral purity. Instead, they should rage about the vast conspiracy which has to exist, being that some data disagreed with their cult's dogma.

Of course, all the far lefty k00ks point the readers to some hyper-nutter progressive site to get some science information.......all sites that promote activism on the environment.




lose

 

[william the wie]

New Climate Scandal Exposed | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

A more legitimate critique of AGW is that modern windows and roofing materials create greenhouses and therefore the emphasis should be on creating UV opaque and IR transparent glass and/or roofing that doesn't radiate in the infrared.

 

[IanC]

For the actual science backing Marcott et al, there's Tamino's 3 part series.

Global Temperature Change ? the Big Picture | Open Mind

The Tick | Open Mind

Regional Marcott | Open Mind

And on RealClimate, there's Marcott's response to the criticism.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

People actually interested in actual science should closely read all the scientific discussions there.

Political cultists, naturally, should avoid looking at such things, being the liberal propaganda might sully their moral purity. Instead, they should rage about the vast conspiracy which has to exist, being that some data disagreed with their cult's dogma.

you sound like Old Rocks defending the original Hockey Stick. Marcott has already admitted that the later part of his graph (added to his PhD thesis graph) is not significant or 'robust', and should not be used to make or support any conclusions about 20th century temperature changes. this directly contradicts the claims made in the media by himself and other members of the Team at the time of release.

perhaps you are just not savvy enough scientifically to realize that you cannot mix proxies with smoothing of several hundred years with datasets of annual smoothing. perhaps even more flagrant was the adjustment of end dates for many of the proxies to change the original downtick into an alarming uptick. it is yet another black eye for science delivered by the infamous "Hockey Team' led in large part by Michael Mann.

 

[S.J.]

Liberals have been lying about global warming for years.

 

[IanC]

For the actual science backing Marcott et al, there's Tamino's 3 part series.

Global Temperature Change ? the Big Picture | Open Mind

The Tick | Open Mind

Regional Marcott | Open Mind

And on RealClimate, there's Marcott's response to the criticism.

RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

People actually interested in actual science should closely read all the scientific discussions there.

Political cultists, naturally, should avoid looking at such things, being the liberal propaganda might sully their moral purity. Instead, they should rage about the vast conspiracy which has to exist, being that some data disagreed with their cult's dogma.

you sound like Old Rocks defending the original Hockey Stick. Marcott has already admitted that the later part of his graph (added to his PhD thesis graph) is not significant or 'robust', and should not be used to make or support any conclusions about 20th century temperature changes. this directly contradicts the claims made in the media by himself and other members of the Team at the time of release.

perhaps you are just not savvy enough scientifically to realize that you cannot mix proxies with smoothing of several hundred years with datasets of annual smoothing. perhaps even more flagrant was the adjustment of end dates for many of the proxies to change the original downtick into an alarming uptick. it is yet another black eye for science delivered by the infamous "Hockey Team' led in large part by Michael Mann.

marcott-

‘Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the twentieth 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 twentieth-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.’

no comment?

 

[mamooth]

So you're _still_ saying that your dishonest cherrypicking constitutes a scandal?

Good luck with that.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you're _still_ saying that your dishonest cherrypicking constitutes a scandal?

Good luck with that.

Maybe "dishonest cherrypicking" is PART of the problem. Because the data is anything but a uniform basket of cherries. It's more like the food leftovers from a Carnival Cruise after a power outage..

No we're saying that wormholes in mud sediments and tree rings do not have the accuracy or the time resolution to show ANYTHING about the Current Era climate. And that author actually verifies that fact. But more importantly, the later graph is a FABRICATION that isn't supported by the data.

The scientific thing to do would have been to STOP at compiling a better historical record and to append ACTUAL temperature data to the graphical presentation and measure the DISCONTINUITIES at the point where data merged.

NOT --- give the impression that this is wholely supportable conclusion from a wanting data set that extends over 10,000 years all the way to yesterday..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you add Mann's Tree rings you get a hockey stick

 

[IanC]

So you're _still_ saying that your dishonest cherrypicking constitutes a scandal?

Good luck with that.

I have no basic problem with the early part of the graph although the smoothing removes most of the variation. it more or less matches other reconstructions of the same period. the MWP, LIA, RWP etc do not show up because the smoothing is hundreds of years. the last hundred years of warming would not be present either at this resolution, as I showed in a previous thread.

there are two major issues with this new hockey stick graph. Marcott fiddled with the dating of other people's proxies, and he truncated some proxies without explanation. got that? he cut short proxies that disagreed with the uptick, and he changed the end dates for others that showed an uptick but didnt actually extend into the cut off date. that is pretty close to fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Marcott fiddled with the dating of other people's proxies,

Were you really not aware that techniques of radiocarbon dating have improved over the years, and that old proxies are known to suffer from inaccurate radiocarbon dating?

Denialists can try to claim that updating bad radiocarbon dates with the most modern and commonly accepted corrections is "fraud", but doing so makes them look desperate and ridiculous.

and he truncated some proxies without explanation. got that?

Were you also not aware that radiocarbon dates after 1950 are worthless, and that those for a few hundred years before that are highly suspect? Denialist ignorance only reflects badly on themselves.

he cut short proxies that disagreed with the uptick, and he changed the end dates for others that showed an uptick but didnt actually extend into the cut off date. that is pretty close to fraud.

Now you've jumped into conspiracy theory land. Take a break from denialist websites. You ought to look at the Tamino pieces, where he shows that using a different analysis technique that eliminates the proxy dropout issue still gives the same result.

Marcott et al wrote a paper focusing on ancient climate. They pointed out their particular proxies didn't work well to track recent climate. However, we have these things called "thermometers" that track recent climate, not to mention many other different proxies, so one wonders what the denialists are raging about. The denialists seem to think that if they can cast doubt on the proxies used here, all the other data will magically vanish, and thus they can declare victory over the hockey stick.

 

[numan]

'
When ignoramuses contend that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not raise temperatures [all other factors being equal], you know that their brains are ruined. They should be living in the Middle Ages, when believing things was expected to make them true.

Even Fourier and Arrhenius in the 19th century had established the foundations of the nature of global heating. The great educational resources of this country are wasted upon these modern American ignorant heating deniers.
.

 

[IanC]

Marcott fiddled with the dating of other people's proxies,

Were you really not aware that techniques of radiocarbon dating have improved over the years, and that old proxies are known to suffer from inaccurate radiocarbon dating?

Denialists can try to claim that updating bad radiocarbon dates with the most modern and commonly accepted corrections is "fraud", but doing so makes them look desperate and ridiculous.

and he truncated some proxies without explanation. got that?

Were you also not aware that radiocarbon dates after 1950 are worthless, and that those for a few hundred years before that are highly suspect? Denialist ignorance only reflects badly on themselves.

he cut short proxies that disagreed with the uptick, and he changed the end dates for others that showed an uptick but didnt actually extend into the cut off date. that is pretty close to fraud.

Now you've jumped into conspiracy theory land. Take a break from denialist websites. You ought to look at the Tamino pieces, where he shows that using a different analysis technique that eliminates the proxy dropout issue still gives the same result.

Marcott et al wrote a paper focusing on ancient climate. They pointed out their particular proxies didn't work well to track recent climate. However, we have these things called "thermometers" that track recent climate, not to mention many other different proxies, so one wonders what the denialists are raging about. The denialists seem to think that if they can cast doubt on the proxies used here, all the other data will magically vanish, and thus they can declare victory over the hockey stick.

Ive seen Foster's blog entries. have you read the Climate Audit pieces?

the team seems to lack the integrity to answer straight forward questions about their methodologies. why is that?

 

[SSDD]

'
When ignoramuses contend that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not raise temperatures [all other factors being equal], you know that their brains are ruined. They should be living in the Middle Ages, when believing things was expected to make them true.

Show me some hard, observed evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise. So far no such evidence exist even though billions upon billions have been spent on the hoax.

Even Fourier and Arrhenius in the 19th century had established the foundations of the nature of global heating. The great educational resources of this country are wasted upon these modern American ignorant heating deniers.
.

Don't you find it odd that at some time during the 19th or 20th century some actual evidence to support the claim might have been recorded?

 

[flacaltenn]

'
When ignoramuses contend that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not raise temperatures [all other factors being equal], you know that their brains are ruined. They should be living in the Middle Ages, when believing things was expected to make them true.

Even Fourier and Arrhenius in the 19th century had established the foundations of the nature of global heating. The great educational resources of this country are wasted upon these modern American ignorant heating deniers.
.

Fourier and Arrhenius didn't have accurate spectral absorption information on various gases and an even worse concept of the outgoing/incoming energy spectrum.

In the case of CO2, the absorption of outgoing IR emissions is largely in the same bands as water vapor. So there is a monumental overlap of absorption at the very frequencies that matter to the greenhouse. Although there's much handwaving from the warming side as to why this doesn't matter -- it's been interesting that various studies that CONTROL for water vapor and solar heating have NOT FOUND a correlation with increasing CO2 concentrations. Such as studies that have focused on NIGHTTIME temperatures, in the desert, under clear skies.

That --- and the fact that I pointed out before that you completely ignored, which is the thermal forcing function from CO2 is NOT LINEAR. In fact, to get the same temp rise, you must DOUBLE the concentration of CO2 that gave you the last increase. This non-linearity suggests that at some point, adding more CO2 has a very limited effect on atmospheric thermal retention. A fact seemingly confirmed by the historic data that suggests atmos. concentrations of CO2 up to 10 TIMES what it is today -- without the alarmist claptrap of doom happening. This very non-linear temp forcing function is virtually irrelevent to the ALARMISTS who rely on positive thermal feedbacks contributing to thermal runaway which may or may not actually exist. It's ADMITTED by the warmists that just the temp increase from CO2 has no meaning to the doom and gloom predictions without this faith in multiplicative feedbacks.

Add to all of that the fact that we're GUESSING about the factor that converts the CO2 thermal forcing function from watts/m2 to actual surface temp (the elusive and much mangled Climate Sensitivity number) which in REALITY is NOT a constant but varies temporally and spatially around the multiple climate zones of the earth ---- and you have right there --- a good starting basis for questioning the simplistic impression you have that CO2 explains everything...

 

[westwall]

Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...


Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.

It's worth being honest about that.




No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.

Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."



BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'