CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[waldo]

Sorry you are the dullard. Tijlander said the Xray density decreases as temperature increase. The data in the last 200 years shows the Xray density increasing as temperature increases because of contamination. i.e. the sign of this proxy changes. The most appropriate way to deal with this problem is to leave out the contaminated data. The trouble is Mann can't calibrate proxy if he did that so he used the proxy upside down.

the very fact you keep coming back to McIntyre "upsidedownyness" is heeelarious... "Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors"

Your McIntyre inflamed idiocy simply can't accept that it doesn't make a diddly of difference as to what the correlation sign is for any of the proxies... no matter how much you huff and puff, wail, pound your fists, thump your chest and scream to the moon -

does not matter!!!

Is there a reason McIntyre won't take this further and formally challenge the actual reconstruction results... I mean, a reason other than drawing continued/further attention to his colossal screw-up? Here, chew on it again:

MannBradleyHughes: Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors.

[TimG]

Blog Science does not rule!

I never said it did. What I said is blog science is not wrong simply because it has not been published. The only one being pompus is you who constantly dismisses any argument that does not come from your approved sources. It is argument from authority ab asurdium. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

the very fact you keep coming back to McIntyre "upsidedownyness" is heeelarious... "Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors"

More talking points repeated by someone that does not have a clue what they mean. This statement is only true if the sign of the proxy does not change. I have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that sign of the Tiljander proxy does change because of contamination which means Mann's algorithm cannot handle it. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Blog Science does not rule!

I never said it did. What I said is blog science is not wrong simply because it has not been published. The only one being pompus is you who constantly dismisses any argument that does not come from your approved sources. Arguement from authority ab asurdium.

except you most emphatically believe blog science should supersede formal peer-review. A truly preposterous claim/want!

[TimG]

except you most emphatically believe blog science should supersede formal peer-review.

That is not what I said. I am saying peer review is not the end all and be all. Blogs can and do find problems in peer reviewed science that never gets published. In fact, the editor at remote sensing justfied his resignation based on "blog science" so that pretty much torpedoes your "blogs can do science" argument. Each instance must be evaluated on its own merits. A blanket statement one way or the other is nonsense. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

More talking points repeated by someone that does not have a clue what they mean. This statement is only true if the sign of the proxy does not change. I have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that sign of the Tiljander proxy does change because of contamination which means Mann's algorithm cannot handle it.

and... the proxy temperature correlation sign is not changing... does not change. You know nothing of how screening is performed - nothing! Quite simple - formally challenge the oft McIntyre labeled "meat-grinder" algorithm, formally challenge the screening, formally challenge the calibration, formally challenge the validation, formally challenge the testing, formally challenge the results. Formally challenge! Step outside the confines of the McIntyre controlled sandbox... formally challenge all that through recognized peer-review. What a concept!

[TimG]

the proxy temperature correlation sign is not changing... does not change.

Yes it does. Look at the data. Xray density goes down when the temperature goes up - except for the last 200 years when Xray density goes up as tempeature increases. The sign changes. You are truly obtuse if you cannot understand that. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Blog Science does not rule!

I never said it did. What I said is blog science is not wrong simply because it has not been published. The only one being pompus is you who constantly dismisses any argument that does not come from your approved sources. Arguement from authority ab asurdium.

except you most emphatically believe blog science should supersede formal peer-review. A truly preposterous claim/want!

That is not what I said. I am saying peer review is not the end all and be all. Blogs can and do find problems in peer reviewed science that never gets published.

they why not formally publish to refute Mann08/09? Why not? Is there a problem in allowing Mann the formal opportunity to engage a challenge to his (et al) results? Why not get it all over with and engage peer review to challenge Mann08/09? Why not? Is there a problem?

In fact, the editor at remote sensing justfied his resignation based on "blog science" so that pretty much torpedoes your "blogs can do science" argument. Each instance must be evaluated on its own merits. A blanket statement one way or the other is nonsense.

hey now - good on ya... this is now the 2nd time you've actually back-pedaled on your earlier claim and MLW initiated thread, titled so, that the editor was forced out by... what you labeled the "Climate mafia". Good on ya! (fwiw: my understanding is that the editor spoke to papers that Spencer was ignoring/not addressing... but don't let that stop you from making the jump to "blog science").

[TimG]

they why not formally publish to refute Mann08/09? Why not? Is there a problem in allowing Mann the formal opportunity to engage a challenge to his (et al) results?

It is irrelevant to the argument. It is true whether it is published or not. You are playing games because you cannot refute the arguments so you peddle this nonsense about how you will ignore it until it is published.

[waldo]

and... the proxy temperature correlation sign is not changing... does not change. You know nothing of how screening is performed - nothing! Quite simple - formally challenge the oft McIntyre labeled "meat-grinder" algorithm, formally challenge the screening, formally challenge the calibration, formally challenge the validation, formally challenge the testing, formally challenge the results. Formally challenge! Step outside the confines of the McIntyre controlled sandbox... formally challenge all that through recognized peer-review. What a concept!

Yes it does. Look at the data. Xray density goes down when the temperature goes up - except for the last 200 years when Xray density goes up as tempeature increases. The sign changes. You are truly obtuse if you cannot understand that.

you truly are obtuse... take a step back and spend some time researching proxy selection and screening. You just might finally clue in as to how temperature correlations are fixed going into that screening.

Edited October 6, 2011 by waldo

[TimG]

you truly are obtuse... take a step back and spend some time researching proxy selection and screening.

I understand it perfectly well and I know you are full of crap. The Tiljander data cannot be used in Mann's algorithm for the reasons I stated. Those are the facts. You do not refute them by waving your hands and claiming Mann has a magical "proxy selection and screening" algorithm. You are simply throwing pseudo-scientific babble that you do not understand. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

they why not formally publish to refute Mann08/09? Why not? Is there a problem in allowing Mann the formal opportunity to engage a challenge to his (et al) results? Why not get it all over with and engage peer review to challenge Mann08/09? Why not? Is there a problem?

It is irrelevant to the argument. It is true whether it is published or not. You are playing games because you cannot refute the arguments so you peddle this nonsense about how you will ignore it until it is published.

no - it is the essence of the argument. Science does not play itself out within blogs - blog science does not rule! The nonsensical McIntyre arguments have not been formally presented for scientific review, for scientific challenge and/or acceptance. Within the fiefdom of ClimateFraudit, McIntyre rules! Outside the fiefdom of ClimateFraudit, who cares... it's insignificant, it doesn't matter, it holds no weight or bearing. If you truly had the bravado of your (fake) convictions, you yourself would be pressing for a formal refutation to Mann08/09. Surely, nothing more could, nothing more would, validate your parroted "argument" than having McIntyre formally challenge through peer-review. And yet... nothing, bupkiss, nada, zilch from the denialsphere... all that exalted hot-air just can't manage to actually craft a formal paper challenge to Mann08/09. Is there a problem?

[TimG]

Science does not play itself out within blogs - blog science does not rule!

You love to beat up on strawmen. That is NOT what I said. I said an argument can be true even if it is only published on blogs. Only a dogmatic idiot rejects correct arguments simply because they are not published. Edited October 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

and... the proxy temperature correlation sign is not changing... does not change. You know nothing of how screening is performed - nothing! Quite simple - formally challenge the oft McIntyre labeled "meat-grinder" algorithm, formally challenge the screening, formally challenge the calibration, formally challenge the validation, formally challenge the testing, formally challenge the results. Formally challenge! Step outside the confines of the McIntyre controlled sandbox... formally challenge all that through recognized peer-review. What a concept!

Yes it does. Look at the data. Xray density goes down when the temperature goes up - except for the last 200 years when Xray density goes up as tempeature increases. The sign changes. You are truly obtuse if you cannot understand that.

you truly are obtuse... take a step back and spend some time researching proxy selection and screening. You just might finally clue in as to how temperature correlations are fixed going into that screening.

I understand it perfectly well and I know you are full of crap. The Tiljander data cannot be used in Mann's algorithm for the reasons I stated. Those are the facts. You do not refute them by waving your hands and claiming Mann has a magical "proxy selection and screening" algorithm. You are simply throwing pseudo-scientific babble that you do not understand.

no - absolutely, you are the one full of, as you say, crap. Your parroted "facts" are a testament to your devotion to Dear Leader McIntyre. Step up and formally challenge - what's stopping you. Like I said, throughout this entire thread back and forth, not once have you actually dared to enter into direct discussions of the Mann08/09 methodology, the selection aspects, the screening process, the algorithm itself, the calibration process, the validation process, the testing, etc., You've not gone there - ever. Is there a problem? Instead... we get McIntyre "upsidedownyness"... we get mystical temperature correlation shifting!!!

[waldo]

no - it is the essence of the argument. Science does not play itself out within blogs - blog science does not rule! The nonsensical McIntyre arguments have not been formally presented for scientific review, for scientific challenge and/or acceptance. Within the fiefdom of ClimateFraudit, McIntyre rules! Outside the fiefdom of ClimateFraudit, who cares... it's insignificant, it doesn't matter, it holds no weight or bearing. If you truly had the bravado of your (fake) convictions, you yourself would be pressing for a formal refutation to Mann08/09. Surely, nothing more could, nothing more would, validate your parroted "argument" than having McIntyre formally challenge through peer-review. And yet... nothing, bupkiss, nada, zilch from the denialsphere... all that exalted hot-air just can't manage to actually craft a formal paper challenge to Mann08/09. Is there a problem?

You love to beat up on strawmen. That is NOT what I said. I said an argument can be true even if it is only published on blogs. Only a dogmatic idiot rejects correct arguments simply because they are not published.

whatever happens in denierBlogWorld... stays in denierBlogWorld! We are not talking about some insignificant paper - we are talking about a paper progression and group of authors (Mann, Bradley, Hughes) that have been isolated for a decades plus targeting. If there was an avenue for the denialsphere to formally challenge MBH, it most certainly would have been pursued - to the nth degree. Nothing would suit the deniers agenda more, nothing would solidify the ever claimed "hoax" more, nothing would increase the visibility of blogs more, nothing would bring personal prestige to McIntyre (or whoever) more, etc., etc., etc. ...... and yet, nuthin! No formal challenge! Is there a problem?

[TimG]

Your parroted "facts" are a testament

You are so desperate. Unlike you I am not 'parroting' stuff I pulled off a blog. I went to the paper in question. I read it and then posted an explanation of why that paper supports my POV. I have not mentioned or quoted anything by McIntrye for the last 20 pages or so. You keep bring him up so you can avoid acknowledging the facts which know to be true: Mann screwed up - he misused the Tiljander proxy and that changes the conclusions of his paper.

Your response switches between categorically rejecting the notion that any 'non-climate scientists' can contradict what 'climate scientists' say and repeating the nonsense which I have debunked by going to the source paper and looking at the actual data.

BTW - McIntyre did respond the in peer reviewed literature by submitting a comment. Mann ignored the criticism and spewed some crap about his algorithm being 'insensitive to sign' (irrelevant because of the data contamination). So your talking point about McIntyre not publishing this result is nonsense.

Edited October 7, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Your parroted "facts" are a testament to your devotion to Dear Leader McIntyre.

You are so desperate. Unlike you I am not 'parroting' stuff I pulled off a blog. I went to the paper in question. I read it and then posted an explanation of why that paper supports my POV. I have not mentioned or quoted anything by McIntrye for the last 20 pages or so. You keep bring him up so you can avoid acknowledging the facts which know to be true: Mann screwed up - he misused the Tiljander proxy and that changes the conclusions of his paper.

your POV? More TimG pomposity - do you really think no one else has ever brought your ridiculous analysis by 2D graphic image forward before! You're a parrot, plan and simple... and not even a semi-intelligent one, at that! All you've ever done, all you keep doing is reverting back to the proxy authors paper as if it's the end-all, be all... oh wait, that's right, to presume to argue from authority, you declared that paper the "authoritative source". That is, except when you refuse to read and accept the proxy authors own words within her paper... again, as below. Somehow, to you, in spite of the author 'green lighting' the use of the proxy, you feel you're qualified to, based on looking at a 2D graphic, parrot a nonsensical posit. Here, as below, read the proxy author's own words... again... for the brazillionth time. Don't hesitate to explain why you won't accept these words from the author, from the source, that you've declared as the "authoritative source":

... Fine: the proxy author, Tiljander,

from your declared authoritative source paper

, summarily states:

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.

yes...

from your declared authoritative source

:

difficult... but could be estimated

; i.e.; difficult... but not impossible. Again, as stated in Mann08, from the same verbatim statements you refuse to acknowledge, as a caveat reference, Mann speaks to a possible data quality aspect in association with utilizing the proxies (i.e.; difficult/problematic... but not impossible... but could be estimated).

Per your declared authoritative source!

Standard proxy calibration technique involves normalizing a series to an annual resolved variance level... I expect Mann might have extended upon

your declared authority

to estimate calibrations, "averaged over a few years". Of course, as I stated several times earlier to you... the real salient question to arise is whether or not the calibration is on/close across the full range - hence, sensitivity testing... which, again, was done... which, again, resulted in no appreciable difference, whether the proxies were in... or out. No appreciable difference.

Your response switches between categorically rejecting the notion that any 'non-climate scientists' can contradict what 'climate scientists' say and repeating the nonsense which I have debunked by going to the source paper and looking at the actual data.

you've debunked nothing - ever... if you assume the 'gold standard' emanates from within your denierBlogWorld, why not just answer the basic fundamental question you keep refusing to go anywhere near. Why won't, why hasn't, your hero McIntyre, issued a formal challenge in terms of a peer-review paper; one that brings forward his own reconstruction, one that utilizes the same public domain available Mann08/09 data and methodology. You won't answer it, you refuse to answer it... because the answer is well known - McIntyre had his ass handed to him with that ridiculous McKitrick/McIntyre PNAS comment. You know it but will never, ever acknowledge it. There are a brazillion words that have been written about that nonsensical McKitrick/McIntyre comment - bizarre truly is the most appropriate word!

BTW - McIntyre did respond the in peer reviewed literature by submitting a comment. Mann ignored the criticism and spewed some crap about his algorithm being 'insensitive to sign' (irrelevant because of the data contamination). So your talking point about McIntyre not publishing this result is nonsense.

no, sorry... like I said, McIntyre had his ass handed to him. Again, these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have provided... or can provide... a formal counter against:

=> the prevailing journal comment:

MannBradleyHughes: Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

=> alternatively, in the face of failing to provide formal countering position/statement, the prevailing TimG contribution: bluster bus! Notwithstanding,

The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

[Keepitsimple]

I see that Waldo is flailing around once again. Imagine, trying to defend Michael Mann and his proxies! That leaky boat went under a long time ago. Move along Waldo - you're flogging a dead horse.

[Pliny]

The UN is a political entity and so Waldo doesn't quote the UN as much as he does real science.

I must point out the IPCC is a UN agency.

You only have to look at the structure of it to determine they are a self-prophesying body. IPCC overseen by WMO and UNEPThe consensus is established and what do you think they will publish from contributing authors? Are they going to publish, "We don't really know if climate change is entirely anthropogenic in nature." They are well past that. They are going to publish data that makes their jobs important and reject data that doesn't agree.

waldo is not quoting CERN. He didn't start this thread and never would. You would never find out about it from waldo. Tell me he cares about the science.

There is a lot of bluster in Waldo, but you're blind if you can't see that he knows the real science behind it as well as anyone here.

He has a vast amount of data, as though this is a full time job for him. Whether he understands it is another question. If he did he would not support the politicization of the science.

There are real scientists who dispute some aspect of AGW, but they're a subset of the ones quoted on the web. Then we have in-between scientists who may be qualified in their field, and who may have pertinent questions but who aren't familiar with the body of work that is climate science.

CERN published some data that must now be analyzed and included in the existing models.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

wow! Simple... that's a real zinger! And coming from you, given your litany of nonsensical, denier flavoured, MLW climate change related posts... your zinger cuts deep! You know those many posts, hey Simple... those I've pummeled you repeatedly over

but ya, Simple - break a stick, break a stick! Surely, there's someone out there in the denialsphere that can actually break the hockey-stick... surely! MBH/Mann et al, have been independently corroborated by the National Research Council, NAS and an assortment of many, many other studies, over a decade now, using varieties of proxies (including tree-rings, ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites) - all presenting the so-called 'hockey-stick' reconstructions. The hockey-stick remains intact... in spite of the shlock, never-ending shamway dealer McIntyre's perverse obsession with Michael Mann.

as I've stated many times over now, just what keeps the McIntyre lapdogs so fixated on something that's initial significance and impact has been passed on by advances in science reinforcing the anthropogenic causal link to today's enhanced and accelerated warming. Why still the fascination lappers? Well, of course, quite naturally, the iconic symbolism remains... intact - hasn't been broken! And, of course, lappers, when fed raw meat by their organ grinder, respond in kind.

[waldo]

waldo is not quoting CERN. He didn't start this thread and never would. You would never find out about it from waldo. Tell me he cares about the science.

CERN published some data that must now be analyzed and included in the existing models.

ah yes, Pliny back to your OP, this OP... where you sought my validation!

Looks like Al Gore's world is flooding.

Please poopoo CERN scientists latest publication on their CLOUD experiment, waldo. We need a proper perspective here.

but really Pliny, after being repeatedly challenged to put forward a scientific founded citation, is this you now walking back your bold pronouncement that, as you stated, "CERN has presented information that requires the "consensus" be reviewed". Is this you in rapid backpedal mode, hey Pliny?

really Pliny, does your long drawn out puffery simply relate to expectations of model enhancements, of bettering the models, given possible new understandings related to atmospheric aerosols? Is that it, hey Pliny? Are you truly now, on repeated cite challenge, walking back your claim to one simply reflecting upon anticipated model enhancement/bettering? Really?

here Pliny... read it again; I do believe I've re-quoted it and variations of it, several times now - enjoy!

the only relevant/accurate thing you've had to say reflects upon models... but then, per your way/misunderstandings, you presume that model enhancements aren't something scientists, quite naturally/regularly, work for/towards. I stated from the onset of this (and the other threads CERN/CLOUD reference):

in fact... this is a most significant first release from CERN/CLOUD... one that's been anxiously waited upon these last few years by real legitimate scientists, particularly in regards to the science and modelling relative to atmospheric aerosols.

you suffer from a standard denier myopic that presumes climate scientists aren't actively engaged in model development/refinement - the reality is anything but that... there are organizations dedicated to model progression... there are regular world-wide expert meetings and workshops aimed towards improvements and refinements in methodology and underlying processes. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known and recognized to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols. Your title's attempt to cast aspersion towards climate models is misplaced... the "will need to be modified" is simply a reflection of anticipated results relative to aerosols - results that are eagerly awaited with presumptions towards

bettering the models

.

[Michael Hardner]

I must point out the IPCC is a UN agency.

Of course it is.

waldo is not quoting CERN. He didn't start this thread and never would. You would never find out about it from waldo. Tell me he cares about the science.

He cares about the science.

CERN published some data that must now be analyzed and included in the existing models.

We already discussed the CERN study, and we're nowhere near the point where that can happen yet.

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE

Watched this last night .. interesting.

[Michael Hardner]

After 1 minute, some unnamed gentleman in an armchair tried to say that CO2 levels have a *negative* effect on temperature. Up until that point, it was classic propaganda methods.

That's all you get of my time for this one.

[bush_cheney2004]

After 1 minute, some unnamed gentleman in an armchair tried to say that CO2 levels have a *negative* effect on temperature. Up until that point, it was classic propaganda methods.

That's all you get of my time for this one.

No surprise really...your stance on this issue is confirmed.