Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Why don't you respond to the post?
The hockey stick was wrong
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
Why don't you respond to the post?
That's because you twisted what I said into what you wanted to hear, dummy. Not to mention you changed terms. Try again but this time be honest and you won't have a problem understanding it. But on the off chance that you still can't get it right, I'll explain it for you.
This projection is awesome, bro. A 3C rise in 78 years. Holy shit. You really believe this will happen?
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,324
- 12,909
- 2,400
The Shakun paper has been exposed as nonsense, in a series of 4 posts here is the last one of the four:
Shakun The Last, I Hope
"In three previous posts here, here, and here, I discussed problems with the paper by Shakun et al., “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation” (PDF,hereinafter S2012)"
===
Warmist/alarmists have a bad habit of using long discredited papers.
Last edited:
- Jun 22, 2020
- 20,795
- 23,217
- 2,288
We're listening to you.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,324
- 12,909
- 2,400
Ding the chart he posted is a pile of junk based on two long discredited papers.
Covered the Shakun paper at POST 65
.
The Marcott paper shown in the crick garbage chart was shown to be based on a statistical lie.
Climate Audit
The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service
Not long after that Marcott himself admitted the uptick is bogus:
Climate Audit
The Marcott Filibuster
The very next day Climate Audit found evidence that Marcott DELETED strongly negative numbers:
Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421
Crick and Rockhead likes to post long discredited papers because it is all they have to promote their lies with.
Last edited:
I don't care about the chart. I just cared that Crick went on record saying he thinks the plant will be 3C warmer by 2100. The geologic record says that is highly unlikely. If the temperature actually goes up by 3C by the end of this century, they are right. But it won't. Because they aren't.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,324
- 12,909
- 2,400
I like to show what a poor warmist/alarmist he is since he uses long discredited science papers to push his delusions.
That is why I attack his lying chart so hard tonight.
He's a true believer.
No, I did not. Note the label at the bottom of the graphic for the horizontal TIME axis.
I was talking about the projected 3C increase. I'm just trying to get you to commit to a number. Pick one too small and there will be no sense of urgency. Pick one too big and get proven wrong easily. It's a dilemma for sure.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,324
- 12,909
- 2,400
Your chart is a pile of shit as I showed at POST 68
Those two published papers have been long discredited years ago.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,987
- 2,776
- 315
Last edited:
Or this one...
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
Or this one...
or this one...
Want me to keep going?
It's a pretty well established curve that everyone accepts.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,324
- 12,909
- 2,400
abu afuk mad
Notice that Crick completely ignored the hard evidence at POST 35 showing the Hockey Stick paper was false.
He also ignored my POST 50 reply to his asking about consensus failures in which I posted numerous examples of consensus failures.
Rockhead ran away in terror from the evidence.....
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,324
- 12,909
- 2,400
Looking back to my old 2018 thread I started realized that I forgot to post this that utterly destroys Dr Mann's lying "hockey stick" paper,
POST 51
The warmist morons don't even notice what the main data Dr. Mann used for his 1998 paper is. It is mentioned in post 1, but somehow they don't realize that the Bristlecone Pine Tree data is NOT a temperature database at all. Quoting this for as SECOND time.
McKitrick
"A very brief summary of the problems of the hockey stick would go like this. Mann’s algorithm, applied to a large proxy data set, extracted the shape associated with one small and controversial subset of the tree rings records, namely the bristlecone pine cores from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest. The trees are extremely long-lived, but grow in highly contorted shapes as bark dies back to a single twisted strip. The scientists who published the data (Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction, and in particular their 20th century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region, and is probably biased by other factors."
=====
Now POST 50
Here is some background of that junk paper, from Climate Audit:
Re-scaling the Mann and Jones 2003 PC1
"Mann archived the Mann and Jones PC1 in the Jones and Mann 2004 archive here. They state that they used 6 chronologies, but do not state which ones. Within the MBH99 network, there are exactly 6 series that start in AD200 or earlier. I then calculated the (erroneous) Mannomatic PC1 and compared it to the archived PC1 – it was a pretty close match, but not exact. By experimenting with it – and I hate to say how much time these experiments take – I deduced that there was a correlation of more than 0.9999 between values up to 1700 and a much lower correlation after that. This confirmed that I’d spotted the correct 6 chronologies and that the JM04 PC1 was a re-scaled re-centered version of the Mannomatic PC1 up to 1700 and was a splice of some other series after 1700.
Needless to say, there’s no account of the splicing in Mann and Jones 2003, but by now I can sometimes anticipate Mannian ad hockeries. I tried the MBH99 “fixed” PC1 in the AD1000 network (“fixed” implies a rational process; let’s use the term “adjusted” instead) since there is no evidence that the PC1 is in any sense “fixed”. The “adjusted” and raw AD1000 PC1 were formerly available at Virginia Mann’s FTP site, but with the evolution of PennState Mann, this archive is no longer available. I saved it in Nov 2003 when it was first made public and I’ve posted up the PC1s from that network here. Experimenting some more, I determined that the correlation of the AD1000 PC1 fixed adjusted had a correlation of more than 0.999 with the JM04 archived PC1 for the period after 1700, showing that it had been re-scaled and re-centered somehow to yield the JM04 version.
There was some evidence on the re-scaling and re-centering of the AD1000 fixed adjusted PC1. Jones and Mann 2004 (though not Mann and Jones 2003) Figure 4 caption said that the series had been standardized on 1750-1950. This yielded an emulation of the archived PC1 that was pretty close – it was a bit more than rounding but not a lot more. See the top panel of Figure 1 below showing the discrepancies between the trial rescaling of the AD1000 fixed adjusted PC1 and the JM04 archived version – there is a relatively good match after 1700 and poor match prior to 1700.. So far so good.
Now another problem arose – and this is one that I’ve not been able to figure out at all. One’s first assumption is that the AD200 PC1 would be rescaled and recentered in the same way (on 1750-1950). This proved not to be the case as shown in the graphic below -see the middle panel. The second panel shows the discrepancies between the AD200 PC1 re-scaled in the same way and the archived PC1. Neither the centering nor the scaling match."
===
The "hockey stick" paper has been long exposed as junk science that can only excite science illiterates in their unicorn dreams.
It is a perfect litmus test to find the warmist/alarmist gooks of the world who have no ability to spot the numerous problems of Dr. Mann's paper that covers only the Northern Hemisphere using Bristlecone tree ring data that was originally collected by Dr. Isdo and Dr. Graybill in 1993 to measure the effect of CO2 enrichment on the trees, temperature was a distant consideration in the paper.
Graybill and Isdo 1993 PDF
POST 51
The warmist morons don't even notice what the main data Dr. Mann used for his 1998 paper is. It is mentioned in post 1, but somehow they don't realize that the Bristlecone Pine Tree data is NOT a temperature database at all. Quoting this for as SECOND time.
McKitrick
"A very brief summary of the problems of the hockey stick would go like this. Mann’s algorithm, applied to a large proxy data set, extracted the shape associated with one small and controversial subset of the tree rings records, namely the bristlecone pine cores from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest. The trees are extremely long-lived, but grow in highly contorted shapes as bark dies back to a single twisted strip. The scientists who published the data (Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction, and in particular their 20th century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region, and is probably biased by other factors."
=====
Now POST 50
Here is some background of that junk paper, from Climate Audit:
Re-scaling the Mann and Jones 2003 PC1
"Mann archived the Mann and Jones PC1 in the Jones and Mann 2004 archive here. They state that they used 6 chronologies, but do not state which ones. Within the MBH99 network, there are exactly 6 series that start in AD200 or earlier. I then calculated the (erroneous) Mannomatic PC1 and compared it to the archived PC1 – it was a pretty close match, but not exact. By experimenting with it – and I hate to say how much time these experiments take – I deduced that there was a correlation of more than 0.9999 between values up to 1700 and a much lower correlation after that. This confirmed that I’d spotted the correct 6 chronologies and that the JM04 PC1 was a re-scaled re-centered version of the Mannomatic PC1 up to 1700 and was a splice of some other series after 1700.
Needless to say, there’s no account of the splicing in Mann and Jones 2003, but by now I can sometimes anticipate Mannian ad hockeries. I tried the MBH99 “fixed” PC1 in the AD1000 network (“fixed” implies a rational process; let’s use the term “adjusted” instead) since there is no evidence that the PC1 is in any sense “fixed”. The “adjusted” and raw AD1000 PC1 were formerly available at Virginia Mann’s FTP site, but with the evolution of PennState Mann, this archive is no longer available. I saved it in Nov 2003 when it was first made public and I’ve posted up the PC1s from that network here. Experimenting some more, I determined that the correlation of the AD1000 PC1 fixed adjusted had a correlation of more than 0.999 with the JM04 archived PC1 for the period after 1700, showing that it had been re-scaled and re-centered somehow to yield the JM04 version.
There was some evidence on the re-scaling and re-centering of the AD1000 fixed adjusted PC1. Jones and Mann 2004 (though not Mann and Jones 2003) Figure 4 caption said that the series had been standardized on 1750-1950. This yielded an emulation of the archived PC1 that was pretty close – it was a bit more than rounding but not a lot more. See the top panel of Figure 1 below showing the discrepancies between the trial rescaling of the AD1000 fixed adjusted PC1 and the JM04 archived version – there is a relatively good match after 1700 and poor match prior to 1700.. So far so good.
Now another problem arose – and this is one that I’ve not been able to figure out at all. One’s first assumption is that the AD200 PC1 would be rescaled and recentered in the same way (on 1750-1950). This proved not to be the case as shown in the graphic below -see the middle panel. The second panel shows the discrepancies between the AD200 PC1 re-scaled in the same way and the archived PC1. Neither the centering nor the scaling match."
===
The "hockey stick" paper has been long exposed as junk science that can only excite science illiterates in their unicorn dreams.
It is a perfect litmus test to find the warmist/alarmist gooks of the world who have no ability to spot the numerous problems of Dr. Mann's paper that covers only the Northern Hemisphere using Bristlecone tree ring data that was originally collected by Dr. Isdo and Dr. Graybill in 1993 to measure the effect of CO2 enrichment on the trees, temperature was a distant consideration in the paper.
Graybill and Isdo 1993 PDF
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
James Carville and David Hogg are apparently getting married
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 4
