Speak softly and carry a big hockey stick
Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years 32
-
Posted 10:42 AM on 4 Sep 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
JeffId Posted 3:15 am
04 Sep 2008
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/how-to-make-a ...
Don't believe what you read, this science cannot be trusted.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:44 am
04 Sep 2008
What's melting the ice then? Antifreeze?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JeffId Posted 5:29 am
04 Sep 2008
There are thousands of scholars who disagree with AGW and see the disgrace this science has become. I suggest you study the papers, it is really bad what they are doing.
I don't understand which part of my post you don't follow.
By the way the ice increased this summer;)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/arctic-ice-ha ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:38 am
04 Sep 2008
This chart is stupid.
The red line only begins at the point that the authors want you to see.
Its like stapling one chart onto another.
And if, say, you want to use the yellow line, then you also have to explain the "reverse hockey stick" for 800 A.D.
What drove down temperatures then? Was it the drop in Roman chariots?
Permalink
wendigo Posted 5:44 am
04 Sep 2008
Permalink
JeffId Posted 6:09 am
04 Sep 2008
You are right the ice in the arctic has dropped slightly over the only 30 years we have measured, but the antarctic has grown. 30 years of measurement and we're ready to call it quits man is killing the earth! There is no long term trend, only a very short measurement history. In the antarctic ice increases are called a local trend by AGW guys, in the arctic it is global warming (man made of course)
The temperature reconstruction above and others like it using the same methodology (that is important) is the only link to the true history of temperature. And the basic mathematics is fairly simple and blatantly flawed.
Permalink
Bud Dingler Posted 6:41 am
04 Sep 2008
are we beginning a long multi year sunspot minimum? do we know all there is to know about or planet - I think not. what a joke a body of science that is basically in its infancy and we got people foaming at the mouth over a theoretical graph.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:06 am
04 Sep 2008
Also, for the ice deniers. It's an absolute fact that the volume of ice globally has declined. It's also a fact that ice coverage in Antarctica in the winter doesn't much affect the global thermal balance as ice under a dark sky can't reflect much heat while water under the sun (in the arctic) absorbs heat just fine.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JeffId Posted 7:14 am
04 Sep 2008
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/consensus-a-p ...
And I disagree about your consensus on peer reviewed science publications. There are many many such papers which have been peer reviewed. Unfortunately the UN IPCC which directs about 35 billion dollars to global warming and cannot exist without man made global warming, controls the world stage. These papers are relegated to the back in every case.
This hundred billion plus dollar industry (when other organizations are included) which would vanish without man made global warming, controls and necissarily corrupts the science.
I realize you won't be convinced but here is just 1 more link.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/climate-chang ...
There is much more information at the environment tab but it is pretty detailed so only the most science oriented should go there.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:19 am
04 Sep 2008
I can't for the life of me understand why you enviro weanies think that pumping a few hundred million years worth of stored fossil carbon into the atmosphere, while simultaneously denuding the planet of carbon sinks, could possibly impact the climate? Don't you people have a shred of common sense? Why can't you see the conspiracy?
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/timandheike.jpg
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JeffId Posted 8:02 am
04 Sep 2008
They were formed well before paleoclimatology had any good data, they need a broken methodology in order to show a temperature history because the data is too noisy to show a real trend.
There simply isn't good data on historic temperatures.
Let me make it more simple.
Mann's group, picks their favorite datasets, calibrate (modify) them to make them fit current temperatures and then throw out more than half the remaining data which doesn't support their hockeystick conclusion and average the rest.
Any historic trend is muted toward zero in the process but the most recent temperatures stand out.
This is how to make a hockey stick!
I can't say it any more simply than that.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:16 am
04 Sep 2008
Pick any study you like, and it'd still show the MWP was colder than today.
http://greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/mwp.png
http://greyfalcon.net/mwp
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:18 am
04 Sep 2008
None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx? ...
Oh, and of course, Baliunas 2006 doesn't count as a "real" study.
http://greyfalcon.net/baliunas
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:17 am
04 Sep 2008
And that right there folks, is when ya can tell somebody is missin' a few peanuts in the granola bar.
Yes, it's a huge organization, with it's own underground headquaters, whose memebers take secret oaths, and whose only purpose is to deprive the poor, innocent taxpayers of all their hard-earned money and take away their SUVs.
And best of all, Stalin, who faked his own death, is the organization's CEO, and this is just our way of slowly pushin' COMMUNISM upon America!
We may have lost the Cold War, but we'll win this time by usin' carbon tax credits!
Hahahahaha!
...in other words, get a life idiot.
The Pope doesn't preach stuff he makes up off the top of his head just so he can drink outta a gold cup and have satin bed sheets, and climatologists don't make up conclusions just to get research funds.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:29 pm
04 Sep 2008
And whats more, if they were really trying to milk it, then why are they trying to wrap this thing up as quickly as possible? (i.e. Putting themselves out of a job)
http://greyfalcon.net/tobacco4
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.h ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:08 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
JeffId Posted 1:56 am
05 Sep 2008
David Ahlport copied a bunch of results from studies which use the same process I have attempted to explain to this group.
And then 1 link to a non study.
then Tasermons decides that a large government organization cannot possibly be corrupted expresses that I am of low IQ.
-David Ahlport comes back with a thought out comment about the IPCC arguing that they don't fund.
Dave, I have to thank you for doing an initial look into the funding structure of the IPCC. It is a bigger situation than you realize. The IPCC of course states it provides no funding, but the IPCC formed and recommends processes to the UNFCCC which directs funding from the UN GIF to universities, nasa, UN programs and other places based on IPCC and UNFCCC recommendations.
your statemnt here
It's assumed that you have a day job as a professor. All the IPCC work, for instance, was all pro-bono.
Is completely incorrect, the ipcc funds expenses for travel to reporting scientits, but pays full salaries to the people constructing the reports. The reporting scientists are funded through the massive government structures based on their indivicual notoriety and fit to AGW needs.
It is also no small point that the IPCC provides these scientists with a world stage for their research like no other.
It's big, its ugly and its bad science.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:05 am
05 Sep 2008
You blithely wander wherever the neconmen lying leads you, just like your duuhbya does. Bleat it out now, sheople!
WMD? Mushroom clouds? Let Bin laden go and attack the wrong country and call ot a success? Invasion, occupation, and nation building (for a 100 years)?
Duuuh...duuuuhh..duuuhbya. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 6:56 am
05 Sep 2008
Of course you're not.
Sheep are useful creatures who contribute something (wool, meat, etc.) and are worth something.
Whereas you contribute...nothing.
Ya don't use any of your (obviously meager) skills or (once again, meager) intelligence to further humankind or society in anyway.
So there's no possible way ya can be a sheep.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:35 am
05 Sep 2008
Except that it's not just 1 government organization in question.
Because you can't find even 1 significant scientific institution in the entire world that says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake
Taser is implying that you are saying ALL significant scientific institutions are conducting a gigantic conspiracy.
Is that really the type of statement you are making?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
JeffId Posted 8:06 am
05 Sep 2008
I am not implying anything. I am stating that a massive multinational government structure was set up to support man made global warming science before any conclusions were reached.
If the scientists didn't produce evidence of man made climate change, the entire organization would have to be dismantled. Powerful people would be out of work.
Scientists who disagreed for the last 20 years have been systematically pushed to the bottom of the pile in terms of funding and name recognition.
Whats worse is that paleoclimatology data is horribly corrupted with BS statistics analysis and elimination of data which doesn't agree with their conclusions. The data is naturally noisy (an engineering term) and there is no clear signal in the curves. So they sort it to get rid of the data they don't agree with.
We cannot draw the conclusion that the past was cooler than now from the results presented at the beginning of this article.
To keep it simple: Mann used a statistical method I have only seen in paleoclimatology to throw away data he didn't want.
It wouldn't be publishable in any other field I know of.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:41 am
05 Sep 2008
Are you arguing "Therefore we should not investigate it further, and we should do nothing significant to prepare for the potential of it being true."?
And to some extent, we reach a point where it's impossible to fully know the future.
And that the concept of scientific "facts" is silly.
All we really have going for us is limited uncertainty.
_
Gravity, for instance, is "just a theory".
-David Ahlport
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 9:33 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 9:44 am
05 Sep 2008
firstly, are you opposed to capitalism, Jeff? i agree that plenty of people stand to earn money in a renewable energy economy, including T. Boone Pickens, but that doesn't mean it's all a scam, otherwise the whole "Capitalism" thing starts to go a little wobbly.
secondly, if this was all a Big Moneygrubbing Lie, why don't the Masters of the Big Moneygrubbing Lie, aka, Big Oil/Big Energy just crush it with THEIR hockey stick? lord knows they've tried, and $100 Billion doesn't even touch one year's profits, much less their gross, so since THEY have the most to lose, you'd think they would have already won, right? Since it's only based on who has all the money?
see you can't say that it's all about who has the most money, and have the IPCC win this. just doesn't add up when their direct "competition" has hundreds of times the money. so what's left? the science. god knows it's often manipulated (just ask NASA and the EPA!), so i'm not claiming total purity, here, just refusing to go with the money argument.
what else you got?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:45 am
05 Sep 2008
It's like having your neighbors dog bless your lawn every morning.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:46 am
05 Sep 2008
Since then massive amounts of data from ice cores, tree rings and sea floor sediments have been recorded, analyzed and published as scientific papers. The vast majority of those papers agree with the proven theory that human action is causing global warming in excess of the normal course of events.
Your simple denial in the face of this body of work lacks credibility. I'm going back over it because the dim view of the facts expressed here drops some denialist posters in the category of Flat Earthers and UFO abductees.
What you believe is not worthy of others attention in the abscence of evidence.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:45 pm
05 Sep 2008
Funny, last I checked, the Pope himself has said that he personally believes in global warming, and that we should do everything we can to prevent it.
I guess the Pope is no longer Catholic, now that he's part of the "environmental religion", ne?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:17 pm
05 Sep 2008
What crisis?
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling2
http://greyfalcon.net/cooling
-David Ahlport
Permalink
JeffId Posted 8:59 pm
05 Sep 2008
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/how-to-make-a ...
stopgreenpath,
I know your argument made you feel good but it has little basis in reality. The big evil energy guys (powering your computer) do have higher than 100 billion in profits (this year) for oil, however they cannot and do not spend all of their profits on global warming research. They are being outspent by hundreds to one. So in fact it could be about money. But it's not.
Look at it this way if NOW decided from their investigations that women didn't need any more help everyone would have to go home. It ain't likely to happen.
Pangolin, a bit calmer now I like that.
The papers you refer to typically refer to each other and use the same flawed statistically incorrect method I have been trying to tell you about at the link above.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:25 pm
06 Sep 2008
How do you deny the ice is melting?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JeffId Posted 3:13 am
07 Sep 2008
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 9:51 am
08 Dec 2008
I looked at your site. Your argument is basically that because Mann et al only plotted proxy data sets that correlate well with the instrumental record, and exclude or downweight others, the analysis is in effect rigged to create a hockey stick shape.
You mention that when you get time to learn a statistics software package, you will redo the analysis to prove them wrong.
For now, why don't you just download the datasets, then get the excluded ones, plot them one by one, and show them on your site on your site.
Scientists and their students thrive on debunking each others science. That's how you make a name for yourself. Once you've show how easy it is to debunk Mann, its inevitable that some statistics wiz will pick it up and run with it.
The folks who are so desperately trying to debunk global warming all use such lame, contradictory and tired arguments all the time that it would be a breath of fresh air to see one that holds up to scrutiny, and to see it well presented.
(By the way, I wonder how well the excluded/downweighted datasets correlate with each other?)
Permalink