|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 2:51:30 GMT
The warmistas have found it necessary to minimize the stronger forcings by building false hockey sticks that claims historical temperature variations were insignificant in relationship to recent variations. They need to do that because without doing this they have to admit that it is in fact unlikely that a significant portion of recent warming was caused by CO2 rather than from a stronger natural forcing. (unless you want to claim that a tenth of a degree/century is significant) This is all incorrect. Even if there was a medieval warm period many degrees warmer than present - and evidence is that there wasn't - it would still be the case that recent warming is likely strongly contributed by rising greenhouse gases. And what stronger forcings are you claiming have been minimized? Here's a list - which ones have been minimized? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.pngOK, we will try it again! The answer to your question is "natural forcings". . . .not "anthropogenic forcings" try hard to be less boneheaded!!!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 3:00:43 GMT
The table of forcings summarizes current knowledge of forcings. It doesn't say "nothing else can exist". In fact how can we ever conclude that nothing else might exist? I think the answer is you falsify a temperature reconstruction using discredited proxies like "Mann's PC1", strip bark foxtail series, and a single tree on the Yamal peninsula. There clearly are natural temperature variations in the reconstructions: I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 3, 2009 10:10:14 GMT
Icefisher said:
You are missing the context and the reason for the statement. The context is:
Don't keep going on about it being "weak". Provide figures! If you don't have figures you have no grounds for making any qualitative judgements about it.
And there is no way that any parametrization would ever follow Akasofu's plot because parametrizations are based on physical laws. A model with a parametrization that causes temperatures to rise during positive PDO (and to not fall as much during negative PDO) is one that either does not conserve energy, or was not in equilibrium. It falls at the first hurdle of testing - and as we know the software quality of models beats that of software used in NASA space-flight programmes.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 3, 2009 10:16:59 GMT
And where are the purported "natural forcings" now. Obviously, you believe they are occurring. But they haven't been observed. Oh no! I forget. The IPCC was specifically set up to ignore natural forcings, and they aren't mentioned in their reports.
Presumably natural forcings will also create more oil before our current supplies run out, and improve fertility of soil before levels of starvation increase, and reduce human fertility before population grows out of control. Natural forcings tend to work like that don't they!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 11:12:31 GMT
And where are the purported "natural forcings" now. Obviously, you believe they are occurring. But they haven't been observed. Oh no! I forget. The IPCC was specifically set up to ignore natural forcings, and they aren't mentioned in their reports. Well my recollection was the warmistas produced their models with the lionshare of warming since WWII attributed to CO2 emissions. Then somebody pointed out that their models did not accurately replicate historical climate patterns. . . .so the efforts of the warmistas was channeled to producing fraudulent science in getting rid of historical climate patterns so they would not have to recognize them in their models. Most likely a reflection of the quality and integrity in the rest of their work. What they did not plan for was natural variations beginning 10 years ago anew. Too bad! Now every day that goes by more and more people learn what a bunch of bozos they are. Probably in another 20 years they will be the laughingstock of a hundred generations. Their last hope of avoiding going down into the history books as biggest stupidest clods in history. . . .is that there is enough coal in the ground to actually influence climate. Most of the NGOs have moved on. . . .now they are latching onto ocean acidification. . . .putting fertilizer in the oceans. . . .and how horrible that is going to be. Presumably natural forcings will also create more oil before our current supplies run out, and improve fertility of soil before levels of starvation increase, and reduce human fertility before population grows out of control. Natural forcings tend to work like that don't they! Lunatics have been predicting the imminent arrival of peak oil now for 80 years. If you are scared about not having energy. . . .do something personal about it. . . .build a windmill or something. . . .don't foist your lunatic ideas on everybody else!!!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 11:40:52 GMT
Well my recollection was the warmistas produced their models with the lionshare of warming since WWII attributed to CO2 emissions. Then somebody pointed out that their models did not accurately replicate historical climate patterns. . . . Resting an accusation of fraud on a mere "recollection" ...
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 12:27:39 GMT
Well my recollection was the warmistas produced their models with the lionshare of warming since WWII attributed to CO2 emissions. Then somebody pointed out that their models did not accurately replicate historical climate patterns. . . . Resting an accusation of fraud on a mere "recollection" ... Socold fraud is trying to pass off a single tree as evidence of the hockey stick, pretending its a bigger study, and spending what? 6 years? in a slow speed bronco chase trying to keep from being found out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truth here doesn't matter if he is right or wrong. . . .its still fraud.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 3, 2009 12:46:26 GMT
Icefisher, If they did not "plan for" natural variations, how come most of the models exhibit variations that can result in periods of cooling or very little warming over periods of 10 years or more. Remarkably, having just checked, even Hansen Scenario A projection done in the 1980s (the high emissions scenario green curve) has an 11 year period of very little warming (entirely coincidentally, the period is 1998-2008): Because you keep saying stuff that is completely unjustifiable, we never get very far with this discussion. Who is the bozo now?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 15:01:31 GMT
Resting an accusation of fraud on a mere "recollection" ... Socold fraud is trying to pass off a single tree as evidence of the hockey stick, pretending its a bigger study, and spending what? 6 years? in a slow speed bronco chase trying to keep from being found out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truth here doesn't matter if he is right or wrong. . . .its still fraud. I assume you therefore have the answers to the following points. Please explain. "It would be a mistake to conclude that McIntyre's sensitivity analysis provides evidence to refute our current interpretation of relatively high tree growth and summer warmth in the 20th century in this region. A reworked chronology, based on additional data, including those used in McIntyre's analysis, is similar to our previously published chronologies. Our earlier work thus provides a defensible and reasonable indication of tree growth changes during the 20th century and in the context of long-term changes reconstructed over the last two millennia in the vicinity of the larch tree line in southern Yamal. McIntyre's use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre's sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it." ... "Briffa has also been attacked by McIntyre for not releasing the original ring-width measurement records from which the various chronologies discussed in Briffa (2000) and Briffa et al. (2008) were made. We would like to reiterate that these data were never "owned" by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and we have never had the right to distribute them. These data were acquired in the context of collaborative research with colleagues who developed them. Requests for these data have been redirected towards the appropriate institutions and individuals. When the Briffa (2000) paper was published, release of these data was specifically embargoed by our colleagues who were still working towards further publications using them. Following publication of the 2008 paper, at the request of the Royal Society, Briffa approached colleagues in Sweden, Ekaterinburg and Krasnoyarsk and their permission was given to release the data. This was done in 2008 and 2009. Incidentally, we understand that Rashit Hantemirov sent McIntyre the Yamal data used in the papers cited above at his request as early as 2nd February, 2004." www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 15:12:16 GMT
I think one thing has to be established here: Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to. To be so foolish as to say it represented anything other than that is absolute pure and complete hogwash.
His mythology is in complete question, but who cares.
Anyone's attempt to tie the MWP to Briffra's tree rings is doing the same thing as if I stated that because ND was 7.5F cooler than 30 year averages, the world is cold?.......Understand my point?
Biffra's study is worthless as far as climate goes. Might be useful if you are standing next to that tree.......but for me it doesn't apply to anything.
Another thing Biffra's study does not include is the cosmic effect on tree ring growth. That further invalidates his study as I can't find anywhere in it that he takes that into account.
Garbage in....garbage out. Easy one to see.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 3, 2009 15:43:18 GMT
YAD06 comes to light 10 years after the paper is published. Only after the Royal society requires Briffa to supply the data.
The data should have been published with the original paper. No data no paper. Trust me does not work. By the way I recently solved Fermat's conjecture, with an original proof. ;D
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 16:12:48 GMT
I think one thing has to be established here: Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to. To be so foolish as to say it represented anything other than that is absolute pure and complete hogwash. Have you read Briffa's study?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 16:14:40 GMT
YAD06 comes to light 10 years after the paper is published. Only after the Royal society requires Briffa to supply the data. The data should have been published with the original paper. No data no paper. Trust me does not work. By the way I recently solved Fermat's conjecture, with an original proof. ;D Read Briffa's response, the data was available from the authors of that chronology (which was not Briffa) and McIntyre has had it since 2004. By the way - have you read Briffa's study (Briffa 2000)?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 3, 2009 17:01:43 GMT
I think one thing has to be established here: Briffa's study attempted to show the temp trend in a small area. That is all his study is applicable to. To be so foolish as to say it represented anything other than that is absolute pure and complete hogwash. Have you read Briffa's study? Yes I have and he reaches some wayyyyy out conclusions. That is my point. I dismissed it after I had read it oh so many years ago as being flawed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 17:15:37 GMT
Socold fraud is trying to pass off a single tree as evidence of the hockey stick, pretending its a bigger study, and spending what? 6 years? in a slow speed bronco chase trying to keep from being found out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Truth here doesn't matter if he is right or wrong. . . .its still fraud. I assume you therefore have the answers to the following points. Please explain. [/quote] What needs to be explained? I see no defense of what he did there just some generally whining about how he can cherry pick more trees and get the same results.
|
|