Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

[Old Rocks]

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.

No, Doooodeeee........ Only Lindzen, a discredited Exxon whore, has stated that. He has tenure, so he can make any kind of nonsensical statement for energy company money, and get away with it.

The MIT study indicates that the IPCC study was far to conservative in its estimates of the speed of the oncoming changes from global warming. And we are seeing proof of that in the speed of the North Polar Cap melt, as well as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

No, Doooodeeee........ Only Lindzen, a discredited Exxon whore, has stated that. He has tenure, so he can make any kind of nonsensical statement for energy company money, and get away with it.

The MIT study indicates that the IPCC study was far to conservative in its estimates of the speed of the oncoming changes from global warming. And we are seeing proof of that in the speed of the North Polar Cap melt, as well as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps.

Nothing of your "reports" shows any solid evidence, and because this enviro-crap has been pushing laws for several decades now, it shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Kitten, why don't you address how less than a 0.01% amount of a substance can totally stop all of your bodily functions. Don't beleive me? Go ahead, take a gram of potassium cyanide.

 

[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.

Kitten, why don't you address how less than a 0.01% amount of a substance can totally stop all of your bodily functions. Don't beleive me? Go ahead, take a gram of potassium cyanide.

A living organism is very different from the climate system. Answer this Rockhead, do you enjoy making loose connections based on reports paid for by the ultra rich who got that way because of said reports?

 

[Si modo]

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.

Kitten, why don't you address how less than a 0.01% amount of a substance can totally stop all of your bodily functions. Don't beleive me? Go ahead, take a gram of potassium cyanide.

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL CO2 is now cyanide

LOLOLOL

ZOMG!

What a fucking joke!

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, Sweet Kitten, both the climate and the human body are very complex systems that have areas where a small increase or decrease of a certain substance can create havoc.

I really didn't not realize that the ultra-rich were contributors to the Scientific American.

There is a point here that needs making. All of you wingnuts responded with a personal attack on me, or by stating that the data was already disproven. Yet this was a article by scientists that used data and statistical measures to update the information on what the data says about the last 1000 years in temperature. And what they came up with was once again the Hockey Stick Graph.

Virtually all the critizism of the Hockey Stick graph has been on the statistical methods used by Mann, et al. Yet, when they got done with their critique of Mann, what they had to say was poor methadology, correct answer.

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FactFinder]

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.

No, Doooodeeee........ Only Lindzen, a discredited Exxon whore, has stated that. He has tenure, so he can make any kind of nonsensical statement for energy company money, and get away with it.

The MIT study indicates that the IPCC study was far to conservative in its estimates of the speed of the oncoming changes from global warming. And we are seeing proof of that in the speed of the North Polar Cap melt, as well as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps.

The Arctic Ice extent is again growing. The Antarctic has been a puzzlement of why it was still growing during the warming of the 90's.
The globe is cooling due to the current solar minimum. Imagine that! The sun actually has an effect on our climate.
Oh and Lindzen is a highly respected MIT scientist. So respected that he was part of the IPCC till he became disenchanted with their refusal to follow recognised scientific discipline when the bureaucrats picked and chose what should be in the report. Lindzen is certainly a much more qualified scientist than NASA's Hansen who is just an often failed computer modeler.

 

[KittenKoder]

Ah, Sweet Kitten, both the climate and the human body are very complex systems that have areas where a small increase or decrease of a certain substance can create havoc.

I really didn't not realize that the ultra-rich were contributors to the Scientific American.

There is a point here that needs making. All of you wingnuts responded with a personal attack on me, or by stating that the data was already disproven. Yet this was a article by scientists that used data and statistical measures to update the information on what the data says about the last 1000 years in temperature. And what they came up with was once again the Hockey Stick Graph.

Virtually all the critizism of the Hockey Stick graph has been on the statistical methods used by Mann, et al. Yet, when they got done with their critique of Mann, what they had to say was poor methadology, correct answer.

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really ... huge difference, potassium cyanide is not a chemical naturally occurring in the human body ... CO2 is a naturally occurring chemical, accounting for less than .04% of the atmosphere, which feeds plants so they can survive ... huge difference. You ignored that fact too long, address it, if the CO2 is increasing so much then why aren't plants over populating the world?

 

[Old Rocks]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

"Poisoness"?

Anyway, you still compared apples to lawn mowers - so what?

And, w.r.t. the Mann crap, this work wouldn't even make it into a dissertation. His committee would bounce it back to him and say an unqualified 'No, not scientific'.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

No, Doooodeeee........ Only Lindzen, a discredited Exxon whore, has stated that. He has tenure, so he can make any kind of nonsensical statement for energy company money, and get away with it.

The MIT study indicates that the IPCC study was far to conservative in its estimates of the speed of the oncoming changes from global warming. And we are seeing proof of that in the speed of the North Polar Cap melt, as well as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps.

The Arctic Ice extent is again growing.

Duh, its winter. And the ice extant is no higher right now than it was at this time in 2007.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

The Antarctic has been a puzzlement of why it was still growing during the warming of the 90's.

By the models, because of increased precipitation predicted by global warming, it was predicted that the Antarctic Ice Cap would grow for a while. Did not happen, the melting on the coast and peninsula exceeded the additional ice added inland.
Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland

The globe is cooling due to the current solar minimum. Imagine that! The sun actually has an effect on our climate.

Of course the sun affects the climate, stupid ass. Nobody has ever said differant. As far as the globe cooling, 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last thirteen years. How does that translate to a cooling? Yes, because of the solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have seen some very cold years, especially in 2007 and 2008. Instead, they were both in the top ten warmest years in the last 150.


Oh and Lindzen is a highly respected MIT scientist.

He once was, just like Singer once was.

So respected that he was part of the IPCC till he became disenchanted with their refusal to follow recognised scientific discipline when the bureaucrats picked and chose what should be in the report. Lindzen is certainly a much more qualified scientist than NASA's Hansen who is just an often failed computer modeler.

Dr. Hansen is one of the most respected climatologists, in not the most respected, in the world. The fact is that his predictions were pretty much spot on. Except that they were a bit conservative and underestimated the effects of some of the positive feedbacks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

I REPEAT can the model be used to recreate past KNOWN temperatures? Past KNOWN weather and climate events? If your answer is NO, then it can not possibly predict the future. We do not know enough to create a model capable of that. SO genius if they can tell us what the temperature will be in 50 years can they tell us what it will be NEXT year?

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is it that during the past few decades, even with all these changes in how things are done, that this "change" only keeps getting worse Rockhead? We've been "cleaning" up a lot since the seventies ... yet your reports show no impact has been made ... not even a little one ... by these laws. Explain why anyone should listen to these same scientists now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

"Poisoness"?

Anyway, you still compared apples to lawn mowers - so what?

And, w.r.t. the Mann crap, this work wouldn't even make it into a dissertation. His committee would bounce it back to him and say an unqualified 'No, not scientific'.

Si, you are just as full of shit as the rest of the ignorant posters on this board. Have you ever considered doing even a little research?

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In response, a group-authored post on RealClimate, of which Mann is one of the contributors, stated, "the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously."[31] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[32] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."[33]

According to Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita[34] and Jesus Rouco,[35] reviewing the NAS report on McIntyre's blog Climate Audit, "With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless."[36] It was noted by their critics, however, that no such statement, explicit or implicit, is present on the two pages cited[37]; the closest the report comes being a statement that "Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to -0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried."[38]

However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[39][40]

 

[FactFinder]

No, Doooodeeee........ Only Lindzen, a discredited Exxon whore, has stated that. He has tenure, so he can make any kind of nonsensical statement for energy company money, and get away with it.

The MIT study indicates that the IPCC study was far to conservative in its estimates of the speed of the oncoming changes from global warming. And we are seeing proof of that in the speed of the North Polar Cap melt, as well as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps.

The Arctic Ice extent is again growing.

Duh, its winter. And the ice extant is no higher right now than it was at this time in 2007.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

The Antarctic has been a puzzlement of why it was still growing during the warming of the 90's.

By the models, because of increased precipitation predicted by global warming, it was predicted that the Antarctic Ice Cap would grow for a while. Did not happen, the melting on the coast and peninsula exceeded the additional ice added inland.
Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland

The globe is cooling due to the current solar minimum. Imagine that! The sun actually has an effect on our climate.

Of course the sun affects the climate, stupid ass. Nobody has ever said differant. As far as the globe cooling, 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last thirteen years. How does that translate to a cooling? Yes, because of the solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have seen some very cold years, especially in 2007 and 2008. Instead, they were both in the top ten warmest years in the last 150.


Oh and Lindzen is a highly respected MIT scientist.

He once was, just like Singer once was.

So respected that he was part of the IPCC till he became disenchanted with their refusal to follow recognised scientific discipline when the bureaucrats picked and chose what should be in the report. Lindzen is certainly a much more qualified scientist than NASA's Hansen who is just an often failed computer modeler.

Dr. Hansen is one of the most respected climatologists, in not the most respected, in the world. The fact is that his predictions were pretty much spot on. Except that they were a bit conservative and underestimated the effects of some of the positive feedbacks.

Hansen has been caught multiple times hacking the data or leaving things out. He is a modeler not a scientist.

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2009) — Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole, according to new research.

Do you never tire of the bull...this is why you are generally considered a political hack and not one who has any objectivity.

 

[Old Rocks]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

I REPEAT can the model be used to recreate past KNOWN temperatures? Past KNOWN weather and climate events? If your answer is NO, then it can not possibly predict the future. We do not know enough to create a model capable of that. SO genius if they can tell us what the temperature will be in 50 years can they tell us what it will be NEXT year?

Sarg, it was not a model that was used to estimte past temperatures, but proxies from ice cores, isotope ratios in ocean sediments, tree rings from those periods, and many other methods.

Really, you need to start using the wonderful instrument that sits in front of you, and do some real research, rather than just spewing the ignorance in the wingnut talking points.

 

[driveby]

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 definitely did too much LSD in the 60's ........

 

[KittenKoder]

Si Modo;

WTF are you doing? You are comparing apples to lawn mowers. Human body/climate; KCN/CO2; different compounds/respective lethal doses. Not even close.
.................................................................................................................

Fellow, the statement was that a system as complex as our climate cannot be affected by a change of only 0.01% of it composition. I showed where a complex system, the human body could, indeed, be changed by a much small amount than that. I could have used the element Selenium, a vital trace element, but poisoness in more than trace amounts.

Or, by weight, a very tiny amount of sulpher compounds that, injected into the upper atmosphere by volcanos, can change the temperature in a matter of months by several degrees.

I REPEAT can the model be used to recreate past KNOWN temperatures? Past KNOWN weather and climate events? If your answer is NO, then it can not possibly predict the future. We do not know enough to create a model capable of that. SO genius if they can tell us what the temperature will be in 50 years can they tell us what it will be NEXT year?

Sarg, it was not a model that was used to estimte past temperatures, but proxies from ice cores, isotope ratios in ocean sediments, tree rings from those periods, and many other methods.

Really, you need to start using the wonderful instrument that sits in front of you, and do some real research, rather than just spewing the ignorance in the wingnut talking points.

Actually ... you need to read your own "research" better, as the hard numbers and facts contradict each other, they also contradict this global warming ... because they also show there have been much higher temps in the past ... prior to humanity existing.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Arctic Ice extent is again growing.

Duh, its winter. And the ice extant is no higher right now than it was at this time in 2007.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

The Antarctic has been a puzzlement of why it was still growing during the warming of the 90's.

By the models, because of increased precipitation predicted by global warming, it was predicted that the Antarctic Ice Cap would grow for a while. Did not happen, the melting on the coast and peninsula exceeded the additional ice added inland.
Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland

The globe is cooling due to the current solar minimum. Imagine that! The sun actually has an effect on our climate.

Of course the sun affects the climate, stupid ass. Nobody has ever said differant. As far as the globe cooling, 11 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last thirteen years. How does that translate to a cooling? Yes, because of the solar minimum, and a strong and persistant La Nina, we should have seen some very cold years, especially in 2007 and 2008. Instead, they were both in the top ten warmest years in the last 150.


Oh and Lindzen is a highly respected MIT scientist.

He once was, just like Singer once was.

So respected that he was part of the IPCC till he became disenchanted with their refusal to follow recognised scientific discipline when the bureaucrats picked and chose what should be in the report. Lindzen is certainly a much more qualified scientist than NASA's Hansen who is just an often failed computer modeler.

Dr. Hansen is one of the most respected climatologists, in not the most respected, in the world. The fact is that his predictions were pretty much spot on. Except that they were a bit conservative and underestimated the effects of some of the positive feedbacks.

Hansen has been caught multiple times hacking the data or leaving things out. He is a modeler not a scientist.

Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Linked To Ozone Hole
ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2009) — Increased growth in Antarctic sea ice during the past 30 years is a result of changing weather patterns caused by the ozone hole, according to new research.

Do you never tire of the bull...this is why you are generally considered a political hack and not one who has any objectivity.

Good God, Fact, old boy. Sea Ice is not an ice cap. It is seasonal, and goes away every summer, and grows in the winter.

Yes, the winter seasonal ice has been increasing a bit around Antarctica. And each summer, it has gone away. Not only that, but the ice cap in Antarctica has been losing ice every year, by the gigatons.

No, Dr. Hansen has not been caught doing either. He has been given data that was not correct concerning current conditions a couple of times. He included that in the current accessment, and when he found out that the data was not correct, issued a statement to that effect, and corrected the assessment to reflect the corrected data.

On the other hand, his detractors, most with no scientific training or accredation, never have retracted even the most egrerious statements.