Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Already did. As I said, it appears as if you're not smart enough to understand it, no use wasting my time.
Thanks, and good day.
Climate science is REAL science, andypro7Of course climate science would say this, but what about REAL science:
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Sorry, andypro7, but what you showed is that you are not adverse to citing a blogger (the engineer Steve McIntyre) lying about the hockey stick graph. An excuse could be that you did not know about the several independent verifications of the hockey stick graph. That is no longer usable: What evidence is there for the hockey stick?As I showed in my last reply to RealityCheck01, just because you come here and repeat a lie you read on far-left websites, it doesn't make it true.
His comments about the validity or not of dating ocean cores are moot because he may be ignorant about how ocean cores are dated.Steven McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis.
I am an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison working on a number of different projects that involve paleoclimatology, glacial geology, geochemistry, and statistical modeling.
A possibly invalid graph, andypro7, since you have still not given a source.It's all in that graph. ...
Not a shread of truth in that statement. Ok, maybe a shread. It would appear to be a rapid increase, just like many other times over the past 10000 years.
Just a cursory look at the graph shows many similar rapid increases. Moreover, some of those rapid increases show much greater increases in temperatures, as well as much higher temps at the apex of the increase.
As I showed in my last reply to RealityCheck01, just because you come here and repeat a lie you read on far-left websites, it doesn't make it true.
Back to the drawing board, champ.
Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here
What you've done here is called circular reasoning. You demand proof that global warming isn't real, but when I supply any info, you say it comes from a 'denier', and therefore can't be proof.
Therefore, until you stop using the word 'denier', which is a childish trick, which proves BEYOND A DOUBT that this is not about science, ANYTHING that you cite or assert that comes from anyone who believes in global warming is INVALID. (I'm just using your logic here).
All those people who say Mann's hockey stick is correct are just know global warming zealots, and therefore we can't believe anything they say. Again, just using your logic here.
All of your information that you shared comes from known 'warmists', and thus, AGAIN, BY YOUR LOGIC, can't be taken seriously.
Except that many separate inquiries have found the scientists innocent of all charges, including a UK Parliamentary inquiry.The Kochs have also contributed vast sums to promote scepticism towards climate change, more even than the oil industry according to some estimates. Greenpeace, for instance, has calculated that ExxonMobil spent $8.9m on climate-sceptic groups between 2005 and 2008; over the same period the Koch brothers backed such groups to the tune of nearly $25m.
Americans for Prosperity, a group established by David Koch, did much to foment public outrage over the "climategate" emails stolen from the computers of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009. The organisation claimed the emails proved that global warming was the "biggest hoax the world has ever seen".
The Donors Trust is a "donor advised" fund, which means it has special status under the US tax system. One of the benefits of donor-advised funds for billionaires such as Charles is that their names are not linked to funds given out by the Donors Trust to other organisations.
Among the beneficiaries of Donor Trust money is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is being sued for defamation by Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania University, an eminent climatologist, whose affidavit claims that he was accused of scientific fraud and compared to a convicted child molester.
Professor Mann was one of the scientists named in the stolen emails from the UEA and has been a target of climate sceptics keen to rubbish his work on temperature records, which produced the now famous "hockey stick" graph showing a rapid temperature rise in the 20th century.
According to Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, the Donors Trust and its sister organisation Donors Capital Fund have become key players in the climate "countermovement", which he says is dedicated to maintaining the status quo on energy policy.
Is a statement of the facts, andypro7:Steve McIntyre is unfortunately a known climate change denier who as you have shown has lied about the hockey stick. But he almost has a valid point here
..snipped rant...
Actually an example of you missing the point, andypro7...snipped insults...
Compare him to Shaun A Marcott who does have the skills needed to date ocean cores
..snipped more insults...
This conclusion was Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak (Scientific American 2013).Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL054271-pip.pdf).
ETA: This illustrates a bit of ignorance by Steve McIntyre.
Marcott et al. state in their paper that they find that the 20th century portion of their data is not statistically robust and so they do not use it in their conclusions.
Which does not leave much coherent text andypro7...usual insults snipped...
I disagree with the title of the news articles about the paper since I do not think of 75% as close to 100%. "Getting closer" would be better but I am not a magazine editorSurface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
blater, blather
The answer is easy: It means that you are obsessed with spamming the thread with purple colored text, andypro7You STILL have no idea what this means, so you?
A new global temperature reconstruction over the past 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013) has been described as 'the new hockey stick,' and adopted into 'the wheelchair' by Jos Hagelaars by including temperatures further in the past and projected for the future (Figure 1).
...
The Marcott paper has been subjected to an immense amount of scrutiny, particularly in the climate contrarian blogosphere, with criticisms about everything from the wording of its press release to the timing of its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) publication. Unfortunately climate contrarians have been so noisy in their generally invalid criticisms that the media has begun to echo them, for example in this Washington Post blog.
With all the hubub, it's easy to lose sight of the important conclusions of this paper. The bottom line is that the rate of warming over the past century is very rapid and probably unprecedented for the past 11,000 years. That's actually both good and bad news.
Why Climate Contrarians Should Love the Hockey Sticks
...
The Hockey Stick 'Blade' is Real
Much of the manufactured controversy about the Marcott paper is in regards to the 'blade' or 'uptick' the rapid warming at the end of the graph over the past century. While their reconstruction does identify an approximately 0.6°C warming between 1890 and 1950, the authors note in the paper that this result is probably not "robust."
...
crap
What is means is what it says in plain English even in bold purple, andypro7You STILL don't get it, do you. What does this statement mean to you:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?