85 replies to this topic

[archer95446]

The earth has been drastically heating up, since the 20th century.  According to this article, it should be getting colder!!!!

"WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study looking at 11,000 years of climate temperatures shows the world in the middle of a dramatic U-turn, lurching from near-record cooling to a heat spike.
Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures back to the end of the last ice age. It shows how the globe for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.
Scientists say it is further evidence that modern-day global warming isn't natural, but the result of rising carbon dioxide emissions that have rapidly grown since the Industrial Revolution began roughly 250 years ago."

here is the link for the rest of today's article:

http://xfinity.comca...perature-Spike/

[Br Cornelius]

News not.

Br Cornelius

[Hilander]

Doesn't surprise me at all.

[archer95446]

Everybody has the right to their own opinion!!  I'm not going to tell anyone, that they're wrong, if they percieve something differently than I do!!!
Global warming doesn't mean that we're only going to get warm to hot temperatures 24/7, it includes extreme weather fluctuations, like what a lot of locations
around the world, are experiencing lately. These last couple of years, I've noticed that the winter air is dryer than usual, where I live (makes my
allergies unbearable!!!).

[Little Fish]

the resolution on this study is 100 years, effectively that brushes out variable upticks and downticks occurring between 100 year periods, so how did they get the big uptick at the end when most of the warming of the 20c was since 1970.

red flag's gone up for dodgy statistics, did they splice on the higher resolution instrumental record again.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

the resolution on this study is 100 years, effectively that brushes out variable upticks and downticks occurring between 100 year periods, so how did they get the big uptick at the end when most of the warming of the 20c was since 1970.

"Resolution" refers to the smallest period the study can measure.  It would be more accurate to say that the study covers a 100-year period rather than its resolution is 100 years.

Quote

red flag's gone up for dodgy statistics, did they splice on the higher resolution instrumental record again.

As a matter of fact, no they didn't.  But the authors did note that the instrumental record is more accuarte.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 09 March 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

"Resolution" refers to the smallest period the study can measure.

yes we know.
the resolution is 100 years.

"it would be more accurate to say that the study covers a 100-year period rather than its resolution is 100 years."
the study covers a period of 11,300 years, its resolution is 100 years.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 08:56 PM.

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 09 March 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Quote

red flag's gone up for dodgy statistics, did they splice on the higher resolution instrumental record again.

As a matter of fact, no they didn't.  But the authors did note that the instrumental record is more accuarte.

hi doug, i'm going to rasie the bull**** flag i'm afraid.

here is a set of 5 series used for the reconstruction:



here is another 35 series:



here is another 20:


no end uptick in any them.

here is their "reconstruction" :


so where did they get the pink uptick at the end? none of their proxy series uptick at year zero.

what they've done is splice on a higher resolution instrumental onto a 100 year resolution reconstruction, meaning that kind of uptick at the end could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years but the resolution would not display it, which means its bogus.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 09:35 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

The last 4000 years or so has shown a steady but slow decline trend at far stronger resolution than used in this study. It stopped and reversed in the last 100years.
Unfortunately the particular study is really difficult to locate, but Little Fish should remember it since he used it as a reference previously (trying to prove the opposite of what it showed).

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 09 March 2013 - 09:55 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

"it would be more accurate to say that the study covers a 100-year period rather than its resolution is 100 years."
the study covers a period of 11,300 years, its resolution is 100 years.

Sorry.  I was thinking of a different study.
Doug

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

hi doug, i'm going to rasie the bull**** flag i'm afraid.

Why don't you re-run the statistics and tell us what you find?  It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying.

Quote

what they've done is splice on a higher resolution instrumental onto a 100 year resolution reconstruction, meaning that kind of uptick at the end could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years but the resolution would not display it, which means its bogus.

There is no reason not to include more-accurate data in a less-accurate dataset.  You are not likely to get results better than you would have obtained had it all been of lower quality and you may have different variances in the two sets that requires remedial action, but that doesn't invalid the entire dataset.  Data is expensive.  You don't replace perfectly good data if you can figure out a way to use what you have.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 09 March 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

The last 4000 years or so has shown a steady but slow decline trend at far stronger resolution than used in this study. It stopped and reversed in the last 100years.
Unfortunately the particular study is really difficult to locate, but Little Fish should remember it since he used it as a reference previously (trying to prove the opposite of what it showed).

my bet is you are referring to the scandinavian study - it was not a global study, it was just a single location in sweden if i recall correctly.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 10:30 PM.

[Little Fish]

"It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying."
i showed you the graphs of the proxies used in the study, so when you say "not be able to backup" you are in fact stating a falsehood.

"There is no reason not to include more-accurate data in a less-accurate dataset."
I gave you the reasons. the uptick could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years (indeed other higher resolution studies show that it does), using a 120 year averaging as this study does smooths out those upticks and downticks. essentially what it is doing is smoothing out that past 11,000 years which removes the wild varying data, but not smoothing out the last 50 years. its like plotting a series of apples, then plotting an orange on the end and concluding that apples are turning orange in colour.

Edited by Little Fish, 09 March 2013 - 10:49 PM.

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

"It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying."
i showed you the graphs of the proxies used in the study, so when you say "not be able to backup" you are in fact stating a falsehood.

Graphs don't show much of anything.  You have provided no information on the reliability of either their analysis or yours (if you did one.).

Quote

"There is no reason not to include more-accurate data in a less-accurate dataset."
I gave you the reasons. the uptick could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years (indeed other higher resolution studies show that it does), using a 120 year averaging as this study does smooths out those upticks and downticks. essentially what it is doing is smoothing out that past 11,000 years which removes the wild varying data, but not smoothing out the last 50 years. its like plotting a series of apples, then plotting an orange on the end.

First you complain about the data, then you decide that it's really the way the data was analyzed...

So when you ran a smoothing spline over the entire dataset, what did you get?
Doug

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

my bet is you are referring to the scandinavian study - it was not a global study, it was just a single location in sweden if i recall correctly.

At this stage I cannot recall and can't be bothered to search it out.
However there is plenty of evidence (Mann included) that the recent uptick, in both speed and scale, is unprecedented in the last 2000years.

Br Cornelius