Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[Loudmouth]

UGH. Are you being intentionally obtuse:

Just focus on the one that led to THIS CONCLUSION:

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Where did they say that the graph led to their conclusion? You are the one making this leap of logic.

[/I]That conclusion can only be reached by the data in question.

That includes data not represented in the "hockey stick" graph.

 

[andypro7]

Where did they say that the graph led to their conclusion? You are the one making this leap of logic.

I've said, SEVERAL times, that the graph is a representation of their findings



That includes data not represented in the "hockey stick" graph

None of all of the rest of the data leads to the conclusion that Marcott gave.

You really don't understand a bit of this, do you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've said, SEVERAL times, that the graph is a representation of their findings

It is not a representation of all of their results, and it isn't a representation of their conclusions.

None of all of the rest of the data leads to the conclusion that Marcott gave.

Please demonstrate this.

You really don't understand a bit of this, do you?

I understand the difference between the results section of a paper and the discussion section just fine. You are the one who keeps confusing them.

 

[andypro7]

Marcott did exactly what you see above. He took one, JUST ONE series where all the data was missing except for one, and then he averaged the data.

If you look, without the omitted data, the series is actually negative, but it turns out positive with this fraud.

That +.36 for 2000, when it should be (-.85) or so, is the ONLY WAY that Marcott could have come to his conclusion, and the ONLY WAY for that graph to have a hockey stick at the end.

McIntyre exposed this, and that is all.

Just one simple question: Do you think this is good science?? Yes or No.

 

[rambot]

[Why would you capitalize 'EVERYTHING'? You're definition of fraudulent is incorrect. He doesn't have to change EVERYTHING to come to commit fraud, he only has to knowingly change a tiny bit if that tiny bit turns out to lead to an entirely different conclusion than if he had left everything unchanged.

Which is exactly what he did.

Wait though... in post 366, aren't you referring to a lack of robustness in the data?

Does "fraudulent" seem more nefarious for you? Does it fit better into your own constructed narative?

Also, here is a response. And, I am doing you a favour, not forcing you to read the whole page. Is this germain to the discussion you are a part of?
Edit:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
Here is a quote pulled directly from the study:

We concluded in the published paper that “Without filling data gaps, our Standard5×5 reconstruction (Figure 1A) exhibits 0.6°C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Figure 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Figure 1G), this difference is probably not robust.” - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...sponse-by-marcott-et-al/#sthash.5Q3lNgEJ.dpuf

 

[andypro7]

Wait though... in post 366, aren't you referring to a lack of robustness in the data?

Does "fraudulent" seem more nefarious for you? Does it fit better into your own constructed narative?

If you read everything (no one expects you to), the 'lack of robustness' was the Marcott excuse.

However, you are correct, fraudulent may be incorrect. But it is one of two things. Either it's fraudulent, or Marcott could look at this:

and think that it's perfectly fine science to graph that.

I can't tell, you choose - fraudulent or monumentally stupid.

 

[rambot]

If you read everything (no one expects you to), the 'lack of robustness' was the Marcott excuse.

However, you are correct, fraudulent may be incorrect. But it is one of two things. Either it's fraudulent, or Marcott could look at this:

and think that it's perfectly fine science to graph that.

I can't tell, you choose - fraudulent or monumentally stupid.

So there is NO CHANCE in your mind that there is another explanation for this: You just full on believe this guy totally lied.

Do you see yourself reading the link I connected to from Marcott where he has a chance to explain himself?

 

[andypro7]

So there is NO CHANCE in your mind that there is another explanation for this: You just full on believe this guy totally lied.

Do you see yourself reading the link I connected to from Marcott where he has a chance to explain himself?

I've read it before, thanks.

"has a chance" should be changed to "was forced"

Had the original conclusion that came with the published material been a bit muted, even a little bit, then maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

But would you have missed that? Especially since it's the thing that shows the great 20th century warming on the graph that was used to illustrate said warming.

 

[Loudmouth]

Marcott did exactly what you see above. He took one, JUST ONE series where all the data was missing except for one, and then he averaged the data.

If you look, without the omitted data, the series is actually negative, but it turns out positive with this fraud.

That +.36 for 2000, when it should be (-.85) or so, is the ONLY WAY that Marcott could have come to his conclusion, and the ONLY WAY for that graph to have a hockey stick at the end.

McIntyre exposed this, and that is all.

Just one simple question: Do you think this is good science?? Yes or No.

Marcott has already explained it.

"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." - See more at: RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

 

[andypro7]

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."

Wait, are you saying that it's good science to graft on intrumental records to reconstructions to reach the conclusion Marcott did?

 

[Loudmouth]

[/U]Wait, are you saying that it's good science to graft on intrumental records to reconstructions to reach the conclusion Marcott did?[/COLOR]

As long as the proper controls and filters are used, I don't see why not.

 

[andypro7]

As long as the proper controls and filters are used, I don't see why not.

Well, then you'd be in disagreement with....

Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim, which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites".

Tell you what, you, Marcott, and Mann decide if it's ok to do that and get back to me. Are you an 'industry-funded climate disinformation' guy?

 

[rambot]

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."

Wait, are you saying that it's good science to graft on intrumental records to reconstructions to reach the conclusion Marcott did?

Wait. Are you suggesting it's bad science to use appropriate measuring techniques for different time frames depending on what method most consistently produces strong data?

 

[andypro7]

Wait. Are you suggesting it's bad science to use appropriate measuring techniques for different time frames depending on what method most consistently produces strong data?

Nope. I'm saying that Michael Mann says it is.

 

[eclipsenow]

Edit:RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.
Here is a quote pulled directly from the study:

It's hard to call it a fraud when they're so OPEN about it, about the rationale for doing it, and about the results of doing it, in the peer-reviewed literature. But hey, if we don't have a fraud or conspiracy, then we can't wear one of these!

 

[eclipsenow]

Well, then you'd be in disagreement with....

Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, grafted the thermometer record onto any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim, which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites".

Tell you what, you, Marcott, and Mann decide if it's ok to do that and get back to me. Are you an 'industry-funded climate disinformation' guy?

The FULL quote actually backs up the Mann approach. This original comment on the Real Climate page actually says:


[Response: No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here). Most studies seek to “validate” a reconstruction by showing that it independently reproduces instrumental estimates (e.g. early temperature data available during the 18th and 19th century) that were not used to ‘calibrate’ the proxy data. When this is done, it is indeed possible to quantitatively compare the instrumental record of the past few decades with earlier estimates from the proxy reconstruction, within the context of the estimated uncertainties in the reconstructed values (again see the comparisons here, with the instrumental record clearly distinguished in red, the proxy reconstructions indicated by e.g. blue or green, and the uncertainties indicated by shading). -mike] - See more at: RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

 

[eclipsenow]

PS:

I just love how bog-standard boringly predictable denialist heroes are! Andypro worships everything McIntyre says, but McIntyre doesn't have the kudos to attack someone like Mann:

Stephen McIntyre has been a long-time mining industry executive, mostly working on the “stock market side” of mining exploration deals. He published a blog called Climate Audit where he attempts to analyse in sometimes long and extensive detail the work of climate change scientists where he documents “statistical mistakes” in peer-reviewed scientific literature. [1], [6]

McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003” and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years.

As of 2003, McIntyre had worked in the mineral business for 30 years and he has been an officer or director of small public mineral exploration companies for over 16 years. [1]

He left the mining company Noranda around 1988 to help found Timmins Nickel where he was still president as of 2007. By the early 1990s, Timmins Nickel had two mines and 120 employees. In 1991, the company acquired a stake in a project run by Dumont Nickel, a company for which McIntyre also served as president. Mcintyre then became president of Northwest Explorations which was taken over by CGX Energy in 1998. CGX Energy describes its “principal business activity” as “petroleum and natural gas exploration.” [2], [3], [45], [24], [49], [50]

He then became president of Dumont Nickel, but left Dumont in 2002 to “pursue other interests.” In 2003, CGX Energy's annual report listed McIntyre as a “Strategic Advisor,” the same year he first published an article with climate change skeptic Ross McKitrick. [3], [4]

Other companies McIntyre has been involved in include Vedron Gold Inc., Trelawney Mining and Exploration Inc., and DNI Metals Inc. [5] Northwest Exploration has also been engaged in oil and gas exploratoin. As of 2010, McIntyre says he missed out on a lucrative mining boom due to his climate blogging, and said he would be getting back into the mining sector. [6]

Several descriptions of McIntyre have portrayed him as an advisor to both the Ontario and Canadian governments, including the Marshall Institute, Wikipedia and interviews. Other than his testimony to Canadian Parliament in 1991, we have been unable to find any reference to his role as a policy advisor. [7]

Stance on Climate Change

Responding to the question, “Does your work disprove global warming?” McIntyre replied that “We [McIntyre and Mckitrick] have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century… .” [8]

McIntyre has wanted to avoid making any definitive statements on global warming (emphasis added):

“I'm just saying that I don't know, he said. I looked at one narrow topic. I haven't studied issues of infrared radiation and water vapor. And there are a host of issues that need to be studied.” [31]
Steve McIntyre | DeSmogBlog
​

OOOPS! Miners have always been such fans of any kind of energy tax. (Not!) Their reasons for being anti-climate science are clear: CEO's of fossil fuel corporations and mining companies earn more in a day, sometimes more in an hour, than many climatologists earn in a year.

As we all know, the laws of physics say the planet should be warming. We know how CO2 behaves and how it refracts thermal radiation. It's repeatable, demonstrable behaviour that can be replicated in any decent physics lab on the planet!

ALSO, the laws of mathematics confirm it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/b/0/4b0d65a3fd906060b878e08d35d0f3c9.png

The behaviour of the planet confirms it. The migration and moving of seasons confirms it. It's happening: and only tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists (and Republicans) would say it isn't! Apparently, Republicans are immune to the laws of physics. But that's a law of their politics, not physics!

Meanwhile, in the real world the Arctic ice is getting thinner, faster.

 

[rambot]

Nope. I'm saying that Michael Mann says it is.

And why wouldn't it be?
Do you think it is appropriate to use radiometric measurements to get the temperature this past Wednesday? No.

 

[andypro7]

And why wouldn't it be?
Do you think it is appropriate to use radiometric measurements to get the temperature this past Wednesday? No.

Apples and oranges.

You can use all reconstructions. Or you can use the temp record. But you can't graph temp data unto reconstructions, because they are two different animals that operate in different ways.

The reason Mann so adamantly denied doing this is that even though he, as a proven disgrace to science, knows that you don't do that if you want to be taken seriously. (fake hockey sticks are fine, however)

 

[eclipsenow]

Apples and oranges.

You can use all reconstructions. Or you can use the temp record. But you can't graph temp data unto reconstructions, because they are two different animals that operate in different ways.

Yes you can if you simply colour the lines differently and make sure people know which are apples and which are oranges. Or is that too hard to understand? They do this frequently, as on p28 of the 2003 paper CLIMATE OVER PAST MILLENNIA.

But you go ahead and stamp your foot and shout "fraud" or "conspiracy" or whatever it is you believe. The rest of us will just sit back and laugh at your petty little storm in a teacup, and see the evidence for what it is: open and accessible, with no cover up at all.

(In case you have trouble discerning between instruments and proxie reconstructions, the RED BIT is the instruments. See? Right there along with the other data. Clear as day. Unless you can't read it, or are simply too stubborn to actually read some of the source material your denialist heroes are critiquing??)