If a large group of people are saying those things are bad then yes a smart person checks the facts and learns what and were they come from but then no one has actually accused you and your butt buddies of having any brains have they?
You’re full of shit. I get the fact that you firmly believe what you’ve been instructed to believe. You do that to such an extent that you falsely label those who disagree with you (or even question you) as “liars.”
www.nature.com
Since our buddy, manboob, has proved himself to be too cowardly or just to ignorant to discuss the matter of the accuracy of alleged “proxy” temperature measurements, I will share this with the class:
A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era - Scientific Data
Design Type(s) observation design • data integration objective • time series design Measurement Type(s) archaeal metabolite • calcification • glacial ice • radiance • sediment • stable isotope analysis • temperature of environmental material • trace metal analysis • wood Technology Type(s) data...
I haven’t found it helpful in determining to what degree (no pun intended) the proxy data — as analyzed — corresponds to whatever the actual temperatures might have been. It looks like it can be refined (or so they believe) to determining the approximate average temperatures in any given location to within a period of one year. This obviously, alone, brings into question how accurate it is. (Any such average annual temperature could have been skewed by a heat wave of unusually high temperatures, for example. Of maybe it got skewed that year in a different direction by an unusually cold period of drastically sun freezing temperatures.)
I’ll keep digging because I find it interesting. But I’d like a short cut. How can we determine how accurate or inaccurate the proxy data is and to within what parameters? Does anybody know? I exclude manboob because he doesn’t know.
We are a blip in the history of this planet. There is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about the weather.
so do you know what the headers are for the data in the three columns?
they think they can!!!! hahaahahahahahahahaha. I'm still waiting for them to make rain.
You could read a study that uses them. They will tell you.Since our buddy, manboob, has proved himself to be too cowardly or just to ignorant to discuss the matter of the accuracy of alleged “proxy” temperature measurements, I will share this with the class:
A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era - Scientific Data
Design Type(s) observation design • data integration objective • time series design Measurement Type(s) archaeal metabolite • calcification • glacial ice • radiance • sediment • stable isotope analysis • temperature of environmental material • trace metal analysis • wood Technology Type(s) data...
I haven’t found it helpful in determining to what degree (no pun intended) the proxy data — as analyzed — corresponds to whatever the actual temperatures might have been. It looks like it can be refined (or so they believe) to determining the approximate average temperatures in any given location to within a period of one year. This obviously, alone, brings into question how accurate it is. (Any such average annual temperature could have been skewed by a heat wave of unusually high temperatures, for example. Of maybe it got skewed that year in a different direction by an unusually cold period of drastically sun freezing temperatures.)
I’ll keep digging because I find it interesting. But I’d like a short cut. How can we determine how accurate or inaccurate the proxy data is and to within what parameters? Does anybody know? I exclude manboob because he doesn’t know.
They also think people can change their gender. This is what happens when a society rejects God.
Do you think the warming of the last 150 years has some nonanthropogenic cause? If so, what?
Really? You'll have to show us where your god tells you that people cannot switch gender.
This accords with my guess. But I’m still open to reviewing anything that provides any kind of reliability for proxy data (together with some reliable measure of its range of accuracy). Is the proxy data “reliable” to within a single degree F? Or within 5 degrees F? Or is it fairer to say that we simply don’t know because we can’t know?
Will they?
Source: How accurate are climate proxies in giving us a clear picture of global average temperatures throughout Earth history?Overall, any individual proxy is not a reliable indicator. It's the combination of multiple proxies that provides a clearer picture.
For example, tree ring growth has been correlated with temperatures. However, it's not without it's anomalies:
...from the middle of the 20th century tree ring growth was less than might have been expected from the temperature record... ([source]
(http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/treerings_introduction.html))
If we were to only look at tree-rings, we could not possibly trust on them as a reliable source, since they have known problems.
We can also use coral as a indicator of past climate. However, it's also somewhat questionable:
However, long (multi-centure) records are rare, and the possible influence of non-climatic influences has not yet been confidently established.source
Ice-cores are not immune to skepticism:
An indisputable interpretation of ice-core oxygen isotopes in terms of atmospheric temperature variability, moreover, remains elusive, and precise annual dating can be difficult.
However, if we can combine these three indicates along with other indicators (pollen, earth bores, etc), we can increase the reliability of our understanding. For example, if most indicators show a cold year, we can more reliability say it was a cold year.
Combining these proxies together helps us to gain a clearer picture of the past environment.
Overall Reliability
However, with that said, the amount of uncertainty with the multi-proxy method is not small.
At the Workshop on Mathematics in the Geosciences, Blake McShane presented a new algorithm for estimating paleoclimate. This algorithm provided a more reliable estimate by increasing the uncertainty of the predictions. That's an important point that I will restate:
Through his talk, he showed that his method was more reliable because it was less certain.
Even that wide uncertainty level, he questioned:
Indeed, this should make us increase our level of uncertainty (indeed perhaps our wide intervals are in fact optimistically too narrow)!
source
In the end, we can look at proxies for guidelines and trends, but they cannot be used for reliable readings.
Share
Improve this answer
Follow
edited May 7, 2014 at 7:15
blunders
4,60122 gold badges2727 silver badges5050 bronze badges
answered May 6, 2014 at 21:39
Richard
2,75822 gold badges1717 silver badges35
That may be off topic, BUT it was a nice reminder of a decent thing to do.
I believe the weather goes in cycles. There have been three ice ages that we know of. We're talking about thousands of years of cooling followed by thousands of years of warming. 150 years is nothing.
