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

Doug said

"Sorry if I was not clear."

You were VERY clear. you said:

"Maybe you can't read, either. Above I noted that Mann's dataset ends in 2001 and includes Stahle's three chronologies that end in 1980 and 1982. That's where the uptick came from! It's in Stahle's data. Mann used Stahle's data and Marcott used Mann's. Not only that, I'll bet it's in a dozen plus of those other chronologies as well."

http://www.unexplain...60#entry4701380

so, not only do you pretend i say things i do not say, you pretend you never said what you did say.

"Just like I explained in post #70 under the heading "Here's how."

I did not ask "how would you do it", i asked "how did marcott get his 20th century uptick".

he did not "exclude" any of the proxies.

"And he couldn't have produced that result if it wasn't in the data."

circular reasoning.

the uptick wasn't in any of the the data proxies, see chart below.

"You are missing the point"

you are avoiding the point - none of those proxies or any of marcott's proxies contain marcott's 20th century uptick.

"That uptick is in the data."

no it isn't, not one of the proxies show it, see chart below.

"All you have to do is get off your a-- and do the work and you will see it."

this is your stock answer when you get cornered.

it's your claim - you show it.

even more clearly, here is an interactive chart of the marcott proxies:

http://www.moyhu.blo...cott-et-al.html

click on any one of the coloured labels under the graph to highlight the individual proxy, they do not show the marcott 20th century uptick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just like I explained in post #70 under the heading "Here's how."

I did not ask "how would you do it", i asked "how did marcott get his 20th century uptick".

he did not "exclude" any of the proxies.

Marcott produced his temperature signal in the same way I would do it, or at least, in a very similar way. Any method he could have used amounts to nothing more than a variation on the same theme.

"And he couldn't have produced that result if it wasn't in the data."

circular reasoning.

It's only circular reasoning if Marcott is lying - something you have yet to demonstrate.

the uptick wasn't in any of the the data proxies, see chart below.

Your chart shows unprocessed data. The climate signal is obscured by random noise. DO THE ARITHMETIC. Unless you extract a different signal from the data, you have nothing to argue with.

"You are missing the point"

you are avoiding the point - none of those proxies or any of marcott's proxies contain marcott's 20th century uptick.

And you're STILL not getting it: the climate signal is in those proxies. All you have to do is process the data to bring it out - and Marcott already has.

The signal has to be in at least a majority of the proxies or Marcott couldn't have extracted one.

"That uptick is in the data."

no it isn't, not one of the proxies show it, see chart below.

"All you have to do is get off your a-- and do the work and you will see it."

this is your stock answer when you get cornered.

it's your claim - you show it.

What would be the point of me repeating Marcott's study? He has already shown it. You're the one claiming something different.

even more clearly, here is an interactive chart of the marcott proxies:

http://www.moyhu.blo...cott-et-al.html

click on any one of the coloured labels under the graph to highlight the individual proxy, they do not show the marcott 20th century uptick.

Unprocessed random noise.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

proof that the marcott paper is a total fraud

"....In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kinds of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe world IS getting warmer... the extreme cold spells is because there IS still an ice shelf at the poles, once this ice goes, then everything will warm up together nicely, except by then, things will get very, very extremely wet ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proof that the marcott paper is a total fraud

"....In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kinds of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field."

http://opinion.finan...re-not-screwed/

Your article is by Ross McKittrick, an individual who has successfully demonstrated that he doesn't know how to read a COFECHA output and deleted a major part of one he used to "prove" that the Quebec chronology was wrong. You'd only catch this if you knew how to read one of those outputs. I read them every day. McKittrick is the fraud here. If you want to tell who's telling the truth and who isn't, you're going to have to learn to do things like read a COFECHA output, or process a climate signal; otherwise, you expose your ignorance for all to see.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting target audience McKittrick chose - Financial Post.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its April 4th in North Dakota.

I have 2 feet of snow in my yard, and havent seen 40F since November.

We are expecting 1-4 more inches of snow this weekend.

Want to know my thoughts on global warming?????

BRING IT ON ALREADY!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe world IS getting warmer... the extreme cold spells is because there IS still an ice shelf at the poles, once this ice goes, then everything will warm up together nicely, except by then, things will get very, very extremely wet ....

i GET IT NOW!!!!!

No matter what the weather; Its global warming!

Hard to be wrong when you play both sides of the fence i guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i GET IT NOW!!!!!

No matter what the weather; Its global warming!

Hard to be wrong when you play both sides of the fence i guess.

You obviously don't - Global warming is an increase in the average global temperature and not your local weather.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i GET IT NOW!!!!!

No matter what the weather; Its global warming!

Hard to be wrong when you play both sides of the fence i guess.

spend some time in the tropics or on the equatorial belt ... you'll see what we mean by 'warmer'

38oC in the shade ...

it is not both side of any fence ... and nobody is wrong ... the time will come when we are all wrong, then none of anything will matter, least of all 'who was right'

let's not forget that there is that 'little' hole in the ozone, it will all add up, the lab coats on payrolls won't give you any real picture, just what matters to their pay masters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i GET IT NOW!!!!!

No matter what the weather; Its global warming!

I think you're beginning to get the idea. Weather is what is happening right now, or at least is close enough we can see it coming. Climate is what might happen next week, or next year, or next century. Weather deals in specifics; climate deals in averages and probabilities.

What happens in my little corner of the world is only a tiny part of a global picture. The cold winter in North Dakota is cancelled out by the heat wave in Australia. The monsoon rains in Calcutta are offset by the drought in Capetown. Global climate is what is left over after all the cancelling is done - that little bit of temperature change that is left over.

The 20th century increase in temps seems dramatic, especially to Little Fish who can't seem to believe it's happening. But there have been climate shifts to make this one look small. At the end of the Younger Dryas, snowfall levels in Greenland went from full glacial to post-glacial in four years. The temperature lagged behind, but made the entire shift in 40 years.

Concentrating on incremental temperature changes misses the point. If we cross a threshhold, we could suddenly see major shifts in very short time intervals. The melt-off of the Arctic Ocean has been the major threshhold of concern, but as that has been on-going since the 1950s, many people have missed the increase in violent weather until just the last five years.

But there are other threshholds: drought produced the sudden loss of pinyons over a four-state area in just four years. I've been concerned about the deforestation of western North America, but I just learned that this is world-wide in scope. Most of the world's trees (70%) are in permanent moisture stress, living very close to their drought tolerance limits. Significant climate shifts have already occurred in the dry forest types and we are poised for more. When change happens, it is expected to be sudden, intense and patchy with one area being devastated with the one next to it escaping, at least this time.

When you start looking at current rates of change, it is scary. They tell us not to be gloom-and-doom sayers, but I am sitting here expecting to see the death of the entire forest where I spent my first twelve years as a forester - 200,000 acres is alreeady dead and another 50,000 is expected to die soon. Gloom-and-doom is starting to look like the good side of the coin.

I'll get off my soapbox now. But I'll be back.

Doug

1 person likes this

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.