Global warming skeptics to loss the other...

... one of the pair and become completely impotent???

As previously noted (on several occasions for our can't-give-it-up resident skeptics), the issue of whether the earth has been warming over the last few decades was resolved by the BEST study -

http://www.traders-t...?...st&p=619326

Anyone still questioning that or posting about some "decade of cooling" or "global warming stop" or other such nonsense is likely either ideological blind or mentally challenged.

Also as noted before, there remains the issues of the cause of the warming and whether it is unusual in human history - both getting at the primary issue of will the warming continue to a point detrimental to humans and today's ecosystems (who cares if the planet was molten iron before; what it has or may be, with humans now on-board, is the issue).

I have been agnostic about these remaining issues; just curious about how skeptics so wrong about their belief that the earth was not warming can today be so shamelessly certain of their stance on these remaining issues - one might expect a little humility if not embarrassment would have ensued.

But now something has come up that may completely blow them out the water; making their further skepticism completely impotent if not embarrassing except to the most helpless ideologue.

In this issue of Science is a new scientific report that extents the "hockey stick" back from Mann's 2000 years to 11,300 years!!! If true, and its published arguable in the most prestigious of peer-reviewed scientific journals, this completely upends the skeptics' entire argument about natural cycles of a thousand years or so that the current warming trend would fit neatly within.

Here's the Science paper (need subscription)

http://www.sciencema...4/1198.abstract

and a layman's translation -

http://www.motherjon...k-graph-scarier

And here's the chart that may cut off that second member of the skeptic's "the pair" -



Note the 100 year spike at the end compared to the couple thousand years it took for the last warm up and the several thousands of years of a relatively steady level followed by an even longer relatively gentle decline.

I'm sure most can figure it out, but let me help Stocks with an analogy -

The recent rise in global temperature compared to past rises is like comparing the DOW doubling over a century to it doubling in a single day. Do you think, Stocks, that would indicate something might have happened during that day that's a little different than any other day in the 100 years???? Do you think that there might be something different going on in that last 100 years than typical in the last 11,000? Hmm, now what could that possible be? I think most reasonable people would rule out sun spots, volcanoes and even dino or cow gasers? How about you?

Sorry boys, but I do understand that some astrophysics scientists are just dying for some pseudo-knowledgeable laymen skeptics to read their e-mails and find some dirt on their sub-atomic theories - maybe then they'll get to go on Oprah to defend themselves - they're tired of the climate guys getting all the attention.

Another hockey stick!
...Found just in time to avert a funds cut-off.
Warmist "Scientists" who are on the government dole continue to see data differently through their biased funding glasses.
Maybe they even see the funding handwriting on the wall.
Maybe they are now working overtime to induce panic... but the public is growing wary of their scheme. (Thanks to Al et al.)
Their wealth depends on finding something to panic about.

However if you are a true believer, like Al, get off the grid NOW. It's urgent. It's easy.


R&D Faces Its Own Fiscal Cliff
The sequester means across-the-board cuts to federal R&D and, barring a grand budget bargain, anemic research budgets in the years ahead.
"The automatic federal budget cuts, known as sequestration, scheduled to take effect on Friday will trigger significant cuts in research and development. From now until the end of September this year, almost $8.7 billion will need to be removed from research budgets, reducing nondefense spending by 5.1 percent and discretionary defense spending by 7.3 percent, according to an analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)."
(AAAS is the source for your panic chart above.
It may actually be an inverted chart of their future funding.)


http://www.technolog...n-fiscal-cliff/

PS: Are you off the grid yet? You never answer that one.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 10 March 2013 - 12:44 PM.

... one of the pair and become completely impotent???

As previously noted (on several occasions for our can't-give-it-up resident skeptics), the issue of whether the earth has been warming over the last few decades was resolved by the BEST study -

<SNIP>

I have been agnostic about these remaining issues; just curious about how skeptics so wrong about their belief that the earth was not warming can today be so shamelessly certain of their stance on these remaining issues - one might expect a little humility if not embarrassment would have ensued.

But now something has come up that may completely blow them out the water; making their further skepticism completely impotent if not embarrassing except to the most helpless ideologue.

<snip>

http://www.motherjon...k-graph-scarier

And here's the chart that may cut off that second member of the skeptic's "the pair" -



Note the 100 year spike at the end compared to the couple thousand years it took for the last warm up and the several thousands of years of a relatively steady level followed by an even longer relatively gentle decline.
<Snip>

Sorry boys, but I do understand that some astrophysics scientists are just dying for some pseudo-knowledgeable laymen skeptics to read their e-mails and find some dirt on their sub-atomic theories - maybe then they'll get to go on Oprah to defend themselves - they're tired of the climate guys getting all the attention.

Your glib patter aside, your new "study" is just a study that uses ANOTHER (new) temperature proxy -- applied over a longer time period.

If you look at all the temperature proxies applied over the standard 1000/1500/2000 years, they DO NOT COME CLOSE to supporting each other -- in either duration or range. I'll leave you to do your own homewoik -- as though you endeavor to check on ALL aspects of the issue (I have most published chart available, plus 100s of studies, used to support the alarmist side...I promise you, they have been well considered!

Your acceptance of a proxy study as the final proof is ridiculous...especially given that the money -- $billions in grants -- is only offered for the AGW supporters (no longer the small change given to scientists way back by the oil companies). The Alarmists are the professionals, not the skeptics -- there is no money in skepticism to speak of...mostly just scholarship for the sake trying to find the truth, even if it does NOT end up supporting your point of view...

Even Thomas Edison failed dismally when he became invested in his conclusions and stopped looking further for answers.


As for temprature proxies -- Link to Project Euclid

BTW -- read carefully. All times "prediction" is used it is about prediction of PAST data, not future.

"Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which are not easily captured with simple models.

In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago."

Edited by *JB*, 10 March 2013 - 09:10 PM.

Here is an initial debunking of Marcott's "hockey stick"

Hockey Stick 2

Real vs. Reconstructed Data

Edited by colion, 10 March 2013 - 09:24 PM.

Another hockey stick!
...Found just in time to avert a funds cut-off.
Warmist "Scientists" who are on the government dole continue to see data differently through their biased funding glasses.
Maybe they even see the funding handwriting on the wall.
Maybe they are now working overtime to induce panic... but the public is growing wary of their scheme. (Thanks to Al et al.)
Their wealth depends on finding something to panic about.

However if you are a true believer, like Al, get off the grid NOW. It's urgent. It's easy.


R&D Faces Its Own Fiscal Cliff
The sequester means across-the-board cuts to federal R&D and, barring a grand budget bargain, anemic research budgets in the years ahead.
"The automatic federal budget cuts, known as sequestration, scheduled to take effect on Friday will trigger significant cuts in research and development. From now until the end of September this year, almost $8.7 billion will need to be removed from research budgets, reducing nondefense spending by 5.1 percent and discretionary defense spending by 7.3 percent, according to an analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)."
(AAAS is the source for your panic chart above.
It may actually be an inverted chart of their future funding.)


http://www.technolog...n-fiscal-cliff/

PS: Are you off the grid yet? You never answer that one.

Off the grid? I believe it was at the same time you allegedly: quit beating the wife; came out of the closet to finally get on-the-wagon: and just said, "no" and closed the meth lab.

Ever since the reporting out of the BEST study, I can understand the increasing hysteria – you all must feel like passengers on the Titanic. I don't expect the hodgepod to just whimper away like the Mayan Calendar folks. I do hope it’s something less dramatic than those fellow San Diegans that did the Hale-Bopp thingee, however!



I just don't get why you would base your belief system on what either I or AG do or not do. Now that is weird.

...

As for temprature proxies -- Link to Project Euclid

BTW -- read carefully. All times "prediction" is used it is about prediction of PAST data, not future.

"Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which are not easily captured with simple models.

In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago."

For brevity, I snipped out the hysteria, basically leavng the McShane and Wyner entrance to the rabbit hole. Here is a starting place to the hole for the layman -


http://www.reporting...e-publishe.html

- and a link to the actual 13 scientific papers that refuted the pair's assertions -

http://www.imstat.or...next_issue.html

The biggest critique, of course, was M&S use of the Lasso statistical method as the basis of their assertion.

Essentially, if they had left their assertion at -

"Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor."

- there would have been little disagreement. However, that would not have established a name for themselves that likely enable one of them to be a contributor to ESPN on forecasting sporting event outcomes.

As it is with their foray into climate research, time and the science has basically past them by (e.g. the methodology of the recent Science paper was not one of their considerations) and only the true believers, such as yourself, clutch to them in your increasingly desperate moments.

Here is an initial debunking of Marcott's "hockey stick"

Hockey Stick 2

Real vs. Reconstructed Data

Yes, by all means, let's travel that typical path of the skeptic from a Science publication to a website run by essentially an industry-paid no-credential layman megaphone of disinformation -

http://sourcewatch.o...e=Anthony_Watts

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]

Now the first link to his response to the study is interesting, but let's see how it plays out. If history is any guide, I'm pretty sure we'll arrive at the same embarrassment he suffered with the BEST report -

http://wattsupwithth...my-visit-there/

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." - A. Watts

We'll see.

Regarding the other link - you do understand that in order to understand what happened in the past that one needs to reconstruct the past?

Tell you what - the climate guys will stop with the reconstructing when you all stop insisting that there's nothing unusual about today's global climate.

I won't be holding my breath.

Salsa They say there are none so blind as those that will not see. The sceptics will go to their death beds still denying regardless of what is staring them in their face. Their pride and ego will not allow them to ever admit they could be wrong. You and I can admit our mistakes every day.

Yes, by all means, let's travel that typical path of the skeptic from a Science publication to a website run by essentially an industry-paid no-credential layman megaphone of disinformation -

Shoot the messenger rather than the message is an old standby for those that have no ammunition.

Regarding the other link - you do understand that in order to understand what happened in the past that one needs to reconstruct the past?

Tell you what - the climate guys will stop with the reconstructing when you all stop insisting that there's nothing unusual about today's global climate.

All scientists agree that climate is changing and that over a long time temperatures have been getting warmer notwithstanding the global cooling hysteria of the 70s. Warming is of course what happens when the earth exits an ice age as in the 1800s. The question is to what extent the temperature rise is due to human forcings such as CO2. At this point the great divide is encounterd with Gorebots on one side defending their baseless belief system and on the other are those who demand scientific evidence that CO2, etc. is the culprit. Given that the science is not settled it would be stupid to discontinue all valid investigations, including reconstructions.

As for future climate, this can only be predicted with any degree of certainty by using verified climate models that have been tested by walk forward testing with in-sample and out-of-sample data. And there in lies the rub. This is the basic problem with current CO2-based models. The 2013 IPCC report throws in the towel and admits that the CO2-based models used are not verified, resulting in an inability to predict future temperature trends, etc. and leaves the physics in an unsettled state.

As for Hockey Stick 2, Marcott's analysis has serous problems along the lines of Mann's debunked hockey stick and is on the road to be formally debunked. Analysis of his paper has begun and the results are not going to make Marcott happy. Here are a couple of quotes and links:
"The Marcott et al. conclusions that "Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history" and "Global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 ….are warmer than 82% of the Holocene" are clearly contrary to measured, accurate, real-time data and thus fail the Feynman test, i.e., they are wrong." (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/ )

"This new 73 proxy study has alarmists convinced that this is an independent verification and vindication of Mann's hockey stick. It isn't. The hockey stick blade at the end of the reconstruction is resulting from an adjustment of the proxy data to agree with Mann's treemometer study. That, or it is an outright splice of Mann's data directly." (http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-hockey-stick-resurrected-by-marcott-et-al-2012/ )

"This paper appears to be a text book example of creating a Hockey Stick by using a low resolution time series for the handle and a high resolution time series for the blade…" (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/a-simple-test-of-marcott-et-al-2013/ )

http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-dagger-in-the-heart-maybe-a-remedial-explanation-of-marcotts-hs-blade-mikey-whats-that-about-a-dagger/



.