Death knell for AGW

[captain morgan]

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?

Give me a break.

Mann engineered his data (peer reviewed by those that depended on the same grants no doubt) as per the accepted practices of the eco-lobby... I might remind you to look into the practices and ethical bankruptcies of the IPCC and East Anglia if you doubt the above

You seem to have an interest in giving a pass on research that you support, but jump into minute detail in criticizing anything that contradicts your position.

Hell, I initially heard about this from the CBC - that in itself is a condemnation of Mann

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:

Ohhhhh.. 3000 whole points of reference.

Well, that MUST wholly representative of a random generation.

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.

Ecotards don't like people like you bringing up inconvenient little realities like that.

Shame on you Petros

 

[petros]

Give me a break.

Mann engineered his data (peer reviewed by those that depended on the same grants no doubt) as per the accepted practices of the eco-lobby... I might remind you to look into the practices and ethical bankruptcies of the IPCC and East Anglia if you doubt the above

You seem to have an interest in giving a pass on research that you support, but jump into minute detail in criticizing anything that contradicts your position.

Hell, I initially heard about this from the CBC - that in itself is a condemnation of Mann



Ohhhhh.. 3000 whole points of reference.

Well, that MUST wholly representative of a random generation.



Ecotards don't like people like you bringing up inconvenient little realities like that.

Shame on you Petros

Should I consider myself a Geologist or an Earth Scientist? If I go with Earth Scientist is it easier to be accepted by the Climate Scientists? Is there asspaddling involved? If there is some funky handshake or asspaddling count me out.

 

[EagleSmack]

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

That is what it is all about Cap'n.

 

[Tonington]

Give me a break.

You're spewing nonsense, you don't deserve a break. In fact you went out and ended up posting a blog post that is evidence against what you said in the first place. That you are too lazy to look into these things deserves no break in criticism.

So quit whining and smarten up. Mann used a technique to extract signal from noisy data. McIntyre and McKitrick objected and used another method, that didn't even change the answer. Mann got a few things wrong in the stats. So did McIntyre and McKitrick. In the end, other scientists have corroborated the results with different methods and with different data sets. That's how it's supposed to work. That's called a robust finding. Deal with it.

 

[Locutus]

The Sound Of Settled Science

Latest NASA temperatures are out, and are below Hansen's zero emissions scenario C.

https://twitter.com/SteveSGoddard/status/426152256887472128/photo/1

 

[captain morgan]

You're spewing nonsense, you don't deserve a break. In fact you went out and ended up posting a blog post that is evidence against what you said in the first place. That you are too lazy to look into these things deserves no break in criticism.

This blog post provided the basis for anyone to be able to replicate the general trend that Mann declared was the silver bullet for AGW.

There are far more parallels between the red noise example and Mann's hockey stick than you would care to believe, so before you get all in a twist in dissecting one mechanism, you might want to expend that same level of due diligence on Mann's work.

For the record, it was the CBC that ripped Mann et al on this and brought it into the public sphere, I guess that even they couldn't stomach the level of egregiousness that was being stumped-about by Mann at the time

So quit whining and smarten up. Mann used a technique to extract signal from noisy data. McIntyre and McKitrick objected and used another method, that didn't even change the answer. Mann got a few things wrong in the stats. So did McIntyre and McKitrick. In the end, other scientists have corroborated the results with different methods and with different data sets. That's how it's supposed to work. That's called a robust finding. Deal with it.

Are you still putting all your eggs in the 'peer review' basket on AGW?

Memo: the IPCC and East Anglia gutted any kind of force and benefit of that practice when they loaded the deck on every review.

 

[petros]

Skepticism IS Science.

This skeptic is packing evidence going back since a Thursday 4.67 Ba ago. How come there was an ice age during a time when the CO2 content of earth was 2000X higher than now?

We still haven't recovered from Krakatoa in 535AD when Eric the Red was farming in Greenland.

We've been in an Ice Age for 34 Million years. If we reconnect S. America with Antarctica we can end this sucker once and for all.

 

[Walter]

Deader than a door nail.

Another Year, Another Nail in the CAGW Coffin (Now Includes December Data) | Watts Up With That?

 

[Locutus]

What ho!


The Sound Of Settled Science

A paper published today in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a "significant" exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.

According to the authors, "Our analysis shows that "data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature."

The paper corroborates the prior work of Anthony Watts, Joseph D'Aleo, et al, finding leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net "global warming" in the 20th century.


The Sound Of Settled Science - Small Dead Animals
​

 

[petros]

Problems with monitoring like this U of AZ monitoring station located on asphalt in a parking lot?

 

[Locutus]

earth wind map

 

[Locutus]

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

The Sound Of Settled Science

 

[Zipperfish]

Ohhhhh.. 3000 whole points of reference.

Well, that MUST wholly representative of a random generation.

No but it is a more than adequate sample size to amply justify that Mann's hockey stick does not look like a random number generator.

 

[Locutus]

via sda:

The Sound Of Settled Science


Someone missed a memo.

One of the Met Office's most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming.

Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream - the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe - which has been 'stuck' further south than usual.

Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: 'There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.'

His statement carries particular significance because he is an internationally acknowledged expert on climate computer models and forecasts, and his university post is jointly funded by the Met Office.

Prof Collins is also a senior adviser - a 'co-ordinating lead author' - for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His statement appears to contradict Met Office chief scientist Dame Julia Slingo.
​

Related: Climate change, or weather? This chart explains...

 

[Locutus]

The Big Rink They Call 'Gitche Gumee'

"By the long shot this is the most ice we've had on Lake Superior in 20 years," said Jay Austin, Associate Professor at the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, Minnesota.

During a typical winter, 30 to 40 percent of the Great Lakes are covered by ice, according to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist Brett Anderson. But this winter, 80 to 90 percent are covered in ice.

That ice coverage, specifically on Lake Superior, is raising concerns.

"With all of this ice, all the sunlight that hits the surface of the lake is going to get bounced back out into space, so it's going to take longer to get warmer this spring and summer," Austin said. "The lake is going to just start warming this year when it will start cooling off for next year."
​

Y2Kyoto: The Big Rink They Call 'Gitche Gumee' - Small Dead Animals

 

[Walter]

Another one has seen the light.

Former Greenpeace Official to Senate Panel: 'No Scientific Proof' of Human-Caused Global Warming | NewsBusters

 

[Locutus]

Niagara Falls comes to frozen halt AGAIN as subfreezing temperatures freeze water | Mail Online

'warming'

 

[Zipperfish]

Deader than a door nail.

Another Year, Another Nail in the CAGW Coffin (Now Includes December Data) | Watts Up With That?

What is the C for? That's a new one. Catstrophic. Interesting--Watt is trying to hedge his bets these days.

Ohhhhh.. 3000 whole points of reference.

Well, that MUST wholly representative of a random generation.

I read this response and it sudden;ly struck me: you have no idea what you're talking about! ha ha ha.

 

[captain morgan]

I read this response and it sudden;ly struck me: you have no idea what you're talking about! ha ha ha.

Flip a coin 3000 times, track the results and make your conclusion that it is wholly representative of 100's of millions of coin flips (ie. geologic age of Earth).

Thanks for playing contestant - sadly you are the weakest link.

Let's see what Vanna has for a consolation prize for the 100th runner-up

 

[Zipperfish]

Flip a coin 3000 times, track the results and make your conclusion that it is wholly representative of 100's of millions of coin flips (ie. geologic age of Earth).

Thanks for playing contestant - sadly you are the weakest link.

Let's see what Vanna has for a consolation prize for the 100th runner-up

All you're doing is proving more and more that you don't understand the principles at play here.

If I had selected 3 x 10^9 instead of 3 x 10^3 points, there still wouldn't be a hcokey stick. Because a hockey stick shape has a tiny chance of realizing ina random number generator.