Geology has provided oodles of evidence of what our future is. It isn't palm trees and spas on Baffin Island I guarantee you that.
The spooky hockey stick is just one side of a bell curve that drops just as fast as it rises.
Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The spooky hockey stick is just one side of a bell curve that drops just as fast as it rises.
You can plot Mann's same hockey stick exactly by graphing/plotting red noise (random # generation essentially).
Dodge.
Ummm…no.
Random number generation of 3000 points. No hockey stick.
Don't you guys ever get sick of beirng wrong all the time? :lol:
8O
Where did you read that!? That's probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever posted in one of these threads. Climate is deterministic, it's a response, and every reconstruction ever attempted by a climatologist shows trends. The sorts of trends we're talking about can not be replicated with random stochastic fluctuations modeled with red noise...
This thread has reached a new low, maybe it's fitting that it coincides with such chilly weather.
When you're cited as much as he is, why would you? You think he cares that you think he's wrong? :lol:
He cares that Steyn thinks he is wrong.
Suing Mark Steyn For Libel: Has Michael Mann Ever Heard Of Oscar Wilde? - Forbes
Non-sequitur. Libel is defamation. Claiming fraud is much different than just claiming someone is wrong.
Whatever. Mann's hockey stick is made as a means to an end not as an objective piece of research.
Yes, graphical representation of data is clearly a means to an end, but no, it is very much a part of objective research. The hockey stick is a result of the information in the data, not the processing of the data. This is clear when you analyze all the data without the principle component analysis that folks like McIntyre objected to.
Suit yourself.
You might want to decide to not read the links below; maintain your stress levels and all that
Make your own Michael Mann hockey stick at home | Watts Up With That?
The Wegman report sees red (noise) | Deep Climate
Figure 4.4: One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced is created by feeding red noise [AR(1) with parameter = 0.2] into the MBH algorithm. The AR(1) process is a stationary process meaning that it should not exhibit any long-term trend. The MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications.
That's not important... What is important is that we pay a tax to the UN/IPCC and are forced to buy corbon credits from one of Gore's companies in order to stop the globe from warming.
That is all you need to know
I'm familiar with Deep Climate's blog-it's quite good, but it's clear you haven't read this blog post. I've read it before. Just so you're clear, there is a huge difference between plotting trend-less red noise (what McIntyre and McKitrick called it), and modelling pseudo-proxies from actual tree ring data with persistent auto-correlation, and deriving principle components from it, and then plotting those values (what they actually did). Principle components themselves, are transformed data, and the data McIntyre and McKitrick produced was not simply red noise. In no part of their analysis did they remove the obvious trends from the data they sampled to produce their pseudo proxies.
This blog post is explaining this fact explicitly. I'm not sure how you could have read this and not understood that, or even worse how you think this is supporting evidence for your ignorant claim. I can understand if you don't want to re-read it, to maintain your stress levels and all that :lol:
So, your beef is that I used the word 'exact'?
Lemme ask you, does Mann's confirmation (using a separate data set that presumably confirms his assertion exactly everytime?.. I didn't think so
On the other side of this issue, graphing red noise and producing the same overall results indicates to the rest of the world that Mann's research was no more compelling than employing random numbers.
Carbon credits died. One year I managed to get my $5 an acre then nada. Now I have to carry the cost of a top of the line seeding and emission rated equipment.
PS I still need grain cars. Thanks for the CWB death scam.
Canadian Pacific - Grain
Request information
Click on the Request Info link at the bottom of the page
You want to blame someone for lower rail capacity? Point your guns at the eco lobby that has blocked the development of oil pipelines.. That is the reason that there are far fewer grain cars available.
PS - This circumstance would still have happened if the CWB monopoly still existed.. Hell, they would have gouged you even further as they would have passed the logistics right back at the producer
Request information
Click on the Request Info link at the bottom of the page
You want to blame someone for lower rail capacity? Point your guns at the eco lobby that has blocked the development of oil pipelines.. That is the reason that there are far fewer grain cars available.
PS - This circumstance would still have happened if the CWB monopoly still existed.. Hell, they would have gouged you even further as they would have passed the logistics right back at the producer
No, my beef is that you can't get Mann's hockey stick by plotting red noise. McIntyre and McKitrick needed much more math than a simple random number generator, and more to the point, they never removed the trend that was there in the first place. So why should we be surprised then that they ended up with a similar trend to Mann's if they never did trend analysis to first identify said trends or do anything afterwards to remove it? In essence, they weren't using artifical data at all. They just re-sampled Mann's data and did some maths to make new proxies from it.
Is that clear?
Where is the control? You have to have something to compare to decree "A unique man made catastrophe". It's in the geology which says everything is going smoothly. This peak is no exception when comparing any other interglacial period which are the controls.