sunsettommy Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 really? You're a lapsed believer? Now, clearly, to make a distinction around the film itself, as you should realize, the film has been dissected many, many times over... another denier 'iconic target', of course! Equally, from a scientific standpoint, a critical eye was turned toward the film in terms of how well it represented the consensus and where it lacked/failed... try a lil' googly and enlighten yourself as to just how well, overall, the film did present the science - whether you want to categorize it as 'propaganda', or not. Oh wait... you don't accept the science... carry on! Does that mean you will accept his lie about temperature changes following CO2 changes. When there were a number of science papers published BEFORE he made that absurd presentation.Showing that major temperature changes came first and CO2 changes FOLLOWED. A presentation that was exposed in a court of law to have serious errors in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 no - in the absence of a 'spare Earth hanging around' for experimentation, climate models are a necessary means to, with qualified uncertainty, quantitatively simulate atmospheric, oceanic, land, etc., interactions... to study the dynamics of the climate system to project future climate. In your words how can you VERIFY the far into the future temperature projections.Based on the AGW hypothesis.The IPCC obviously believes in? By the way please show us IPCC models that have been verified since 2001? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Waldo, Did you read the paper itself? How far back into the past are their data? From post #302 as for the actual early 2011 Arctic event and the paper being referenced - Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011 ... the real question for ongoing scientific analysis is what caused the 20km high stratosphere level to remain cold for several months longer than usually seen, year to year... as well as implications therein. Implications they have no idea about since the amount of data for this research field is negligible.How would they know it is "unprecedented"? The Antarctic ozone hole forms when extremely cold conditions, common in the winter Antarctic stratosphere, trigger reactions that convert atmospheric chlorine from human-produced chemicals into forms that destroy ozone. The same ozone-loss processes occur each winter in the Arctic. However, the generally warmer stratospheric conditions there limit the area affected and the time frame during which the chemical reactions occur, resulting in far less ozone loss in most years in the Arctic than in the Antarctic. Chlorine has been in the atmosphere for a long time before CGC's were produced. The study, published online Sunday, Oct. 2, in the journal Nature, finds the amount of ozone destroyed in the Arctic in 2011 was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone "hole" has formed each spring since the mid-1980s. The stratospheric ozone layer, extending from about 10 to 20 miles (15 to 35 kilometers) above the surface, protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. Do you realize that they left out the fact that there also similar low readings back in the late 1950's? Long before there were any significant CFC's being produced? The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss. Further studies are needed to determine what factors caused the cold period to last so long. Dr Michelle Santee of Nasa's Jet Propulsion laboratory said, 'It was continuously cold from December to April, and that has never happened before in the Arctic.' When will they stop calling it unprecedented? It is stupid! They did tell us finally after reading the speculative crap they wrote.That it has been colder much longer than usual. LOL a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently! Oh my! It stopped cooling about 20 years ago. LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 yes, clearly... citing the papers main author is anything but a 'lukinFact'. In any case, I liked your initial reply - the one before your walked-back edit! Yes you cited papers.Papers that have obvious flaws in them.It is obvious that you missed some inconvenient facts. Maybe you try reading entire links YOU post,on your own next time.Then think about what you just read. You missed some a few big admissions and absurdities in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Sure, but like you, I will bail once they get to the "poor polar bears" schtick and coastal floods in Kansas. You joke, but Alberta and Saskatchewan have serious coastal erosion and flooding problems from Nor'easters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 ... a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently!It stopped cooling about 20 years ago.LINK no - lower stratospheric temperature anomaly - negative trend comparisons (RSS, UAH, STAR satellite & HadAT radionsonde)... inclusive of El Chichon & Pinatubo volcanoes - UAH satellite lower stratospheric temperature anomalies ...stratospheric temperatures (14 to 22 km / 9 to 14 miles above the surface) have been below average since the warming effects from the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption dissipated in 1993. January-November 2010 was the 18th consecutive year with below-average temperatures (an anomaly of -0.41°C/-0.74°F), the 19th coolest year on record. The below-average stratospheric temperatures are consistent with the depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere and the effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations . The large temperature increase in 1982 is attributed to the volcanic eruption of El Chichon, and the increase in 1991 was associated with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Yes, your own links supports my contention of NO more cooling for the last 20 years.It stabilized around 1992. I wrote: It stopped cooling about 20 years ago. No more cooling since 1992. Thank you. Edited October 10, 2011 by sunsettommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 tommy, notwithstanding your fervent want to disregard long-term negative temperature anomaly trending results and continued below-average temperature anomalies... do you offer distinction between the effects of ozone, CO2 and water vapour within respective heights of the stratosphere, particularly lower versus upper stratosphere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) tommy, notwithstanding your fervent want to disregard long-term negative temperature anomaly trending results and continued below-average temperature anomalies... do you offer distinction between the effects of ozone, CO2 and water vapour within respective heights of the stratosphere, particularly lower versus upper stratosphere? LOLOLOL, I have conclusively shown that there has been no more cooling for about the last 20 years. How come waldo? ... a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! The "fingerprint" that has been in stall mode for 20 years. And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently! No,if you bothered to read the science paper and the media release behind it.It was the UNUSUALLY sustained cold Arctic winter that promoted it. Why do you think significant ozone thinning occurs every year in Antarctica? While it is rare in the Arctic? Meanwhile your own links shows that it was WARMER than usual last winter in the lower Stratosphere.Warmer than the previous 7 years. Edited October 11, 2011 by sunsettommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) Here anyone can read a science paper.Showing that the ENTIRE Stratosphere is now in a small warming trend. Recent Stratospheric Temperature Observed from Satellite Measurements All based on actual satellite data. Edited October 11, 2011 by sunsettommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 This science paper points out the effects of the changes in solar radiation changes,with Ozone changes in the atmosphere. It is from Nature: An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 a now quite dated circumstance associated with an early 2011 Jan/Feb extreme weather event... as for the actual early 2011 Arctic event and the paper being referenced - Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011 ... the real question for ongoing scientific analysis is what caused the 20km high stratosphere level to remain cold for several months longer than usually seen, year to year... as well as implications therein. As lead author Gloria Manney is quoted as saying: "Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters," said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. "The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently." what's that waldo - stratospheric cooling and climate change??? Yes, quite right... a recognized fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect is... a cooling stratosphere! And the effect of a cooling stratosphere on ozone depletion! Oh my... potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, as a result of climate change, may occur more frequently! Oh my! No, if you bothered to read the science paper and the media release behind it. It was the UNUSUALLY sustained cold Arctic winter that promoted it. no? No to what? No to my echoing the lead author's suggestion of, as stated/implied, "potentials for severe Arctic ozone depletion, may occur more frequently, as a result of, for example, a climate change induced winter Arctic stratospheric temperature drop? No to that statement? Really? Tommy, you should read what's stated before jumping in over your head, hey? As you should have also been able to clearly read, I attributed the Jan/Feb, 2011 couple of months of severe Arctic cooling, to an extreme weather circumstance... apparently, you missed that, hey? Of course, what was really evident with the original linked article/paper reference and follow-up comment by some of the MLW denier crew was it was simply just another opportunity to hype a presumed 'cooling' aspect (regardless of it's weather attachment... regardless of even recognizing or understanding the logistics and distinctions of sea surface versus atmosphere or troposphere versus (a layered) stratosphere). tommy, notwithstanding your fervent want to disregard long-term negative temperature anomaly trending results and continued below-average temperature anomalies... do you offer distinction between the effects of ozone, CO2 and water vapour within respective heights of the stratosphere, particularly lower versus upper stratosphere? LOLOLOL now tommy, your repeated LOL isn't a substitute for your failure to personally state an attribution even within your preferred shorter-term range period... although granted, and thank you very much, the prior of your latter linked papers most certainly highlights an attribution relative to, as stated, "the possible recovery of stratospheric ozone concentration". So... even if your repeated LOL kept you from verbalizing an attribution, you appear to have come around anyway... and it appears we have some common ground, after all, hey? Yes, most certainly, the Montreal Protocol has been a success in helping to bring a leveling off of chlorine compounds in the atmosphere... to see the beginning of their decline. Equally, per the recognized Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, the relationship between global warming in the troposphere and ozone loss in the stratosphere... clearly identifies that a growing problem related to global warming may be worsening another, preexisting man-made condition; i.e., ozone depletion. but, really tommy, your incessant fixation on post-1992 is quite telling... in a denier cherry-picking kinda way, hey? You did read my pointed reference to highlighting the inclusion of both the El Chichon & Pinatubo volcanoes in that long-term cooling trend, right? From a climate perspective, this paper properly highlights said volcano affects, particularly linked to/associated with ozone trends and the variable upwelling of tropospheric radiation: Understanding Recent Stratospheric Climate Change The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo. Previous attribution studies reveal that the long-term cooling is linked to ozone trends, and modeling studies driven by a range of known forcings suggest that the steps reflect the superposition of the long-term cooling with transient variability in upwelling longwave radiation from the troposphere. However, the long-term cooling of the lower stratosphere is evident at all latitudes despite the fact that chemical ozone losses are thought to be greatest at middle and polar latitudes. Further, the ozone concentrations used in such studies are based on either 1) smooth mathematical functions fit to sparsely sampled observations that are unavailable during postvolcanic periods or 2) calculations by a coupled chemistry–climate model. Here the authors provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, evidence is provided that shows the unusual steplike behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, the authors argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, it is revealed that the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer–Dobson circulation. This science paper points out the effects of the changes in solar radiation changes, with Ozone changes in the atmosphere. It is from Nature: An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate now tommy, your lack of attached LOL's suggests you weren't distracted from actually saying something here... so there must be another reason that kept you from presuming to impart the significance of the solar cycle on ozone changes/trending... presumably as affects your interest in shorter-term temperature trending - yes? Maybe you were just pressed for time, hey? in any case Tommy, thanks for the layup, the freebee, as I've had occasion to speak to this same paper on MLW previously. I trust you will give your full attention and acceptance to your linked paper, lead author's quoted statements... you know, where she states/emphasizes, scientists may have possibly "overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet", that their paper, "does not give comfort to climate sceptics at all", that, "solar activity could account for at most about 10 per cent of the extra warming this century", that, "this greater solar activity may have kept global warming in check by lowering temperatures slightly and counteracting the influence of greenhouse gases". is this really where you were going by linking to this paper, hey tommy? Ya, ya Simple... what a brazenly naive assertion you make - that, as you state, "the sun is finally being discussed". What? Is this you ridiculously implying that no solar science is being performed... that no related active/ongoing scientific discussion is occurring... that no solar/climate change related papers are being published? That nothing's being done... scientists aren't on the case... unless some blog throws up an article link/analysis, it wildly replicates across blog world... and you notice it? Yeesh! - paper: An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate There really was no mileage in this thread off the OP... just a single post made reference to it... Simple went quiet - wonder why? Maybe cause... skeptic/deniers, as it turns out, don't like this paper one bit! certainly same old caveats... a single paper... doesn't necessarily mean much at this stage. Prevailing comment from pro-AGW scientists seems to be summarized along the lines of, it's too premature to make any conclusions, the analysis data only covers a short 3 year period within the 11 year solar cycle, more than likely there's an anomaly at play, more research required, etc. The initial denier blog buzz was quickly dampened when legitimate analysis of the paper started coming forward... when comments from the paper's principle author surfaced; example: If further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, [then] we may have overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it. It does not give comfort to climate sceptics at all. If the sun warmed the Earth less when it was at the solar maximum, then the reverse was also true. You can't have it one way and not the other. However, the authors of the latest study, published in Nature, said solar activity could account for at most about 10 per cent of the extra warming this century. But if the new findings can be supported, it would mean this greater solar activity may have kept global warming in check by lowering temperatures slightly and counteracting the influence of greenhouse gases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunsettommy Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 It is obvious that you are going to ignore the actual data presented.Yours and mine. I showed using YOUR links that the cooling trend stopped about 1992 and stagnated after that. LINK Then last night.I showed a recent paper showing evidence that the ENTIRE Stratosphere appears to be warming back up.Fully based on the satellite data. LINK The satellite data we both presented supports my position that the cooling trend stopped about 1992 and stagnated for many years.Then I post a paper showing that it appears a small warming trend is now ongoing.Using only satellite data. When are you going to stop posting evasive crap and deal with the evidence of the satellite data? You are coming across as a condescending jerk.It is obvious that you are not going to carry on an honest discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 You joke, but Alberta and Saskatchewan have serious coastal erosion and flooding problems from Nor'easters. Alberta and Seskatchewan are land locked provinces. Nothing coastal about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 It is obvious that you are not going to carry on an honest discussion. honest discussion? Is that what your standard denier ‘gotcha’ setups were… your predilection for cherry-picking… your clear distraction away from anything I’ve said, your absolute failure… unwillingness… to attach attribution to anything you foster? And, of course, your faked trumped up consternation is now only exceeded by your blustering hand-wave and dismissal! Are you a self-proclaimed honest-broker… too? clearly, you favour false emphasis on the impact of a severe weather event. You favour ignoring a long-term, negative (cooling), lower stratospheric temperature anomaly trend. You favour ignoring a continuing below-average temperature anomaly within the lower stratosphere. You favour ignoring the impact of forcings/affects across the complete multi-layered stratosphere. You favour avoiding attaching attribution to anything… anything… you’ve presumed to state/imply. You favour cherry-picking on the ‘downside’ of a major volcanic affect. And, of course, you clearly favour and bluster away from any acknowledgement that your latest linked reference, most certainly, did not align with your denier sentiments and blew up on ya, big time! there most certainly is no evasion on my part – much to your displayed simpering/whimpering, I came at you head-on! You, on the other hand, are completely evading recognition/discussion of the impact of 2 major volcanic events on stratospheric climate change, ozone trend cooling, the variable upwelling of tropospheric radiation, the temporal variability in global-mean ozone and, of course, the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Honest discussion? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 waldo! waldo! Here is another fire for you to stomp on. It's getting out of control!!! something delinquent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 there most certainly is no evasion on my part – much to your displayed simpering/whimpering, I came at you head-on! You, on the other hand, are completely evading recognition/discussion of the impact of 2 major volcanic events on stratospheric climate change, ozone trend cooling, the variable upwelling of tropospheric radiation, the temporal variability in global-mean ozone and, of course, the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Honest discussion? Really? But...but those aren't anthropogenic nor can we do anything about them. Isn't your argument about anthropogenic catastrophic global climate change? We have discovered it isn't warming anymore and anthropogenic activities haven't ceased so what's up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 In brief: proxies have an orientation which is dictated by the physical phenomena. e.g. mercury expands when temperature goes up - it does not contract. It would be wrong to use a set of mercury expansion data in way that assumes that mercury contracts when temperature rises. If someone did that you could say that they used the dataset upside down. This is exactly what Mann did. I walked people through the original source paper and explained exactly how contamination in the last 100 years of data fooled Mann's algorithm into believing the proxy orientation was opposite of what it should be given the underlying physics. I feel my explanation is straight forward and can be understood by anyone with an basic understanding of regression. But if you instead stated: "mercury contracts by a negative amount when temperature heats up" ... it would still be correct. It would be awkward and cumbersome but you would be able to continue. Further to that, I find it hard to believe that they could come up with a conclusion that is 180 degrees wrong, and have that accepted by climate science. This would be akin to medical researchers finding out that cigarettes are good for you or something... Let's go further ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) But if you instead stated: "mercury contracts by a negative amount when temperature heats up" ... it would still be correct. It would be awkward and cumbersome but you would be able to continue.But that is not what is being said. What is being said is mercury contracts by a positive amount when it heats up. It is a physically wrong claim. Further to that, I find it hard to believe that they could come up with a conclusion that is 180 degrees wrong, and have that accepted by climate science.Well - the fact that you find it hard to believe is not surprising. This is why group think infests the climate science field because way too many people assume that scientists are doing the 'right thing' and absolutely refuse to look at evidence that shows otherwise.But before your simply dismiss it as too implausible consider the fact that on most things related to climate I take a sceptical view but I am very careful about the sceptical claims that I support and those that I don't. If I don't think something is known I say that. In this case, I say that I am 100% right and that Mann did indeed make this error. Based on that you should be at least willing to learn why I believe what I do and keep an open mind to the possibility that such as error did occur. The reason the error occurred in this case is data contamination. The dataset in question was contaminated for the last 150 years and if you use the last 150 years to calibrate this data with temperature the results will be spurious. In this case, the results were so wrong the physical relationship with temperature was flipped (e.g. if it was mercury then the data was used assuming mercury contracted with temperature). Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 But that is not what is being said. What is being said is mercury contracts by a positive amount when it heats up. It is a physically wrong claim. Ok. So we're saying that they actually reached a 180 degrees incorrect conclusion about the effect of a variable ? And nobody is challenging this ? Well - the fact that you find it hard to believe is not surprising. This is why group think infests the climate science field because way too many people assume that scientists are doing the 'right thing' and absolutely refuse to look at evidence that shows otherwise. Let's go further then. If it's as egregious as you claim, we should be able to find at least one reputable climate scientist to break the code of silence... But before your simply dismiss it as too implausible consider the fact that on most things related to climate I take a sceptical view but I am very careful about the sceptical claims that I support and those that I don't. If I don't think something is known I say that. In this case, I say am 100% that I am right and that Mann did indeed make this error. Based on that you should be at least willing to learn why I believe what I do and keep an open mind to the possibility that such as error did occur. I have no reason to doubt your intellectual honesty. If the error happened as you say it did, then a major study is 100% wrong. Let's see more... The reason the error occurred in this case is data contamination. The dataset in question was contaminated for the last 150 years and if you use the last 150 years to calibrate this data with temperature the results will be spurious. In this case, the results were so wrong the physical relationship with temperature was flipped (e.g. if it was mercury then the data was used assuming mercury contracted with temperature). Ok - we don't need to use the mercury analogy now... let's go back to the study... what have you got ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Ok. So we're saying that they actually reached a 180 degrees incorrect conclusion about the effect of a variable ? And nobody is challenging this ?Sceptics are. McIntrye even got a comment published in the jounrnal but the journal allowed Mann to brush it off and did not require that Mann correct paper's conclusions. We can deal with the details of this later. For now I want to see if we can come to an agreement the nature of the error.Ok - we don't need to use the mercury analogy now... let's go back to the study... what have you got ?Here is my post that references the original paper:http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19451&st=180&p=709411entry709411 Figure 5 in the paper is where the data is presented with its contamination. If you read the body of the paper it is clear that the 'hockey stick' is indicating that the temperatures have dropped dramatically in the last 100 years. Obviously, this is not the case. Of course, if you ignore the pesky details about physics and assume that low organic matter means high temps then the proxy becomes the perfect proxy for the alarmist scientist with an agenda to push. Edited March 9, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 McIntrye even got a comment published in the jounrnal but the journal allowed Mann to brush it off and did not require that Mann correct paper's conclusions. We can deal with the details of this later. For now I want to see if we can come to an agreement the nature of the error. no - your revisionist position will not/cannot stand. MBH responded to the McIntyre/McKitrick comment - here=> Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust. This MBH response is the official and prevailing formal state of challenges/responses to the paper... it has stood for 3 full years... it is the response that McIntyre has never formally challenged to-date, that no one has formally challenged to-date. What's McIntyre waiting for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Sceptics are. McIntrye even got a comment published in the jounrnal but the journal allowed Mann to brush it off and did not require that Mann correct paper's conclusions. We can deal with the details of this later. For now I want to see if we can come to an agreement the nature of the error. Yes, it sounds major. I'll look at your link next. It may be awhile before I get back to you on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 Figure 5 in the paper is where the data is presented with its contamination. If you read the body of the paper it is clear that the 'hockey stick' is indicating that the temperatures have dropped dramatically in the last 100 years. Obviously, this is not the case. Of course, if you ignore the pesky details about physics and assume that low organic matter means high temps then the proxy becomes the perfect proxy for the alarmist scientist with an agenda to push. note to Michael Hardner: TimG is asking you to eyeball a graphic image from the proxy authors paper and draw definitive and absolute conclusion... rather than actually rely upon (challenge to) the actual methodology/processing within the Mann et al paper. TimG has taken to argument by authority claiming the proxy authors paper as the "authoritative source". Of course, TimG purposely avoids the following even after it is repeatedly pointed out to him, from his labeled authoritative source, from the author Tiljander in her paper, the same paper in question here: Tiljander: However, it is difficult to make climatic interpretations at the annual time scale, but short-term changes (averaged over a few years) could be estimated. - the proxy author is most certainly not raising objections to using the proxy, in fact, pointing out how best to utilize it. More pointedly, within the Mann et al paper, the authors formally recognize the concerns raised by the proxy author about the possible later 200 years contamination and adapt processing to the considerations outlined by the proxy author Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 9, 2012 Report Share Posted March 9, 2012 TimG has taken to argument by authority claiming the proxy authors paper as the "authoritative source".Actually it is the only source. Mann cannot re-interpret the physics of proxies simply because it suits his purposes. The paper is VERY clear: low organic matter means lower temps. No amount of obfuscation and handwaving can negate this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.