Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming shouldn't be happening


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#46    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:12 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 13 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Two of the graphs you showed were forgeries.
you just made that up.

the graphs were plotted from the proxy data given by Marcott's paper. none of them show a 20th century uptick.
Posted Image

"Look at the chart scale again: that's three-tenths of a degree Celsius. You misread the chart."
i did not "misread" the chart, you need to re-read my post, and stop pretending i was referring to the other chart.

incoherent utterances aside, you have not addressed anything i said in my posts.

Edited by Little Fish, 14 March 2013 - 10:18 AM.


#47    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,141 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:21 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 March 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

you just made that up.

the graphs were plotted from the proxy data given by Marcott's paper. none of them show a 20th century uptick.
Posted Image

"Look at the chart scale again: that's three-tenths of a degree Celsius. You misread the chart."
i did not "misread" the chart, you need to re-read my post, and stop pretending i was referring to the other chart.

incoherent utterances aside, you have not addressed anything i said in my posts.
The graph was not sourced from the paper and should not have been represented as such. You gave no source to the graph which still remains mysterious in origin.
You used a graph which you claimed was from a paper when in fact it was no such thing.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 March 2013 - 10:23 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#48    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:28 AM

"The graph was not sourced from the paper"
which graph are you talking about that "was not sourced from the paper"?

"You used a graph which you claimed was from a paper when in fact it was no such thing."
which graph not from the paper did i claim was from the paper?

Edited by Little Fish, 14 March 2013 - 10:31 AM.


#49    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,141 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:00 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 March 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

"The graph was not sourced from the paper"
which graph are you talking about that "was not sourced from the paper"?

"You used a graph which you claimed was from a paper when in fact it was no such thing."
which graph not from the paper did i claim was from the paper?
The one you posted originally. Who's creation was it ?

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#50    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:07 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 14 March 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

The one you posted originally. Who's creation was it ?
the pink and blue graph is from the marcott paper.


#51    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:33 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 March 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

you just made that up.
Those two graphs were not in the article.  I have it right here in front of me.  You represented them as being Marcott's.  I don't think you're deliberately lying, but if your source made a "mistake" and you repeated it, it is now your mistake.

Quote

the graphs were plotted from the proxy data given by Marcott's paper. none of them show a 20th century uptick.
Again, these are not in Marcott's paper.  Perhaps they were plotted from the same proxies, but if so, it was done by somebody else.  Please cite the source.

Quote

"Look at the chart scale again: that's three-tenths of a degree Celsius. You misread the chart."
i did not "misread" the chart, you need to re-read my post, and stop pretending i was referring to the other chart.
I re-read your post, in fact, the entire thread.  You were referring to Marcott's Figure 1B.  At that point, you had posted only Figure 1B and the three forgeries.  The scale on Figure 1B never drops below -0.8 degrees C for the entire Holocene, nor goes above +0.5 degrees C.  That's a temperature run of 1.3 degrees - not 3.0 degrees.  In fact, NOT ONE of Marcott's charts have a range wider than two degrees; ALL of those that show temperature use scales graduated in 0.2-degree intervals.

Quote

incoherent utterances aside, you have not addressed anything i said in my posts.
The reason you don't understand what I posted is that you haven't bothered to learn how science is done.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 14 March 2013 - 01:35 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#52    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:45 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 March 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

"The graph was not sourced from the paper"
which graph are you talking about that "was not sourced from the paper"?
The charts labeled "Marcott Recon - Low Series," "Marcott Recon - Medium Series" and "Marcott Recon - High Series" were not in Marcott's paper.  They are the ones I am referring to as "forgeries."

Neither was the one labeled "Fig. 5" in Post 20.

And neither was the one labeled "All Marcott Proxies."  And while we're at it:  what is the ending year for the proxies shown in "All Marcott Proxies?"  I suspect that the 20th century, at least most of it, has been edited out.

All these are from other sources.  Please tell us where you got them.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 14 March 2013 - 01:47 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#53    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:04 PM

View PostBFB, on 14 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Useing 30 proxies out of 73, nearly half of the poxies which is filled with errors, to make a temperature reconstruction is either completly stupid or a deliberate move.

We both know that using data which can make temperatures either decrease or increase by up to 2-4 degress isn't the best idea if you wanna make a temperature reconstruction. This is not rocket science.

It would be the same if I used a barometer which has been shown to differ 10% in atmospheric pressure values to forcast the weather. How accurate do you think my forcast would be if I used this barometer??
I emailed Marcott.  No reply yet.

There are ways to minimize and/or correct the effects of error.  You can't combine multiple proxies without using them.  You are always beset by error.

If you are going to include, or exclude, a proxy, you need a reason for doing it.  I don't know what Marcott's reasons were.  One criticism I have of his paper is that a lot of stuff he should have included, like justifications, wasn't included.  I suspect that's due to space limitations.  Excluding a series because it shows (or doesn't show) a particular trend is verboten.  The only relevant questions are:  can it be dated with sufficient accuracy, and how well does it intercorrelate with the other series?

Another thought:  these are sea temperatures.  They won't match up exactly with air temperatures.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#54    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 14 March 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

The one you posted originally. Who's creation was it ?

Br Cornelius
The graph labeled "B" with the heading "Years (BP)" is Marcott's Figure 1B.  Marcott included 19 charts/graphs in the article.  This is the only one Little Fish has posted.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#55    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 March 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

The author of the paper Marcott himself has now distanced himself from the blade of his graph, stating it is "not robust", this is only after he let the media promote the alarmism.
"Robust" means resistant to outliers and small departures from model assumptions.  In other words:  Marcott's model is unduly sensitive to variation.  If you graph it, it will show a lot of bumps and wiggles that other models don't.

The solution to the problem:  calculate a running average or use another form of smoothing.  Marcott used a 100-year spline; a little short, but if you want to include the 20th century, you can't use a very long one.

I don't understand where you're coming from:  is your whole argument based on denial that global warming is even happening?  If not, what's the big deal about a model that shows the 20th century getting warmer?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#56    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,141 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:20 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 14 March 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

The graph labeled "B" with the heading "Years (BP)" is Marcott's Figure 1B.  Marcott included 19 charts/graphs in the article.  This is the only one Little Fish has posted.
Doug
Thanks for clarifying. When people use graphs without sources and when they haven't read the original paper it is wise to check.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#57    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:07 PM

Doug said "Those two graphs were not in the article."
I never said the black and white graphs were in the marcott article.
you struggle with reading comprehension.

"You represented them as being Marcott's.
The graphs are plots of the proxies used by marcotts paper.
I did not represent those graphs as being marcott's graphs, they are just plots of the data he used, go read what i said again.
http://www.unexplain...2

wow, so many pages of obfuscation, its difficult not to conclude this obfuscation is deliberate.
its quite simple : the blue and pink graph is marcott, the black and white graphs given in the above link are plots of the individual proxies that marcott used. marcott made available the data in the supplemental information, so recreating the individual plots would be somewhat trivial. below are all the plots done more clearly : there is no clear 20th century uptick in the individual proxies, so where did the dramatic uptick in the marcott reconstruction come from if its not self evident in his proxies?
http://wattsupwithth...ies/#more-81951


#58    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:36 PM

Doug said :
"I re-read your post, in fact, the entire thread.  You were referring to Marcott's Figure 1B.  At that point, you had posted only Figure 1B and the three forgeries.  The scale on Figure 1B never drops below -0.8 degrees C for the entire Holocene, nor goes above +0.5 degrees C.  That's a temperature run of 1.3 degrees - not 3.0 degrees.  In fact, NOT ONE of Marcott's charts have a range wider than two degrees; ALL of those that show temperature use scales graduated in 0.2-degree intervals.

go and read my post#20 again here:
http://www.unexplain...15#entry4693190

here is what i said - "look at the top chart, around 500 AD it swings 3 celcius in a short period of time, now look at the variance on y axis the bottom chart."

"You were referring to Marcott's Figure 1B"
i was not referring to marcott.
the top chart is not marcott, it is another reconstruction, and it shows the MWP similar to today's temperature (unlike marcotts), it also shows the fluctuations swinging 3 celcius in short period of time (unlike marcotts).


#59    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

doug said
"The charts labeled "Marcott Recon - Low Series," "Marcott Recon - Medium Series" and "Marcott Recon - High Series" were not in Marcott's paper.  They are the ones I am referring to as "forgeries."
why do you state they are forgeries? are you saying they do not match the data linked below?

Neither was the one labeled "Fig. 5" in Post 20.
that was from another multi proxy reconstruction to compare to marcott, if you read post#20 you will realise this.

"And neither was the one labeled "All Marcott Proxies."
it was plotted, like the black and white ones, from the data provided by Marcott, linked below.

"what is the ending year for the proxies shown in "All Marcott Proxies? I suspect that the 20th century, at least most of it, has been edited out."
do you have any evidence for your suspicions that everyone is lying to you?

here is the data
http://www.sciencema...atabase.S1.xlsx
from here:
http://www.sciencema.../1198/suppl/DC1


#60    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 March 2013 - 10:34 AM

Doug says
" "Robust" means resistant to outliers and small departures from model assumptions.  In other words:  Marcott's model is unduly sensitive to variation.  If you graph it, it will show a lot of bumps and wiggles that other models don't."
Marcott stated that just the uptick/blade was not robust, he was not referring to his entire reconstruction.

"I don't understand where you're coming from:  is your whole argument based on denial that global warming is even happening?  If not, what's the big deal about a model that shows the 20th century getting warmer?"
it should be quite clear since i have explained and asked several times - where did Marcott's dramatic uptick come from?
most of his proxy data do not reach well into the 20th century and do not show the uptick, yet his final reconstruction shows the uptick, so how did he get the uptick?

unless you can prove otherwise, I posit that the marcott graph is a deception based on either manipulation of data or a mathematical artifact, marcott's curt response to a detailed question about the uptick "the blade is not robust" is very insightful i think.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 March 2013 - 10:36 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users