Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
archer95446

Global warming shouldn't be happening

86 posts in this topic

The planet is actually cooling the last I read, that's why they, more often than not, refer to it as "climate change" these days because "global warming" is inaccurate. Unfortunately, we cannot control the influence of the sun on the planet, certainly we are not responsible for the planetary climate change. We are a very small contribution. No point worrying about what we can't control. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it will continue to do so. Trust in nature to take care of the planet.

I think there is abundant evidence that temperatures are in fact going up almost everywhere. Random weather events create a lot of noise, but warming is happening.The sun is also heating up, but this is a tens of millions of years affair, having nothing to do with the present short-term warming.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a northern hemisphere reconstruction using 120 different proxies from across the world covering the last 2,000 years, resolution 50 years.

here is the reconstruction using 78 proxies, covering 11,000 years that takes data points averaging 120 years apart (some series have data points 500 years apart)

look how they differ, what happened to the MWP in the bottom chart - see at 1,000 years ago in the top chart.

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.

there is no SH reconstruction which shows the top chart inverted. there are many proxies in the SH that show the same as the top chart though, so the top chart is similar to global chart (before that old chestnut rears its head), also the mann et al grey plot in the bottom graph is NH only.

Somewhere I heard of a book called: "How to lie with Charts and Graphs." I'd suggest you read it, but I don't think you need to.

The example I remember from it involved a mountain pine beetle control project in northern Colorado. The person who drew it used red, yellow and green to color-code the intensity levels with green being lowest and red being highest. The map had a huge chunk of red, which scared a lot of people who demanded that the legislature fund a control project. The catch? The highest concentration of beetle hits (indicated by red) was just 4% of trees in any given stand - almost no danger of spread. If you see red on a chart, suspect somebody is trying to direct your attention.

And there are other wyas to lie with charts, like making comparisons using two different scales, etc.

Try putting up the data. It doesn't lie.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is abundant evidence that temperatures are in fact going up almost everywhere. Random weather events create a lot of noise, but warming is happening.The sun is also heating up, but this is a tens of millions of years affair, having nothing to do with the present short-term warming.

It was only a few years ago that China had its coldest winter in 100 years. Whether the planet is cooling or warming is irrelevant really. It's been doing so since the planet was formed and it'll continue to do so long after we've gone. I'm sure we do have an effect on it but not as much as the government would like us to think. *coughs* more taxes. *coughs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was only a few years ago that China had its coldest winter in 100 years. Whether the planet is cooling or warming is irrelevant really. It's been doing so since the planet was formed and it'll continue to do so long after we've gone. I'm sure we do have an effect on it but not as much as the government would like us to think. *coughs* more taxes. *coughs*

Its called Global warming because the overall trend of global mean temperature is upwards. it is still upwards but a predominence of La Nina events means more of the energy is been drawn down into the deep ocean so surface temperatures have been rising more slowly over the last decade.

Climate change is caused by global warming and it causes changes in local weather systems. This causes places like China to have different weather to normal and that can be both warm or cold. In exactly the same period Northern Europe has seen a significant increase in extreme precipitation events causing widespread flooding. America's midwest has seen the strongest drought for over half a century (with no signs of ending any time soon). last year was one of the hottest ever recorded in Australia.

All these events point to climate change caused by Global Warming. Expect some very dramatic surface temperature warming when the El Nino flips back into dominance in the next few years.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the Marcott paper, the lead authors own analysis says;

"When you just look at one part of the world, the temperature history can be affected by regional climate processes like El Niño or monsoon variations," noted Clark. "But when you combine the data from sites all around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth's global temperature history."

What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) -- until the past 100 years, when it warmed ̴ 1.3 degrees (F). The largest changes were in the northern hemisphere, where there are more land masses and greater human populations.

Climate models project that global temperature will rise another 2.0 to 11.5 degrees (F) by the end of this century, largely dependent on the magnitude of carbon emissions. "What is most troubling," Clark said, "is that this warming will be significantly greater than at any time during the past 11,300 years."

Marcott said that one of the natural factors affecting global temperatures over the past 11,300 years is gradual change in the distribution of solar insolation associated with Earth's position relative to the sun.

"During the warmest period of the Holocene, the Earth was positioned such that Northern Hemisphere summers warmed more," Marcott said. "As the Earth's orientation changed, Northern Hemisphere summers became cooler, and we should now be near the bottom of this long-term cooling trend -- but obviously, we are not."

........

"The Earth's climate is complex and responds to multiple forcings, including CO2 and solar insolation," Marcott said. "Both of those changed very slowly over the past 11,000 years. But in the last 100 years, the increase in CO2 through increased emissions from human activities has been significant. It is the only variable that can best explain the rapid increase in global temperatures."

http://www.scienceda...30307145303.htm

This paper both confirms the assertion made at the start of this thread and adds strong support to the analysis conducted by Michael Mann. The overall conclusion is that current warming breaks the long term cyclic downward trend predicted by the Milankovich cycles and TSI.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that someone has been doing some dodgy splicing.
isn't that exactly what I said already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhere I heard of a book called: "How to lie with Charts and Graphs." I'd suggest you read it, but I don't think you need to.
so you too think this paper is lying with their graph.

"And there are other ways to lie with charts, like making comparisons using two different scales, etc"

and another is using low resolution data with smoothed low variability, then pasting on high resolution, high variability 20th century data on the end, and then concluding the 20th century much warmer than most of the past.

how did they get a big 20th century uptick in their graph when their own paper states "our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years" - the 20th century uptick has a shorter time period than their resolution.

"How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

"Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side."

http://judithcurry.c...y-hockey-again/

it is STUNNING that people are defending this paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

so you too think this paper is lying with their graph.

No. What I'm saying is that charts/graphs don't tell the whole story. You need the raw data to do that. Charts and graphs are nice for presenting findings in an easy-to-understand format. But that depends on people doing an honest and competent job both presenting and reading them.

"And there are other ways to lie with charts, like making comparisons using two different scales, etc"

and another is using low resolution data with smoothed low variability, then pasting on high resolution, high variability 20th century data on the end, and then concluding the 20th century much warmer than most of the past.

Smoothing removes variability from the dataset. That can be good or bad, depending on what you're trying to do. I work with storms and short-term phenomena. Smoothing with a ten-year spline (even a five-year one) will remove the storm record, leaving me with nothing. On the other hand, I can subtract a smoothed dataset from an unsmoothed one and check to see where the negative values are and that will usually tell me where to look for storms.

Was it legitimate to show an unsmoothed dataset appended to a smoothed one? That's why you need the analysis. Did it include both datasets or was the unsmoothed uptick just added for illustrative purposes? What did the authors say?

If your problem is the increase in temps for the 20th century: you don't need a graph for that. Depending on which dataset you use, the temperature increase began in 1907, 1908 or 1909. I work with 19 shortleaf pine chronologies (11 are my own; the rest can be downloaded from NCDC.), one loblolly chronology and one (soon to be two) post oak chronologies. All show warming. The only question is: how much? Random variation is clouding the issue at the moment and shortleaf pines are not real good at showing warming to begin with (They're cold-sensitive, not heat sensitive.).

how did they get a big 20th century uptick in their graph when their own paper states "our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years" - the 20th century uptick has a shorter time period than their resolution.

Again, the answer to that question should be in the paper, if you've read it. I haven't, but I suspect the instrumental data was being used only to illustrate a point, that it did not take part in the modelling or the analysis. The paper should say exactly what was doen, but it will be in the "fine print."

"How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

"Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side."

There is no solid consensus about temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period. In some places temps were warmer than today. In some places they were colder: like the current situation. The "Medieval Warm Period" was warmer in central Europe where it was discovered, hence its name; but it was colder in Scandinavia. It might be possible to use tree ring records to show what was happening where, but I don't know if there are enough chronologies with a wide-enough distribution to do it. At any rate, the temperature you use for the MWP will affect the slope of the line connecting it to the present and thus, the exact shape of the hockey-stick.

BTW: Nobody is arguing about the blade of the hockey stick - just the handle. To me, that looks like they're missing the whole point (or trying to distract their readers from the real issue.).

The problem with these popular sites is they don't include the stuff they need to. This one includes a link to an abstract, but not to the paper. How do you know what the paper said, what the authors did, when you haven't even read the paper?

I suspect I know the answer: the original paper is copyrighted and available only for a hefty price (The journals charge up to $35 for a download.). The people who put up the popular site know this. They do not want to spend the money themselves and know that their readers neither know how to find the article nor would pay the money for it if they did. They know the average reader will not even check to see if they've distorted a finding, so they get away with it.

it is STUNNING that people are defending this paper.

What is even more stunning is the number of people who will jump to conclusions without reading the article.

I haven't read it, so I'm not going to try to defend it. But I'll bet that you haven't read it, either.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This has to be bad news for environmental activists everywhere: a massive international study, conducted in 33 countries over 17 years, shows that people just don’t care a lot about the environment. Maybe it's because, over those 17 years of the survey, they've built up such a healthy distrust of anyone predicting an approaching apocalypse that they treat the green movement with just as much skepticism as they do the corporate villains the movement targets: http://fullcomment.n...global-warming/

And Britain is currently experiencing its coldest start to March since 1986.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the scientific evidence that human-caused global warming is happening is persuasive enough that the deniers are beginning to look fring-ish.

Unfortunately the political left is trying to make political points from this rather than do something, by proposing things they know the right will not accept, and this has generated political opposition that was not needed. Watching Gore at the Academy Awards that one year sickened me; exaggeration on exaggeration, scare tactics, all for politics.

One nice thing about the world is that things often self-correct. Pricing mechanisms are doing a lot of what government edict cannot do. A switch to natural gas and from there to solar power and electric vehicles seems in the making, without government edict, perhaps even without government subsidies.

We are probably going to lose the arctic ice cap in summers, and maybe even the Greenland glaciers. This is gonna hurt a few species and for sure cause a lot of cost moving people inland, but it will happen over the course of a century or two, so overall the society will not really notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be bad news for environmental activists everywhere: a massive international study, conducted in 33 countries over 17 years, shows that people just don’t care a lot about the environment. Maybe it's because, over those 17 years of the survey, they've built up such a healthy distrust of anyone predicting an approaching apocalypse that they treat the green movement with just as much skepticism as they do the corporate villains the movement targets: http://fullcomment.n...global-warming/

And Britain is currently experiencing its coldest start to March since 1986.

Ignorance is bliss is the way of the world. If people don't care about what is coming down the tracks then we are indeed doomed to a very unhappy future.

Such is life/death.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be bad news for environmental activists everywhere: a massive international study, conducted in 33 countries over 17 years, shows that people just don’t care a lot about the environment. Maybe it's because, over those 17 years of the survey, they've built up such a healthy distrust of anyone predicting an approaching apocalypse that they treat the green movement with just as much skepticism as they do the corporate villains the movement targets: http://fullcomment.n...global-warming/

Most people want to improve/protect their environment. But you have to provide for basic needs first. If it takes four acres to grow your food and four is all you have, you can't set anything aside for warm fuzzy things. That's the problem faced by most of the world's people: they don't have a susplus they can use for anything beyond basic necessities. That's the reason for poor sanitation in the Third World: sewer systems cost money and they don't have money.

And that's what big business doesn't like: to protect our own environments we will need to help other people provide for necessities and generate the surplus needed for mitigation. That surplus is competition. And help for the Third World probably means taxes for us; although, conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the US is at its lowest tax rate since the 1950s and the budget deficit is the smallest since W left office. To keep from exporting pollution, we will need world-wide regulations and that will mean lower profits (Remember Bhopal? Safety equipment costs money. Combine that with inappropriate or non-existent regulation and you have a disaster looking for a happening.).

And Britain is currently experiencing its coldest start to March since 1986.

We just had a few weeks of rain, but now the jet streams have resumed their previous position. Looking like the drought will continue. Those few weeks of rain gave us the wettest late winter we've had in several years, but mean nothing to the ongoing drought. And that's the problem: most people's memories aren't long enough to assess climate change. What were the high and low temps where you live five years ago today? Odds are you can't remember. Now try to remember the same data for every day for the past 30 years.

If you're under 35, you can't remember the last time Lake Erie froze over. If you're less than 127, you can't remember the winter storms that devastated the American livestock industry and brought about the end of open range. But a few of us are old enough to remember a little bit, or remember stories their grandparents told them. Granpa wasn't kidding about having to walk five miles to school through three-foot snowdrifts; his grandchildren haven't seen that much snow in 25 years.

But that's what records are for.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winters can still be severe and springs and summers can still be chilly; that has almost nothing to do with whether global warming is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First, to respond to Br. Cornelius' question about where the Marcott paper was published: March 8th edition of "Science," page 1198.

Just dumb luck that I happened to open the magazine to the correct page. So, now, I've read it.

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

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

lbogh.jpg

here is another 35 series:

t68r4x.png

here is another 20:

2uylqh3.png

no end uptick in any them.

There are 19 charts/graphs in the article. These are not in it. Where did you get them?

here is their "reconstruction" :

marcott-B-MJ.jpg

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

This is Figure 1B from the article. The gray line is from Mann 2008. The "pink" one is Marcott's reconstruction. Marcott used 73 proxies. I don't recognize all of them, so I don't know what time spans most of them cover, but for Marcott to use the 1961-1990 base period, all of them had to extend through at least 1990. Mann used proxy data before 1980 and instrumental readings after that. His dataset ends in 2001.

You might want to take a careful look at the graph. At this scale, it could be confusing if you're not used to graphs. The low-point, about 1840 is the Little Ice Age. It's not the 1909 or 1976 local minima that you may be used to seeing in that position.

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 nothing untoward about combining two datasets. There are two ways to do it:

1. Select a reference period that all proxies share and determine the average for that period (Marcott used 1961-1990, so we know that all 73 proxies included those years.). Add a constant to each dataset that raises or lowers the readings so the means for the reference period match. In so doing, you have removed the absolute temperature readings and replaced them with relative ones. The new dataset can tell you how much the temperature changed, but it can't tell you where it started or ended.

2. Establish means for each proxy (all 73 of them) and a grand mean for the entire reconstruction. Then mulitply each datapoint by the grand mean and divide by the proxy mean. This procedure removes the high-side bias, which gives more weight to proxies with larger numbers in them.

In the first case, you still have the problem of "jumps" in the estimated temps every time a proxy starts or ends or there's a gap. In that case, your reconstruction is valid for the time period in which all proxies overlap, but outside that range, you might want to take temperature changes with a grain of salt.

In the second case, the "seams" have been eliminated and you can simply average the temps by year. The reconstruction is valid in any year for which you have enough samples to get the variance down to an acceptable level. Marcott brags that his proxies don't have the problem of increasing variance with age. That's not completely true because his proxies start in different years. He actually has the same problem for which he is criticising dendrochronologists (Each of his proxies is analogous to a single tree-ring series.).

Cross-dating rather easily establishes that there is only one position in which that "uptick" could fit. Any other position will have a higher intercorrelation coefficient. If you have positioned a series correctly, then each observation will be similar to a corresponding observation in the master series and the difference between them will be minimal, centered on zero. If you are off by even one time interval (Ignoring autocorrelation; in dendrochronology that interval is one year.), the differences in the two readings approximate a random distribution. The result is a lower correlation coefficient.

Some of the graphs you posted did not come from Marcott's article. Your source is a forgery, doctored to make it show things the original article didn't. That's why you must ALWAYS REFER TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. Next time: DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Two of the graphs you showed were forgeries. You still haven't backed up your cliams.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not from scientific sources. That bit about the uptick fitting at other times is flat out wrong - NO OTHER POSITION produces a better fit.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a northern hemisphere reconstruction using 120 different proxies from across the world covering the last 2,000 years, resolution 50 years.

christiansen-2000-year-temp-reconstruction-cf-fig-5.gif

here is the reconstruction using 78 proxies, covering 11,000 years that takes data points averaging 120 years apart (some series have data points 500 years apart)

It was 73 proxies. and 11,300 years.

marcott-B-MJ.jpg

look how they differ, what happened to the MWP in the bottom chart - see at 1,000 years ago in the top chart.

In Marcott's words from the original article in the March 8th edition of "Science:"

"...both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a warm interval (~1500 to 1000 yr B.P.) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 yr B.P.), which is approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age."

That "warm interval" IS the Medieval Warm Period and it shows up rather plainly in Figures 1A, 1C and 1E. So why did you pick Figure 1B which, because of the 11,000-year time scale, does not show it as well?

The answer to that question is: cherry-picking.

You need to be careful about your sources. If your source made a mistake and you repeated it, it just became YOUR mistake.

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.

Look at the chart scale again: that's three-tenths of a degree Celsius. You misread the chart.

there is no SH reconstruction which shows the top chart inverted. there are many proxies in the SH that show the same as the top chart though, so the top chart is similar to global chart (before that old chestnut rears its head), also the mann et al grey plot in the bottom graph is NH only.

According to Marcott's article (which you never read): "...temperatures in this region (Northern Hemisphere) decrease by ~2 (degrees) C from 7000 yr B.P. tp ~100 yr B.P. (Fig. 2H). By comparison, the low latitudes (30 degrees north to 30 degrees south) exhibit a slight warming of ~0.4 (degrees) C from 11,000 to 5000 yr B.P., with temperature leveling off thereafter (Fig. 2I), whereas the extratropical Southern Hemisphere (30 degrees south to 90 degrees south) cooled ~0.4 (degrees) C from about 11,000 to 7000 yr B.P. ...."

So, which proxies are you talking about? Marcott's 73 proxies didn't show what you're claiming. Time to post a source that DOES show it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, which proxies are you talking about? Marcott's 73 proxies didn't show what you're claiming. Time to post a source that DOES show it.

Doug

Something is wrong here.

Why would Marcott use proxies (actually 30 out of 73) in his paper which have been shown to have major temperature errors (> 0.5 degrees)?

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why would Marcott use proxies (actually 30 out of 73) in his paper which have been shown to have major temperature errors (> 0.5 degrees)?

I'm checking that out. I'll have to get back to you on it.

As I explained in Post 39, we're tracking changes, not absolute temperatures. The transforms I described would destroy the absolute values, leaving only the changes. A series that averaged a degree high would be relocated to the global average. So what is important is the consistency. Is the dataset nearly always high? That would indicate a correctable bias. But if the discrepancies are random then various types of averaging or smoothing would be needed to even out the variation. That would destroy short-term signals, like ice storms, but leave the long-term ones, like century-scale warming trends.

Another thought: in order to calculate an error, you need a standard to compare to, a standard to serve as the "correct" model. How were those error rates determined and against what standard?

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm checking that out. I'll have to get back to you on it.

As I explained in Post 39, we're tracking changes, not absolute temperatures. The transforms I described would destroy the absolute values, leaving only the changes. A series that averaged a degree high would be relocated to the global average. So what is important is the consistency. Is the dataset nearly always high? That would indicate a correctable bias. But if the discrepancies are random then various types of averaging or smoothing would be needed to even out the variation. That would destroy short-term signals, like ice storms, but leave the long-term ones, like century-scale warming trends.

Another thought: in order to calculate an error, you need a standard to compare to, a standard to serve as the "correct" model. How were those error rates determined and against what standard?

Doug

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??

Edited by BFB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is arguing about the blade of the hockey stick
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

all-marcott-proxies.jpg

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

all-marcott-proxies.jpg

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one you posted originally. Who's creation was it ?
the pink and blue graph is from the marcott paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.