Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doc, would you still happen to have the links to the studies you cited earlier?
    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      Doc, would you still happen to have the links to the studies you cited earlier?
      I probably do... But I would need to know which studies... I cited a lot of papers.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • A Primer on Hockey Sticks...



        Controversy: Global temperature trends over the last 2000 years

        The plots of global temperature changes prior to 1860 (i.e., before the period of instrumental records) provided in the previous lecture about the Holocene Epoch should not be interpreted as a literal and exact reconstruction of global average temperature changes. There is a great deal of difficulty and uncertainty in trying to reconstruct global average temperature changes based on proxy data. One thing we can say with some certainty is that global average temperatures have fluctuated all throughout Earth's history, including the last 2000 years. Prior to 1900, we can safely say that the changes were not caused by anthropogenic additions of greenhouse gases, but were natural fluctuations.

        The plots previously provided to you are only one estimation for global average temperature change and do not give you any indication about the uncertainty. Other research groups have come up with different reconstructions based on their interpretation of available proxy evidence for global average temperature changes. The figure below gives some indication of the unceratainty as it shows 10 different published global temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years (note that most of the reconstructions shown only go back about 1,000 years). Note that there is not one single correct reconstruction. Please disregard the black line and asterisk labeled "2004" in the plot below. This was someone's attempt to splice the recent measured changes in global average temperature (after 1850) onto the graph. The problem is that while relative temperature changes can be estimated, there is no way to tell where today's global average temperature fits in an absolute sense. If proxy records were used to construct the past changes in temperature, then those same proxy records should be used up to the present time. It is misleading to try to tack on higher resolution observations of temperature changes at the end of a low resolution proxy estimated record. The point of the figure is to indicate the uncertainty in reconstructing past temperature changes based on proxy evidence. You should not use this plot to conclude that the year 2004 was warmer than any time over the last 2000 years.



        http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students...ntroversy.html
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          I probably do... But I would need to know which studies... I cited a lot of papers.
          1. Moberg et al (2005)
          2. MacFarling Meure, et al (2006)
          3. Esper et al (2003)
          4. McIntyre and McKitrick (2004, 5, and 9)
          5. O'Donnell et al (2011)
          6. McKitrick et al (2010)
          7. McIntyre et al (2011)

          These would be sufficient.

          On 'Mike's Nature Trick' to 'Hide the Decline,' it is not a reference to any decline in temperature:

          From the Wiki article on Climate Research Unit documents:

          The phrase "hide the decline" referred specifically to the divergence problem in which some post 1960 tree ring proxy data indicates a decline while measured temperatures rise. The reconstruction by Briffa et al. was based solely on tree ring data, which shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century to the mid 20th century. They had published a statement on the divergence problem in 1998, and had recommended that the post 1960 part of their reconstruction should not be used. Jones stated that the email was "written in haste" and that, far from seeking to hide the decline, CRU had published a number of articles on the problem. The implications of the decline are discussed in Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which describes discussion of various possible reasons for the divergence which does not affect all the trees, and says that there is no consensus about the cause. It notes that Briffa et al. specifically excluded the post 1960 data, which is therefore not shown in the graph of their reconstruction in the report. Stephen McIntyre says that in his review comments on the report he objected to this graph being truncated, and said that the whole reconstruction should be shown with comments to deal with the "divergence problem". The IPCC response was that this would be inappropriate.
          The "trick" was a technique to combine data series, and "the decline" was a well known issue with Keith Briffa's reconstruction using certain tree ring proxies which appeared to decline after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. The email was widely misquoted as a "trick" to "hide the decline" as though it referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, but this was obviously untrue as when the email was written temperatures were far from declining: 1998 had been the warmest year recorded.


          Climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately. The right end of the green line shows the "decline" due to the divergence problem with certain tree-ring proxy data.
          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            I probably do... But I would need to know which studies... I cited a lot of papers.
            AND posted a lot of silly posters. When can we expect your gibberish free dialogue, David?
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              1. Moberg et al (2005)
              2. MacFarling Meure, et al (2006)
              3. Esper et al (2003)
              4. McIntyre and McKitrick (2004, 5, and 9)
              5. O'Donnell et al (2011)
              6. McKitrick et al (2010)
              7. McIntyre et al (2011)

              These would be sufficient.

              On 'Mike's Nature Trick' to 'Hide the Decline,' it is not a reference to any decline in temperature:

              [...]

              Climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately. The right end of the green line shows the "decline" due to the divergence problem with certain tree-ring proxy data.
              The divergence problem is due to the decline in proxy-derived temperatures. This is the decline being hidden.

              Moberg and Ljungqvist incorporated the instrumental data into their reconstructions in a manner that honored the resolution differences. Mann and other hockey sticks simply replace the proxy-derived temperatures with the instrumental data without honoring the resolution differences. See the University of Arizona discussion in my previous post.

              In many cases only the abstracts and data are available online...

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/...oberg2005.html

              http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/iceco.../law_data.html

              http://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09cl...ons-jan-esper/

              http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html

              http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...2010JCLI3656.1

              http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

              MacFarling Meure wasn't a climate reconstruction. It was the highest resolution study of the Law Dome ice core.

              Esper summarized the differences quite well... Esper et al, 2005 in Quaternary Science Reviews...
              So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Esper summarized the differences quite well... Esper et al, 2005 in Quaternary Science Reviews...
                So, what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger (Esper et al., 2002; Pollack and Smerdon, 2004; Moberget al., 2005) or smaller (Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999) temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future predicted scenarios. If that turns out to be the case, agreements such as the Kyoto protocol that intend to reduce emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, would be less effective than thought.
                Right. However, proxies are a tool for mapping the past when we had no primary sources of data. As for studying the present and future, would it not be appropriate to rely instead on the (far more accurate) instrumental record? By this logic, the usefulness of proxy records ends where the instrumental record begins, especially if their predictions were inconsistent with the actual data. (Perhaps due to some 'extra variables?' Hint: humans.)
                Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                Comment


                • Okay, we've got from paisley to tartan. Who's been drinking scotch?
                  Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                  Hyperwar, Whats New
                  World War II Resources
                  The best place in the world to "work".

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                    Okay, we've got from paisley to tartan. Who's been drinking scotch?
                    With only two graphs?
                    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                      Right. However, proxies are a tool for mapping the past when we had no primary sources of data. As for studying the present and future, would it not be appropriate to rely instead on the (far more accurate) instrumental record? By this logic, the usefulness of proxy records ends where the instrumental record begins, especially if their predictions were inconsistent with the actual data. (Perhaps due to some 'extra variables?' Hint: humans.)
                      The problem is the difference in resolution of the two different time series (AKA signals). In the oil or mining industries, if you splice a high resolution signal onto a longer low frequency signal and call it an anomaly, you get fired, probably sued and possibly prosecuted. If you do this in government you get promoted. If you do it in academia you get tenured. In the private sector, this would not be a "controversy," as described in the University of Arizona discussion... It would be a tort or a felony.

                      Here is a very simple example:

                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      The Gorebots are al atwitter about this new paper...



                      Marcott et al., 2012 is behind a paywall; however the supplementary materials include a link to their proxy data.

                      This paper appears to be a text book example of creating a Hockey Stick by using a low resolution time series for the handle and a high resolution time series for the blade…



                      Let's test one of the 73 proxies.

                      I picked ODP-1019D, a marine sediment core from just offshore of the California-Oregon border because it has a long time series, is a an annual reconstruction and has a nearby long time series instrumental record (Grants Pass OR).



                      ODP-1019D has a resolution of 140 years. Grants Pass is annually resolved...




                      Let's filter Grants Pass down to the resolution of the Marcott et al. reconstruction...



                      Grants Pass sure looks very anomalous relative to the rest of the Holocene... Right?

                      Well, not so fast. ODP1019D only has a 140-yr resolution. The record length at Grants Pass is less than 140 years. So, the entire Grants Pass record would be a single data point in the ODP-1019D record...



                      While, the most recent ~140 years might be warmer than most of the rest of the Holocene in this particular area, does anyone else notice what I did?

                      The Grants Pass/ODP-1019D area has been warming at a fairly steady rate for 6,500 years...



                      I don't know how many of these proxies I will have time to analyze... Probably not very many. Maybe this could become a WUWT crowd-sourcing project.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
                        Okay, we've got from paisley to tartan. Who's been drinking scotch?
                        Vodka here...
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • So basically what you are saying is that the variability of the past 140 years is too 'compact' to be registered through a historical proxy reconstruction?

                          If I understand your argument correctly, the variations experienced since ~1850 could have been duplicated at various points in recent history, but the proxy reconstructions are too general to perceive them, therefore we should be cautious about proclaiming our time period 'unique'?
                          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            Vodka here...
                            Damned commie.
                            Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                            Hyperwar, Whats New
                            World War II Resources
                            The best place in the world to "work".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                              So basically what you are saying is that the variability of the past 140 years is too 'compact' to be registered through a historical proxy reconstruction?

                              If I understand your argument correctly, the variations experienced since ~1850 could have been duplicated at various points in recent history, but the proxy reconstructions are too general to perceive them, therefore we should be cautious about proclaiming our time period 'unique'?
                              Basic signal theory. This also applies to CO2.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X