|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2009 8:59:38 GMT
regional oscillations could well override global oscillations. That might explain some of the extended cooling we see over and over again in northwestern Europe with cooling to almost the 20th century. But the whole basis for the LIA was centred on Europe originally. That's where the most reliable observations were and where the original studies were done. It's only relatively recently that other parts of the world were considered. A lot of Akasofu's stuff looks at Europe. If cooling extended into the 20th century and there was was warming throughout the Maunder Minimum it raises questions about the sun's role. There could be a million explanations. We just don't have much data. And Akasofu goes well beyond Europe in most of his proxies, lesser so for instrument records for obvious reasons. I think that is what Akasofu is saying, namely before we fly off the handle we need to better understand natural climate change. If you look at the Fennoscandian graph you have to ask what causes those spurts in tree growth so regularly. It sure would not seem to be CO2. . . .or maybe it is.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 6, 2009 10:10:31 GMT
regional oscillations could well override global oscillations. That might explain some of the extended cooling we see over and over again in northwestern Europe with cooling to almost the 20th century. But the whole basis for the LIA was centred on Europe originally. That's where the most reliable observations were and where the original studies were done. It's only relatively recently that other parts of the world were considered. A lot of Akasofu's stuff looks at Europe. If cooling extended into the 20th century and there was was warming throughout the Maunder Minimum it raises questions about the sun's role. There could be a million explanations. We just don't have much data. And Akasofu goes well beyond Europe in most of his proxies, lesser so for instrument records for obvious reasons. I think that is what Akasofu is saying, namely before we fly off the handle we need to better understand natural climate change. If you look at the Fennoscandian graph you have to ask what causes those spurts in tree growth so regularly. It sure would not seem to be CO2. . . .or maybe it is. There must be a huge number of validating studies for these tree ring proxies surely? We have a reasonably solid record of measured observed weathers lets say since 1900. It is only a graduate level project to obtain a statistically significant sample of tree rings of several species in areas that have such weather records and then carry out a correlation check against the weather reports. Without this kind of study all papers based on these proxies are just records of the direct metric, tree ring thickness - and cannot be used as a proxy to derive anything else such as temperature, rainfall, sunlight, pollution, insect infestation etc. Therefore I can only assume such baselining and validation studies have been carried out. Has anyone, especially those who quote the papers based on proxies, got cites for these studies?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 6, 2009 20:54:50 GMT
There could be a million explanations. We just don't have much data. And Akasofu goes well beyond Europe in most of his proxies, lesser so for instrument records for obvious reasons. I think that is what Akasofu is saying, namely before we fly off the handle we need to better understand natural climate change. If you look at the Fennoscandian graph you have to ask what causes those spurts in tree growth so regularly. It sure would not seem to be CO2. . . .or maybe it is. There must be a huge number of validating studies for these tree ring proxies surely? We have a reasonably solid record of measured observed weathers lets say since 1900. It is only a graduate level project to obtain a statistically significant sample of tree rings of several species in areas that have such weather records and then carry out a correlation check against the weather reports. Without this kind of study all papers based on these proxies are just records of the direct metric, tree ring thickness - and cannot be used as a proxy to derive anything else such as temperature, rainfall, sunlight, pollution, insect infestation etc. Therefore I can only assume such baselining and validation studies have been carried out. Has anyone, especially those who quote the papers based on proxies, got cites for these studies? Apparently a lot of assuming has been going on. Particularly by scientists who bought into the propaganda created by Briffa, Mann and Steve Jones and perpetuated by Hansen and Gore.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 6, 2009 23:07:20 GMT
There must be a huge number of validating studies for these tree ring proxies surely? We have a reasonably solid record of measured observed weathers lets say since 1900. It is only a graduate level project to obtain a statistically significant sample of tree rings of several species in areas that have such weather records and then carry out a correlation check against the weather reports. Without this kind of study all papers based on these proxies are just records of the direct metric, tree ring thickness - and cannot be used as a proxy to derive anything else such as temperature, rainfall, sunlight, pollution, insect infestation etc. Therefore I can only assume such baselining and validation studies have been carried out. Has anyone, especially those who quote the papers based on proxies, got cites for these studies? Apparently a lot of assuming has been going on. Particularly by scientists who bought into the propaganda created by Briffa, Mann and Steve Jones and perpetuated by Hansen and Gore. "Apparently a lot of assuming has been going on. Particularly by scientists "Scientists ? Whatever happened to check your sources? The major errors in papers are almost always in the assumptions
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 11, 2009 10:31:14 GMT
The town where the next AGW Climate Hockey Stick group meeting will be held ?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 11, 2009 15:29:08 GMT
4663 but I cannot see how GLC did the fourier of YAD06 to get that number without non assumptive beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 12, 2009 1:43:21 GMT
Perhaps the name of this thread should be changed to: "The Hockeystick Is Dead, Long Live the Hockeystick!"
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 19, 2009 3:25:46 GMT
I just found an article where McIntyre claims that Mann and others simply turned their graphs upside down in order to come up with the hockeystick. I'll read some more on this and then post a link. Very interesting though how more analysis of the data keeps finding more and more problems with the science being done on the AGW side.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 19, 2009 4:27:56 GMT
I just found an article where McIntyre claims that Mann and others simply turned their graphs upside down in order to come up with the hockeystick. I'll read some more on this and then post a link. Very interesting though how more analysis of the data keeps finding more and more problems with the science being done on the AGW side. You would be referring to this: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/Mann may have made an innocent mistake . If so, this is a prime example of confirmation bias to the extreme. Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down,
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 19, 2009 15:38:05 GMT
I just found an article where McIntyre claims that Mann and others simply turned their graphs upside down in order to come up with the hockeystick. I'll read some more on this and then post a link. Very interesting though how more analysis of the data keeps finding more and more problems with the science being done on the AGW side. You would be referring to this: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/Mann may have made an innocent mistake . If so, this is a prime example of confirmation bias to the extreme. Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down,
That's sarcasm, right? After reading the post and comments it seems hard to believe that the mistake was innocent. Too many innocent mistakes start looking like a pattern of either intentional manipulation or lack of scientfic skills. Which is worse?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 19, 2009 16:46:18 GMT
That's sarcasm, right? After reading the post and comments it seems hard to believe that the mistake was innocent. Too many innocent mistakes start looking like a pattern of either intentional manipulation or lack of scientfic skills. Which is worse?As Mann refuses to acknowledge this gargantuan "mistake", as even the author of the original data and researches from Japan point out agree with McIntyre, if it was a "mistake" it isn't anymore. Mann and the Team at large are known for not acknowledging errors and simply "move on". That is precisely what happened with MBH98 and the introduction of Briffa and the sediment upside down cake used to substantiate the hockey stick.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 19, 2009 17:50:55 GMT
As Mann refuses to acknowledge this gargantuan "mistake", as even the author of the original data and researches from Japan point out agree with McIntyre, if it was a "mistake" it isn't anymore. Mann and the Team at large are known for not acknowledging errors and simply "move on". That is precisely what happened with MBH98 and the introduction of Briffa and the sediment upside down cake used to substantiate the hockey stick. Its no mistake. These guys are salting the mine. . . .arranging the tea leaves. . . . And it fits perfectly with the advocacy of civil disobedience. This is the residuals of the LSD generation.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 19, 2009 22:41:04 GMT
As Mann refuses to acknowledge this gargantuan "mistake", as even the author of the original data and researches from Japan point out agree with McIntyre, if it was a "mistake" it isn't anymore. Mann and the Team at large are known for not acknowledging errors and simply "move on". That is precisely what happened with MBH98 and the introduction of Briffa and the sediment upside down cake used to substantiate the hockey stick. Its no mistake. These guys are salting the mine. . . .arranging the tea leaves. . . . And it fits perfectly with the advocacy of civil disobedience. This is the residuals of the LSD generation. It is very painful to watch some very intelligent people put in with these charlatans. There have been some notable defections, but the longer that the faithful close their eyes to the AGW fallacy, it is going to be even harder for them to give up the ghost. It's like all the people who believed Bill Clinton when he denied having sex with "that woman" - when he was proven to have lied, his supporters had no choice but to rationalize and obfuscate the story. I see a lot of that going on right now with the warmists.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 20, 2009 1:07:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 20, 2009 2:35:01 GMT
Aye mate, I will 2nd that opinion. Damn, we need to get science back on TRACK. This is getting purely out of hand with pure bogus garbage.
|
|