Climate Change is a Hoax

[Doug1029]

17 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Well in part they say in the Methods section that they only choose proxies with an annual resolution or better and that had no missing data or gaps. Although I'm not sure why either of those criteria would be necessary for an individual proxy record based on what the Authors end up doing in the Paper. i.e. using an amalgamation of proxies to examine 51 year resolutions over millennial scale time spans.

A tree-ring chronology ordinarily has annual resolution.  In a few cases, it is possible to get sub-annual resolution, but those chronologies are not usually available in published databases.  That probably explains why they used tree rings.  There's a reseracher at the University of Arkansas who has been working his way south, trying to find the southern limit of annual resolution.  He's in Central America now.  The corals might not achieve annual resolution.

Gaps indicate a potential source of error.  Fragments that seperate gaps are not always well-dated.  And they can be a real pain to work with.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

Even so the lead Author has certainly overcome all those obstacles with other proxy data in past papers so I don't see why those criteria would be necessary here for what was done in the Paper.  

[Doug1029]

55 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Even so the lead Author has certainly overcome all those obstacles with other proxy data in past papers so I don't see why those criteria would be necessary here for what was done in the Paper.  

True.  I wouldn't consider either of those problems to be necessarily disqualifying.  I am of the you-can't-ignor-anything school.  I would use every bit of available data.  Unfortunately, that tends to create HUGE datasets which can be difficult to assemble and unwiedly to use.  That also creates the problem of how to fix problems in marginal data.  If you throw out the marginal stuff, you don't have that problem.

Doug  

[lost_shaman]

At any rate, there are lots of proxy data that this Paper did not use. Below is a database that focuses on the Medieval Warm Period 1000 - 1200 AD.

Link to MWP map:

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

At any rate, there are lots of proxy data that this Paper did not use. Below is a database that focuses on the Medieval Warm Period 1000 - 1200 AD.

Link to MWP map:

Data quality and quantity drops off sharply about 1400 AD.  It's hard to get high-quality data from before then.

Doug

[tortugabob]

 

[lost_shaman]

A link to a skeptical assessment of the Paper ChrLzs cited. Their criticism is similar to mine in that they notice the tree ring centric nature of the Paper and Pages2k consortium itself. 

Edited July 29, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

On 7/28/2019 at 8:20 AM, tortugabob said:

 

The next solar minimum should be here in 2020.  We're already approaching the low-point and if we are going to see a reduction in temps, we should be seeing the beginning of it now.  But we're not.  And even if we were, solar minima account for only about 0.3C anyway.

So what are these folks pi nning their hopes to?  Apparently they think we are about to see a new "dark sun," similar to the Maunder and Dalton Minima.  A prolonged period of reduced soalr output could cause a reduction in temps, but it's likely to be such a small amount that most people couldn't tell.

Even if it gets here, I don't think this is going to be any kind of climate disaster.  Better find something else to cry wolf over.

Doug

[Doug1029]

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

A link to a skeptical assessment of the Paper ChrLzs cited. Their criticism is similar to mine in that they notice the tree ring centric nature of the Paper and Pages2k consortium itself. 

Not exactly what I'd call a skeptical scientific review.  This is denialist propaganda.  It starts with a claim that the "hockey stick" was wrong - it wasn't.  I didn't get much farther than that.  If they're going to start with a mistake, what's the point in reading the rest of it?

Doug

[Doug1029]

Intercorrelations (the measure of agreement by series within a chronology) usually runs above 60% for most, if not all, trees in the chronology.  35% is considered the minimum acceptable intercorrelation.  Researchers generally try to eliminate series with intercorrleations less than 60%.  When estimating weather phenomena, we generally try for correlations between the chronology and the weather of 95% or higher.  For some selected problems, like does December precip affect growth the following spring, we may accept figures as low as 15%.  Wide-spread samples generally produce lower intercorrelations than tightly grouped ones and stands with mixed-age trees usually show lower intercorrelations than even-aged stands.  Cores taken from the southwest side of the tree generally have better intercorrelations with weather than those from other sides.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

This is denialist propaganda.  It starts with a claim that the "hockey stick" was wrong - it wasn't. 

Oh that's rich coming from a person who probably has a signed photograph of Michael Mann on his office wall!

[lost_shaman]

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We're already approaching the low-point and if we are going to see a reduction in temps, we should be seeing the beginning of it now.  But we're not.

Oh really? And what do you call it when Global Temps are falling during an El Nino which should be rising Global temperatures?

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Oh that's rich coming from a person who probably has a signed photograph of Michael Mann on his office wall!

No photograph of Michael Mann, but I have met him in person.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Oh really? And what do you call it when Global Temps are falling during an El Nino which should be rising Global temperatures?

It's the sunspot count that is falling.

And that's not much of an El Nino.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

No photograph of Michael Mann, but I have met him in person.

Doug

I know you have, are you denying that you got his Autograph? He is your Hero after all and you will defend anything 'hockey stick' related.

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

It's the sunspot count that is falling.

Um. No. The Sun Spot  Count is bottomed out near Zero it can't fall any lower than that. It is Global temperatures that are falling.

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And that's not much of an El Nino.

It is still a Non-Neutral El Nino Doug, and by that definition Global temps should have been trending up NOT DOWN!!!

[Doug1029]

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I know you have, are you denying that you got his Autograph? He is your Hero after all and you will defend anything 'hockey stick' related.

Um. No. The Sun Spot  Count is bottomed out near Zero it can't fall any lower than that. It is Global temperatures that are falling.

It is still a Non-Neutral El Nino Doug, and by that definition Global temps should have been trending up NOT DOWN!!!

I do not have an autograph from Michael Mann.  I wouldn't call him a hero.  He is just searching for truth related to climate change, as are all climatologists.

The sunspot count is near zero, agreed.  It may even have reached zero for a month or two.  It will remiain at or close to zero until the beginning of the next cycle.  Typically, it goes down to zero, then shows some small readings for two or three months, goes back to zero, shows some more low readings, then goes back to zero again before starting up.  These non-zero readings are the peaks of a curve that is BELOW zero at the time.  They're just random fluctuations.

Global temps are higher during an El Nino, but that doesn't make their trend either up or down.  The trend is an instantaneous rate-of-change and can change in seconds.  Don't get excited over trends.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

Forget trends Doug. El Nino's raise Global Temps, and during this El Nino Global temps are falling which is abnormal.

[lost_shaman]

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

He is just searching for truth related to climate change, as are all climatologists.

How is "hiding the decline" searching for the truth? Isn't the truth that Trees stopped showing warming in their rings decades ago?

That is there is no such thing as the "Hockey stick" in tree ring proxy's.

[Doug1029]

52 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Forget trends Doug. El Nino's raise Global Temps, and during this El Nino Global temps are falling which is abnormal.

And that's why I say it's not much of an El Nino.

Doug

[Doug1029]

12 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

How is "hiding the decline" searching for the truth? Isn't the truth that Trees stopped showing warming in their rings decades ago?

That is there is no such thing as the "Hockey stick" in tree ring proxy's.

The "hockey stick" showed a sharp increase in global temps beginning about 1910.  Temps had been gradually rising since the Little Ice Age.

Mann's work has been confirmed by eight other studies done since then.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

13 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

And that's why I say it's not much of an El Nino.

Doug

It's a normal El Nino Doug, you just can't admit that Global Temps falling during an El Nino is abnormal.

[lost_shaman]

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The "hockey stick" showed a sharp increase in global temps beginning about 1910. 

And flubbed data after 1961 and 1981 right?

[Servator]

It would take an utterly closed minded IDIOT to no believe in Climate Change. Perhaps they don't believe in a Pollution Problem or  Deforestation. Seems like someone has their head up their "DONKEY" (Trying not to Cuss. 

[lost_shaman]

14 minutes ago, Servator said:

It would take an utterly closed minded IDIOT to no believe in Climate Change.

I've never heard anyone say that they think the Climate does not change.

[lost_shaman]

Hey it's the End of the World! 

Where are the Believers? Their leaders are saying "we" collectively have 18 months to make moves that save the Planet from Ultimate Catastrophe!

You would think that any of these people who believe this would be here Screaming to the Sky to get people to pay attention. 

But none of the ardent believers are doing that. Why? 

If your Climate Sensitivities are correct and their are serious Water Vapor feedbacks then we are doomed. Why are you NOT going NUTS if you "BELIEVE" this is true?