|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 15, 2013 14:42:51 GMT
SS actually had a very good run of discussions on this very subject. About the only valid output from that site. This is a very important item in regards to fossil fuels. Thanks for the link.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Sept 15, 2013 15:02:44 GMT
Fascinating that they blame the computers rather than humans taking responsibility for their own errors....
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 15, 2013 17:29:39 GMT
Not so funny that untold amounts of money have been flushed down the AGW toilet. Not so funny that these monies could have been used productively to supply energy and food for the world. Not so funny that the EPA has been unleashed to harm humans based on false science embraced by our government. Maybe Australia has figured this scam out, it is about time we in the U.S. and the rest of the world figured it out.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 18, 2013 4:51:08 GMT
SS is a site that takes parts of papers to try and support stupidity. The most current example is Cook's recent attempt at having a shoddy paper published. It was published and then exposed for the junk it was.
They practice snake oil salesman ship. Numeruno posted a wonderful example of their bunk. We can all thank him for that link. It is clear deception and shows they lack the critical thinking required to understand how poorly they present their junk.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 18, 2013 5:03:46 GMT
SS is a site that takes parts of papers to try and support stupidity. The most current example is Cook's recent attempt at having a shoddy paper published. It was published and then exposed for the junk it was. They practice snake oil salesman ship. Numeruno posted a wonderful example of their bunk. We can all thank him for that link. It is clear deception and shows they lack the critical thinking required to understand how poorly they present their junk. And what is even worse, they always laugh mr Sigurdur off from the site, and he now has a deep grudge.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 18, 2013 5:21:41 GMT
Num can you explain please. do you agree with Sig?
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 18, 2013 5:23:17 GMT
This is Mr Sigurdur over at Skeptical Science. What he does here just does not cut it over there:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 18, 2013 6:00:01 GMT
SS is a site that takes parts of papers to try and support stupidity. The most current example is Cook's recent attempt at having a shoddy paper published. It was published and then exposed for the junk it was. They practice snake oil salesman ship. Numeruno posted a wonderful example of their bunk. We can all thank him for that link. It is clear deception and shows they lack the critical thinking required to understand how poorly they present their junk. And what is even worse, they always laugh mr Sigurdur off from the site, and he now has a deep grudge. No grudge. I feel sorry for them that they are so ignorant and deceitful.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 18, 2013 6:49:55 GMT
And what is even worse, they always laugh mr Sigurdur off from the site, and he now has a deep grudge. No grudge. I feel sorry for them that they are so ignorant and deceitful. Sigurdur What I dont get is why you dont just begin learning about science and the scientific method and in that way: 1. You can be knowledgeable about it. 2. You will be able to use the basic building blocks you know about to work things out for yourself in a scientific manner 3. You can get the respect that you are wanting to have when people talk about the ordinary commonly observed world around us. At this point in time it is pretty obvious to me that if you begin talking about science with scientifically knowledgeable people you are going to encounter many experiences where they behave disrespectfully towards you. No matter how painful those experiences must be for you, the way to change the next experience is not to keep up this pretence that 'you know'
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 18, 2013 6:52:30 GMT
This is Mr Sigurdur over at Skeptical Science. What he does here just does not cut it over there: Yep thats Skeptical Science all right! The argument put for by the moderator at Skeptical Science was: "In fact, the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly investigated this issue and concluded, “the late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years."And SS will delete any post and tell somebody to go post elsewhere if they post anything whatsoever that contradicts the propaganda they want to spread. So what did the National Academy of Sciences actually say? LOL! They pretty roundly scolded Mann's conclusions and methods and suggested improvements in proxies he had been using. They recognized uncertainty of the temperature a 1,000 years ago but stated they had high confidence in the existence of cooling into the Little Ice Age. Since Mann's work did not show a cooling into the LIA the NAS effectively obliterated the hockey stick. Here don't take my word for it read the press release! www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=62220066-22-06 Opening Statement Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years Dr. Gerald North, Chair Good morning. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to welcome those of you in the room as well as those of you listening on the Web. We are pleased to be here to discuss the findings of our new report, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. This report was done in response to a request from Congress, and our goal was to assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and comment on the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change. This report is not about projections of future climate change. It focuses on our knowledge of climate change in the relatively recent past.
Let me begin by explaining how scientists go about reconstructing surface temperatures for the past 2,000 years. Because scientists have been using thermometers to collect geographically widespread temperature records for only about 150 years, scientists estimate temperatures in the more distant past by analyzing what we call proxy evidence. Tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, and glaciers are all proxies that give us information about the climate that was present when they formed. So are old paintings and diaries that document what the climate was like when they were created.
To give one example, the annual growth in trees can tell us much about the climate at the time the growth occurred -- a wider ring indicating better growing conditions than a narrow ring. Likewise, the advances and retreats of glaciers provide evidence of warming and cooling.
Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began using sophisticated methods to combine proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years.
The debate that prompted our report began in 1998 when a paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes was published in the journal Nature. The authors used a new methodology to combine data from a number of sources to estimate temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere for the last six centuries, and later for the last 1,000 years. This research received wide attention, in part because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium, and also because it was illustrated with a simple graphic, the so-called hockey stick curve.
This controversy led to today’s study. Our committee, which was assembled by the National Research Council, is composed of 12 members with expertise in a range of fields including climate modeling, statistics, climate change and variability, and each of the types of proxies commonly used in reconstructions. The committee took multiple steps to accomplish its charge. First, we hosted a two-day workshop in March 2006 and invited numerous speakers from all perspectives in the debate to participate. We also examined the scientific literature in great depth, and considered written input from anyone wishing to provide their views. We looked at large-scale surface temperature reconstructions from six different research teams as well as at the instrumental record.
Let me summarize five key conclusions we reached after reviewing the evidence: 1. The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models. 2. Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the "Medieval Warm Period") and a relatively cold period (or "Little Ice Age") centered around 1700. 3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies. 4. Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified. 5. Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900.
The main reason that our confidence in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions is lower before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900 is the relative scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence. Other factors limiting our confidence in surface temperature reconstructions include the relatively short length of the instrumental record, the fact that all proxies are influenced by many climate variables, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time. All of these considerations introduce uncertainties that are difficult to quantify.
Overall, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. The individual proxy series used to create these reconstructions generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions, and in most cases there is a physical, chemical, or physiological reason why the proxy reflects local temperature variations. Our confidence in the results of these reconstructions becomes stronger when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general result, as in the case of the Little Ice Age cooling and the 20th century warming.
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. However, the substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.
My note here: Note that the NAS is effectively destroying the hockey stick! They state they have a high level of confidence in the "LIA cooling"! Mann's methods failed to show that! Obviously his methods are flawed! The NAS though acknowledges uncertainty and acknowledges proxy evidence as suggesting some places may have been warmer than today. So they acknowledged Mann's claim was at least plausible. But plausible isn't much. Merriam Webster: Plausible: 1. superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
One significant part of the controversy on this issue is related to data access. The collection, compilation, and calibration of paleoclimatic proxy data represent a substantial investment of time and resources, often by large teams of researchers. The committee recognizes that access to research data is a complicated, discipline-dependent issue, and that access to computer models and methods is especially challenging because intellectual property rights must be considered.
Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published datasets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community. Paleoclimate research would benefit if individual researchers, professional societies, journal editors, and funding agencies continued their efforts to ensure that existing open access practices are followed.
Where do we go from here? It is worth it to pursue large-scale surface temperature reconstructions. They have the potential to further improve our knowledge of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, particularly if additional proxy evidence can be identified and obtained from areas where the coverage is relatively sparse and for time periods before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900. It would be helpful to update proxy records that were collected decades ago, in order to develop more reliable calibrations with the instrumental record.
Improving access to data used in publications would also increase confidence in the results of large-scale surface temperature reconstructions both inside and outside the scientific community. New analytical methods, or more careful use of existing ones, may also help circumvent existing limitations. Finally, because some of the most important potential consequences of climate change are linked to changes in regional circulation patterns, hurricane activity, and the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods, regional and large-scale reconstructions of changes in other climatic variables, such as precipitation, over the last 2,000 years would provide a valuable complement to those made for temperature. In summary, as science has made progress over the past few years, we have learned that large-scale surface temperature reconstructions are important tools in our understanding of global climate change. They contribute evidence that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. Thank you for your attention. My colleagues and I are now open to answering questions.Of course at SS the goal was to embarrass Monckton and so they merely took stuff out of context to make it appear that Mann represents mainstream science on the matter, which clearly is a lie. Of course when anybody disagrees their posts are deleted and they are told to post elsewhere, if they persist in offering an argument they are banned. SS is simply a political propaganda site with absolutely no interest in science. Science by its nature is an open and transparent debate. One of the issues behind Mann's hockey stick was a refusal to show underlying data, and the NAS strongly criticized that.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 18, 2013 9:06:01 GMT
And what is even worse, they always laugh mr Sigurdur off from the site, and he now has a deep grudge. No grudge. I feel sorry for them that they are so ignorant and deceitful. There is a huge grunge on your side. It even shows across major oceans. They hit the nail too squarely.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 18, 2013 9:08:30 GMT
And what is even worse, they always laugh mr Sigurdur off from the site, and he now has a deep grudge. No grudge. I feel sorry for them that they are so ignorant and deceitful. There is a huge grunge on your side. It even shows across major oceans. They hit the nail too squarely. As someone over at SS said, Sigurdur, science does not exist for your motives only.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 18, 2013 12:06:49 GMT
Hard to tell what they said. My posts with references were deleted.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 18, 2013 12:23:55 GMT
Hard to tell what they said. My posts with references were deleted. This we can't say is true, but I can see you were given a fair warning on many occations at SS. I still have the screenshots that I saved the last time you tried retaliating to SS. If yours is not grudge, what is?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 18, 2013 15:13:40 GMT
Hard to tell what they said. My posts with references were deleted. This we can't say is true, but I can see you were given a fair warning on many occations at SS. I still have the screenshots that I saved the last time you tried retaliating to SS. If yours is not grudge, what is? Sheeeeesh, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!
|
|