Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm........ Every time someone does a serious study on this, the Hockey Stick Graph just gets more confirmation.


Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].

 

[FactFinder]

Hmmm........ Every time someone does a serious study on this, the Hockey Stick Graph just gets more confirmation.


Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].

You mean it is trying for a comeback after the thrashing it took for its manipulative approach to the data..

 

[FactFinder]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_deming.pdf

Global Warming, the Politicization of Science,
and Michael Crichton's State of Fear

A direct attack on Mann et al. (1999) appeared later in 2003. Two Canadian
scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, tried to replicate the results of
Mann et al. (1998), but were unable to do so. In a paper published in Energy &
Environment, they claimed:
The data set of [Mann et al., 19981 . . . contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation
or extrapolation of source data obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect
calculation of principal components, and other quality control defects. (McIntyre &
McKitrick, 2003: 751)
McIntyre and McKitrick also found that Mann et al.'s (1998) results could not
be supported by the data.
The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the [Mann et al., 19981 proxy
reconstruction . . . is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and
incorrect calculation of principal components. (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003: 751)
An even more serious critique of the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) climate
reconstructions appeared in Science in October, 2004. Von Storch et al. (2004)
Global Warming and State of Fear 25 1
pointed out that the methodology used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was flawed.
Their reconstruction technique tended to dampen out, and thus obliterate, past
temperature changes. Although the analysis by von Storch et al. (2004)
published in Science was damning, the language was diplomatic.
The centennial variability of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is underestimated

 

[FactFinder]

Now one can see why the terror mongers wish to discredit Energy &
Environment

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unbelievable , after it was rightfully driven off the stage for being WRONG, we have old rocks trying to claim it is right. Usual tactics of the left, if you just keep saying something is true long enough some people will believe you. If you are proven wrong, wait a little bit and make the claim again later, then demand "evidence" your claim is wrong.

 

[Si modo]

Your desperation is rather cringeworthy, Rocks.

 

[eagleseven]

You want to base our economic policy, which will affect billions of people across the globe, upon tree-ring predictions? Do you believe in palm-reading as well?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As a strict science, Climatology falls solidly between palmistry and phrenology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So as an atmospheric molecule, we can still safely state that CO2 hockey sticks up to a rounding error, a trace element.

 

[mdn2000]

Old Crock is a big idiot, once again old crock proves himself wrong, you have to read the article mornon.

Tingley’s result resembles the same basic hockey-stick shape as previous reconstructions, except that it has more variability in the past

More variabllity, less reliability, looser parameters so the data is easier to manipulate

his analysis suggests

His analysis as in his opinion of his data, suggests is also not proof, given more variability of course his analysis can suggest anything.

may help remove lingering doubts

May help as in does not, this analysis using a novel approach does not remove the lingering doubts, hence the use of the word may.

Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete

data is admitted sparse and incomplete, no wonder at best this may help but not remove the doubt about global warming.

Martin Tingley of Harvard University calls his approach “much easier to handle and to propagate uncertainties”—that is, to calculate how the inherent limitations of the data affect the temperature calculated at any given time

See anything that even suggests proof in this quote

Tingley and Huybers’s new method, which Mann describes as “promising,” makes the assumption that nearby proxies can be simply related, or “chained,” either to data from nearby places or to data from the same place taken a few years before or after

This new method makes assumptions, nice non-scientific method.

we attempt to estimate how probable certain temperatures were

So these folks are not sceintists, assuming, attempting, estimating, what they beleive probable.

Tingley typically had to manipulate about one million matrices,

To maybe prove and assume an estimate of what they beleive

This article proves old crock is wrong once agaian.

This article states that these global warming kooks assume, use proxy data, estimate, manipulate, the data to get a preconceived result.

This article states its just a guess that the last decades were warmer.

A guess, you beleive this, and in took millions of manipulations to even get to a guess that still is just an estimate, at best.

So the last decades are not even proven warmer.

 

[Chris]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.

 

[mdn2000]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

No these are not facts, these are unsubstantiated statements.

C02 is harmless at levels a million times greater than present levels.

Present levels are all estimates, all guesses, they have no way of measuring the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, everything is a wild guess based on incomplete data. These dumb asses admit they dont have enough data so they assume what that data must be and than use those numbers. Go read the article, it states this.

Morons repeat guesses as fact.

 

[Chris]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.

The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

 

[Chris]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

No these are not facts, these are unsubstantiated statements.

C02 is harmless at levels a million times greater than present levels.

Present levels are all estimates, all guesses, they have no way of measuring the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, everything is a wild guess based on incomplete data. These dumb asses admit they dont have enough data so they assume what that data must be and than use those numbers. Go read the article, it states this.

Morons repeat guesses as fact.

No, morons deny scientific facts.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.

The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

No they can not. They have no knowledge to accurately project shit past what we can observe. We do not KNOW enough about the weather systems, the environment, the way the climate works, etc etc etc. They can only make guesses as to how things work and poor guesses at that.

Here is a simple one for you pea brain, if they can predict anything into the future and the model works then they should be able to work backwards and using their model get accurate or near accurate readings for temperatures we have recorded and available to validate the process. Can they do that?

 

[Chris]

And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.

The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

No they can not. They have no knowledge to accurately project shit past what we can observe. We do not KNOW enough about the weather systems, the environment, the way the climate works, etc etc etc. They can only make guesses as to how things work and poor guesses at that.

Here is a simple one for you pea brain, if they can predict anything into the future and the model works then they should be able to work backwards and using their model get accurate or near accurate readings for temperatures we have recorded and available to validate the process. Can they do that?

Nice try at changing the subject. This is not about the past, this is about the future.

CO2 causes the earth to warm in a way that can be quantified.

The Sun's activity can always counteract this, but the amount of CO2 is increasing everyday, therefore the influence of CO2 on the earth's climate is increasing every single day. By using their computer models the scientists at MIT can get a very good idea of what this influence will be in the future.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

No they can not. They have no knowledge to accurately project shit past what we can observe. We do not KNOW enough about the weather systems, the environment, the way the climate works, etc etc etc. They can only make guesses as to how things work and poor guesses at that.

Here is a simple one for you pea brain, if they can predict anything into the future and the model works then they should be able to work backwards and using their model get accurate or near accurate readings for temperatures we have recorded and available to validate the process. Can they do that?

Nice try at changing the subject. This is not about the past, this is about the future.

CO2 causes the earth to warm in a way that can be quantified.

The Sun's activity can always counteract this, but the amount of CO2 is increasing everyday, therefore the influence of CO2 on the earth's climate is increasing every single day. By using their computer models the scientists at MIT can get a very good idea of what this influence will be in the future.

LOOK you RETARD, unless the model can accurately reproduce previous weather patterns and temperatures then it can not predict future ones. Pretty simple concept even for a pea brain like you.

Our entire prediction process for weather and temperature is based solely on what we can OBSERVE. And it is only accurate out to a few days. a week tops. Yearly predictions are so loose and inaccurate as to be worthless. We can not tell anyone what the temperature will be in 2 months much less 100 years or 10 years.

 

[Oddball]

Note how Chrissy continues to ignore the MIT researchers, who've come out and said that claims of anthropogenic causes of GlobalCliamteCoolerWarmering are questionable, if not outright bunk.

 

[KittenKoder]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

You still haven't addressed how a .01% change in the atmosphere can be catastrophic.