|
|
Post by magellan on May 5, 2013 21:07:39 GMT
cuttydyer, Yes the co2"science" project has been mentioned many times before. Basically, they look at proxy papers. If the paper says it may have been warmer or drier than some period in the 20th Century for a short period some time between 850 and 1450AD they will say "aha!!! this proves the MWP was present in this location". Given that many of the proxies also show large periods of time when temperatures were similar or cooler, and given that the late 20th Century and early 21st Century warming is not picked up by many proxies, the average of the proxies tend to back up the findings of folk such as Esper, Mann and Marcott - that temperatures now are globally as warm or warmer than any time in the last millennium. LOL! Esper, Mann and the spaghetti graph? The Marcott fraud (which you seemed to have ignored a couple days after Sigurdur created a thread on it)? That's your saving grace? You're joking right? ROFL, OMG. BTW, finding cooling in a warming world is nothing new, so when some "new" study showing it cooler today than MWP at some region, just throw it in the bin of exceptions, not the rule. CO2Science, whether you like them or not, is quite detailed in their work. You've done nothing to refute their findings. The HockeySchtick has dozens of new studies not included in the CO2Science project that show various regions warmer during the MWP. Even today that is the case with finding cooling trends: diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/ |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 6, 2013 0:47:14 GMT
cuttydyer, Yes the co2"science" project has been mentioned many times before. Basically, they look at proxy papers. If the paper says it may have been warmer or drier than some period in the 20th Century for a short period some time between 850 and 1450AD they will say "aha!!! this proves the MWP was present in this location". Given that many of the proxies also show large periods of time when temperatures were similar or cooler, and given that the late 20th Century and early 21st Century warming is not picked up by many proxies, the average of the proxies tend to back up the findings of folk such as Esper, Mann and Marcott - that temperatures now are globally as warm or warmer than any time in the last millennium. Speaking purely from a QA/QMS perspective. If you present me with a proxy that does not "pick up" current temperatures. Then that proxy has failed validation and ALL papers based on its use should be withdrawn - no exceptions. This is the 'hide the decline' - the one area that Briffa demonstrated some ethical thought - and was overridden by 'the Team'. It never ceases to amaze me that no attempt has been made to carry out validation of proxies with 'double blind' studies. It is not like it is impossible to do. Any proxy that has NOT been validated with double blind validation testing should not be used or if it is used should require a large amount of extra supporting evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 6, 2013 1:04:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 11, 2013 12:20:55 GMT
cuttydyer, Yes the co2"science" project has been mentioned many times before. Basically, they look at proxy papers. If the paper says it may have been warmer or drier than some period in the 20th Century for a short period some time between 850 and 1450AD they will say "aha!!! this proves the MWP was present in this location". Given that many of the proxies also show large periods of time when temperatures were similar or cooler, and given that the late 20th Century and early 21st Century warming is not picked up by many proxies, the average of the proxies tend to back up the findings of folk such as Esper, Mann and Marcott - that temperatures now are globally as warm or warmer than any time in the last millennium. LOL! Esper, Mann and the spaghetti graph? The Marcott fraud (which you seemed to have ignored a couple days after Sigurdur created a thread on it)? That's your saving grace? You're joking right? ROFL, OMG. BTW, finding cooling in a warming world is nothing new, so when some "new" study showing it cooler today than MWP at some region, just throw it in the bin of exceptions, not the rule. CO2Science, whether you like them or not, is quite detailed in their work. You've done nothing to refute their findings. The HockeySchtick has dozens of new studies not included in the CO2Science project that show various regions warmer during the MWP. Even today that is the case with finding cooling trends: diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/ I've done nothing except get hold of the papers and demonstrate that what I say is true - that they highlight limited periods of warmth and ignore matching periods of cold. You've done nothing except link to co2"science abstracts and hockeyschtick posts, and been taken in hook, line and sinker by the skewed analyses. I didn't ignore the Marcott thread - I posted up to 6 days after it was created. Why do you make up stuff *all the time*? I should have added that even the Loehle paper pretty much backs up what I say which given that it was written by a sceptic and published in E&E should tell you something: |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 12, 2013 21:10:49 GMT
LOL! Esper, Mann and the spaghetti graph? The Marcott fraud (which you seemed to have ignored a couple days after Sigurdur created a thread on it)? That's your saving grace? You're joking right? ROFL, OMG. BTW, finding cooling in a warming world is nothing new, so when some "new" study showing it cooler today than MWP at some region, just throw it in the bin of exceptions, not the rule. CO2Science, whether you like them or not, is quite detailed in their work. You've done nothing to refute their findings. The HockeySchtick has dozens of new studies not included in the CO2Science project that show various regions warmer during the MWP. Even today that is the case with finding cooling trends: diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/ I've done nothing except get hold of the papers and demonstrate that what I say is true - that they highlight limited periods of warmth and ignore matching periods of cold. You've done nothing except link to co2"science abstracts and hockeyschtick posts, and been taken in hook, line and sinker by the skewed analyses. I didn't ignore the Marcott thread - I posted up to 6 days after it was created. Why do you make up stuff *all the time*? I should have added that even the Loehle paper pretty much backs up what I say which given that it was written by a sceptic and published in E&E should tell you something: So given that Germany has just reported its coldest winter for a considerable time and that the Chinese winter was similarly harsh. Using your approach you would say that we are not in a warming period now? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 12, 2013 23:11:00 GMT
I've done nothing except get hold of the papers and demonstrate that what I say is true - that they highlight limited periods of warmth and ignore matching periods of cold. You've done nothing except link to co2"science abstracts and hockeyschtick posts, and been taken in hook, line and sinker by the skewed analyses. I didn't ignore the Marcott thread - I posted up to 6 days after it was created. Why do you make up stuff *all the time*? I should have added that even the Loehle paper pretty much backs up what I say which given that it was written by a sceptic and published in E&E should tell you something: So given that Germany has just reported its coldest winter for a considerable time and that the Chinese winter was similarly harsh. Using your approach you would say that we are not in a warming period now? nautonnier, This is very weak. You are highlighting a cherry-picked and limited amount (in time and space) of cold weather. The *global* anomaly for the last winter is very warm compared with the last 100-odd years of instrumental temperatures. The average of the last few winters for Germany and China will also be warm. So you are simply using co2"science" tactics. Did you have a heavy weekend? |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 13, 2013 11:05:41 GMT
So given that Germany has just reported its coldest winter for a considerable time and that the Chinese winter was similarly harsh. Using your approach you would say that we are not in a warming period now? nautonnier, This is very weak. You are highlighting a cherry-picked and limited amount (in time and space) of cold weather. The *global* anomaly for the last winter is very warm compared with the last 100-odd years of instrumental temperatures. The average of the last few winters for Germany and China will also be warm. So you are simply using co2"science" tactics. Did you have a heavy weekend? Not at all - you appear to have missed my point. Let us say we are 2313 and having this conversation and I am saying that there was a warm 20 years at the end of the 20th century. You say: " Can't be true - here are some historic reports and measures from Iraq showing they had snow for several winters even snow in Saudi Arabia and Southern Syria - what used to be called Israel - and at the same time there are reports here of Chinese getting fish from the rivers by cutting out the ice. We also have the tree rings metrics from a well known climatologist that show a significant decline in temperatures in the 1990's and reports from the old UK at the time show that more than 200,000 people died of cold in the first 15 years of the 21st century. So it may have been warmer in Australia but it certainly wasn't global...." |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 25, 2013 20:17:40 GMT
nautonnier, This is very weak. You are highlighting a cherry-picked and limited amount (in time and space) of cold weather. The *global* anomaly for the last winter is very warm compared with the last 100-odd years of instrumental temperatures. The average of the last few winters for Germany and China will also be warm. So you are simply using co2"science" tactics. Did you have a heavy weekend? Not at all - you appear to have missed my point. Let us say we are 2313 and having this conversation and I am saying that there was a warm 20 years at the end of the 20th century. You say: " Can't be true - here are some historic reports and measures from Iraq showing they had snow for several winters even snow in Saudi Arabia and Southern Syria - what used to be called Israel - and at the same time there are reports here of Chinese getting fish from the rivers by cutting out the ice. We also have the tree rings metrics from a well known climatologist that show a significant decline in temperatures in the 1990's and reports from the old UK at the time show that more than 200,000 people died of cold in the first 15 years of the 21st century. So it may have been warmer in Australia but it certainly wasn't global...." nautonnier, Been away - hence the delay in response. The question in 2313 would be whether the *average* of all the proxies indicated a warm period for the recent 20 years. Assuming the current warm period ends (due to a big uptick in volcanoes for example) and observations are all lost in the next nuclear war, there may be sufficient high resolution proxies to indicate that the 1993-2013 period was warm. But there may not. If there are not enough high res proxies to prove a 20 year warm period then you would certainly not be able to be sure the current period was warm. In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC). What I'm arguing though is that the co2"science" database is in line with what I say, but is presented to say the opposite and is understood to say the opposite by people taking the co2"science" headlines at face value. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 25, 2013 22:33:01 GMT
nautonnier, Been away - hence the delay in response. The question in 2313 would be whether the *average* of all the proxies indicated a warm period for the recent 20 years. Assuming the current warm period ends (due to a big uptick in volcanoes for example) and observations are all lost in the next nuclear war, there may be sufficient high resolution proxies to indicate that the 1993-2013 period was warm. But there may not. If there are not enough high res proxies to prove a 20 year warm period then you would certainly not be able to be sure the current period was warm. In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC). What I'm arguing though is that the co2"science" database is in line with what I say, but is presented to say the opposite and is understood to say the opposite by people taking the co2"science" headlines at face value. I think you have that wrong Steve. Proxies exist that imply it was warmer. The problem is two fold. One is that such proxy findings have not been ground truthed as there has not been a warmer period of time than now in the empirical science era. The second problem is that proxies are indicators, like the average of age of a kindergarten class being 4.3 years old, but that does not rule out a 6 year old kindergartener in the class. Its just plain shabby science when those issues are not carefully considered and you run rough shod over quality science when you mix such proxies with other records like the instrument record. You want to imply the idea of it being warmer today to falling just short of a 95% possibility. That complete hogwash as you have no basis for determining probability when mixing apples and oranges. . . .don't you know better than that? I thought you were a scientist. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 26, 2013 1:06:21 GMT
nautonnier, Been away - hence the delay in response. The question in 2313 would be whether the *average* of all the proxies indicated a warm period for the recent 20 years. Assuming the current warm period ends (due to a big uptick in volcanoes for example) and observations are all lost in the next nuclear war, there may be sufficient high resolution proxies to indicate that the 1993-2013 period was warm. But there may not. If there are not enough high res proxies to prove a 20 year warm period then you would certainly not be able to be sure the current period was warm. In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC). What I'm arguing though is that the co2"science" database is in line with what I say, but is presented to say the opposite and is understood to say the opposite by people taking the co2"science" headlines at face value. I think you have that wrong Steve. Proxies exist that imply it was warmer. The problem is two fold. One is that such proxy findings have not been ground truthed as there has not been a warmer period of time than now in the empirical science era. The second problem is that proxies are indicators, like the average of age of a kindergarten class being 4.3 years old, but that does not rule out a 6 year old kindergartener in the class. Its just plain shabby science when those issues are not carefully considered and you run rough shod over quality science when you mix such proxies with other records like the instrument record. You want to imply the idea of it being warmer today to falling just short of a 95% possibility. That complete hogwash as you have no basis for determining probability when mixing apples and oranges. . . .don't you know better than that? I thought you were a scientist. Which current set of proxies? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2013 13:00:32 GMT
I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period. Each year without global cooling makes this less likely (the years since his paper were warmer than the years 30 years ago).
Again (and again) the main point is that absence or weakness of the evidence against a belief cannot simply be taken as evidence for a belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 26, 2013 14:12:45 GMT
The main thing is there is enough noise in all the proxy data that one can easily say the temps of the MWP were warmer than present and be correct.
And you can say the opposite and be correct as well.
It depends on which side of the error bars that you want to look.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 26, 2013 19:25:44 GMT
Not at all - you appear to have missed my point. Let us say we are 2313 and having this conversation and I am saying that there was a warm 20 years at the end of the 20th century. You say: " Can't be true - here are some historic reports and measures from Iraq showing they had snow for several winters even snow in Saudi Arabia and Southern Syria - what used to be called Israel - and at the same time there are reports here of Chinese getting fish from the rivers by cutting out the ice. We also have the tree rings metrics from a well known climatologist that show a significant decline in temperatures in the 1990's and reports from the old UK at the time show that more than 200,000 people died of cold in the first 15 years of the 21st century. So it may have been warmer in Australia but it certainly wasn't global...." nautonnier, Been away - hence the delay in response. The question in 2313 would be whether the *average* of all the proxies indicated a warm period for the recent 20 years. Assuming the current warm period ends (due to a big uptick in volcanoes for example) and observations are all lost in the next nuclear war, there may be sufficient high resolution proxies to indicate that the 1993-2013 period was warm. But there may not. If there are not enough high res proxies to prove a 20 year warm period then you would certainly not be able to be sure the current period was warm. In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC). What I'm arguing though is that the co2"science" database is in line with what I say, but is presented to say the opposite and is understood to say the opposite by people taking the co2"science" headlines at face value. Steve, It would appear that there are more 'proxies' showing global LIA. Interesting story here: To the Horror of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is HereOh and several people seem to think things will get colder. I seem to remember on the old board talking to you about how long temperatures would need to stay static before you re-examined AGW and that at that time it was 10 years (could have been another 10 years but it was some time ago.) Have you set a date after which if temperatures are still static you would look at things again? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 26, 2013 22:48:19 GMT
I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period. Each year without global cooling makes this less likely (the years since his paper were warmer than the years 30 years ago). Again (and again) the main point is that absence or weakness of the evidence against a belief cannot simply be taken as evidence for a belief. You continually impress me Steve. I can't imagine how somebody can get it up to spin: "I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period." into, "In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC)" My English must be screwed up. I read the former to say that Loehle thinks it better than a 50% chance that there was a period in the past 1000 years that was warmer; and I read the latter to say that its not quite 95% certain that there was no warmer period in the last 1000 years. If you get much further apart one would be properly labeled an "absolute flat earther" instead of a "sort of flat earther" . At any rate this should seque nicely into the Ben Santer statistics discussion as well. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 27, 2013 8:46:46 GMT
I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period. Each year without global cooling makes this less likely (the years since his paper were warmer than the years 30 years ago). Again (and again) the main point is that absence or weakness of the evidence against a belief cannot simply be taken as evidence for a belief. You continually impress me Steve. I can't imagine how somebody can get it up to spin: "I've mentioned Loehle a few times. He thinks there is one 30 year period that may have been warmer than the preceding 30 year period." into, "In the same way, the current set of proxies cannot find a warmer than now period in the past millennium, but such periods are not ruled out (at the 95+% possibility IIRC)" My English must be screwed up. I read the former to say that Loehle thinks it better than a 50% chance that there was a period in the past 1000 years that was warmer; and I read the latter to say that its not quite 95% certain that there was no warmer period in the last 1000 years. If you get much further apart one would be properly labeled an "absolute flat earther" instead of a "sort of flat earther" . At any rate this should seque nicely into the Ben Santer statistics discussion as well. Icefisher, Different people have different views. That is all there is to it. I'm inclined to believe the 95% possibility. Loehle clearly *thinks* he has found a warmer 30 year period, but his abstract says "The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so[." Translation: the evidence is weak despite my best efforts to find a warm period. And note that the most recent tridecade to now is 0.1C warmer than the most recent tridecade to 2007 (when Loehle's paper was first published). I suspect that has dented his statistic even more. |
|
