Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Penn. State, or State pen. ?

Jul 9, 2017 at 9:47 AM | Entropic man

Good to hear you still support Mann's Hockey Stick, AND believe in the MWP and LIA. Just because you claim others to be gullible, does not mean it is true, or that you are any more credible than Mann's Nobel Prize claims.

See "Logical Fallacy" for more educational guidance.

Jul 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Thank you for that link Entropic man (Jul 7, 2017 at 8:16 PM). Having made a few simple graphs from the data provided, all I can say is: what is all the fuss about? Little has changed in over 500 years! Even since 1900, it would appear that there has only been a 0.2°C rise. You don’t think that there are some people lying to us, do you?

Perhaps, of course, I am not applying the necessary adjustments – it would appear that “homogenisation” is the key to ramping up the fear-factor. Of course, what is also missing is where this data comes from? (Though, to be fair, I haven’t read most of the text files.)

As an aside, Michael Mann may not be in contempt of court, but he certainly appears to be in contempt of science.

Jul 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical rodent

I am not sure what the fuss is either.

Compare different papers and Mann et al 1998 looks less like an outlier and more like just another routine early paleotemperature paper.

Consider this graph compiled from three papers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#/media/File%3AIpcc7.1-mann-moberg-manley.png

And it's legend.

"Red line: rescaled IPCC 1990 Figure 7.1(c), based on Lamb 1965 showing central England temperatures; compared to central England temperatures to 2007, as shown in Jones et al. 2009 (green dashed line).[17] Also shown, Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 40 year average used in IPCC TAR 2001 (blue), and Moberg et al. 2005 low frequency signal (black)."

Lamb 1965 is the paper golf Charlie referred to. It shows a peak at the MWP and a trough at the LIA. Mann et al 1998 shows neither. Morberg et al 2005 shows no MWP peak and an LIA trough. This is typical of the early paleotemperature papers; lots of variability between estimates. Since then a number of other proxy techniques techniques have come into use and later proxies have tended to agree with Mann et al.

Post 1900 all three papers agree on a temperature rise of 0.4C from 1900 into the 1960s. This agrees with the surface record.

Why make so much fuss over one 19 year old paper when it has become just one of many descriptions of a pattern replicated many times since?

Jul 9, 2017 at 9:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The graph below shows the GISS (1200km) global surface temperature record between 1965 and 2004. The 1997-1998 El Niño is clearly visible and the trend line shows close to 0.6C of warming between 1965 and 1998 followed by the “pause” after 1998. I have, however, deliberately altered something. Can you identify what?

http://oi58.tinypic.com/2nbr6so.jpg

OK, time’s up

I lied about the dates. The graph doesn’t show the period of surface warming between 1965 and 2004. It shows the period of surface warming between 1907 and 1942.

Why did I lie about the dates? To show that we have had two periods of warming during the 20th century that are effectively identical but which according to the IPCC had quite different causations – the 1965-2004 warming was caused mostly by man-made greenhouse gases (it must have been or AGW theory is falsified) while the 1907-1942 warming was mostly natural (it must have been because GHG radiative forcings can’t explain it.)

And what was my point? (apart from testing analytical skills, but I won’t comment further on that.) Simply to highlight the fact that the IPCC is being somewhat less than objective in attributing most of the recent warming to man-made GHGs. (The ongoing warming “pause” conclusively demonstrates that natural forcings are a lot more important than the IPCC is willing to admit.) The implications relative to the numerous claims that increased temperatures caused by man-made GHGs are having such-and-such an environmental impact in such-and-such a place should be obvious.

http://euanmearns.com/zeroing-in-on-the-true-value-of-climate-sensitivity/#comment-4942

Jul 9, 2017 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Jul 9, 2017 at 9:33 PM | Entropic man

The Stern Report was based on IPCC and Hockey Stick scare stories as summarised by The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk

Stern report: the key points. Monday 30 October 2006

 "All countries will be affected by climate change, but the poorest countries will suffer earliest and most.

 Average temperatures could rise by 5C from pre-industrial levels if climate change goes unchecked.

 Warming of 3 or 4C will result in many millions more people being flooded. By the middle of the century 200 million may be permanently displaced due to rising sea levels, heavier floods and drought.
 
 Warming of 4C or more is likely to seriously affect global food production.

 Warming of 2C could leave 15-40% species facing extinction."

As Gergis 2016 only proved Mann, by discredited methods, and Stern was based on Mann, why should anyone trust Stern?

Why has it been necessary to waste so much money on trying to prove Mann's Hockey Stick, and why hasn't Gergis 2016 been retracted by Climate Science?

If Climate Science wants to "move on" from the long running Hockey Stick fiasco, by a gradual process of evolving past climate, it will have to revise Stern, and all the presumptions made as a consequence. So far, it hasn't.

=========

"Why make so much fuss over one 19 year old paper when it has become just one of many descriptions of a pattern replicated many times since?

Jul 9, 2017 at 9:33 PM | Entropic man"

Why have so many been paid, despite failing to replicate a 19 year old paper, on so many occasions?

Jul 10, 2017 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic man: I have already offered you a site that will link you to a whole plethora of papers that provide evidence of the existence of the MWP and the LIA. You, in your usual way, have just peremptorily dismissed it. Why? I can only guess: perhaps because it gives you information you do not want?

There is also a host of other evidence for the existence of the MWP, and that it was warmer than now, but you dismiss that as well… but… you know of half a dozen papers which are proof that it never was!

One thing I did notice was that most of the pre-1900 data was basically guesswork (albeit dressed-up with scientific-sounding words); the NH Mean Data was just “Recon” before 1900, with no “Raw”. The value of it can be seen when there actually is raw data to compare with the “recon,” with a difference of nearly 1°C. Odd, how you put such credence in that.

Jul 10, 2017 at 12:36 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

San Marino next (INDCs submitted on 30th September 2015).

Very impressive: "The Republic of San Marino, on the basis of the decision of the Government held on 28 September 2015, commits to reduce GHG emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2030."

If all countries were making such commitments, the Paris Accords might actually amount to something. Unfortunately, however, "San Marino contribution to global emissions is 0,00052%" so this is not going to achieve anything.

Jul 10, 2017 at 8:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

I lied about the dates. The graph doesn’t show the period of surface warming between 1965 and 2004.

We are >0.3C warmer now, according to the same dataset.

Jul 10, 2017 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

We are >0.3C warmer now, according to the same dataset.
The relevance being?

Mr Clarke: you do seem to be under the misapprehension that historical proxies can give us short-term trends. They cannot; the best that has been managed, so far, is trends over a century, thus we have no idea what the trends were in any decadal period therein.

All you need do is look at the “regional raw” data that is in the link that Entropic man offered us. You will note that, since 1901, while there are dramatic peaks and troughs throughout the series, the end point, 95 years later, is only about 0.6°C warmer than the start point. What is there to worry about, there?

The NH Mean Data from the same start point starts off with a difference between “recon” and raw data, which then gets larger. The “recon” stops in 1981 (possibly because it is now showing a dramatic drop? Who knows? Perhaps this is what “Hide the decline!” was all about…), while the raw data continues its series of peaks and troughs, ending up a little over 0.6°C higher than the start point. Again, what is so concerning about this that we should destroy the economies of western nations?

As I have noted in earlier posts, the provenance of this data is not clear, but Entropic man thinks that it is valid, so it must be so. Unless you know better…

Jul 10, 2017 at 10:54 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Jul 10, 2017 at 10:54 AM | Radical Rodent

Climate Science didn't get where it is today, without ignoring Inconvenient Facts and Data, and Adjusting the pre Selected Truth.

Jul 10, 2017 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical rodent

Does the term "non-linear mean anything to you?

Jul 10, 2017 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical rodent

What site was that? IIRC all you've given me is a world map full of pretty coloured icons(twice). No numbers, no data, no graphs and no explaination.

Jul 10, 2017 at 7:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM. I have often wondered what you mean by IIRC : if I really cared?

Jul 10, 2017 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

I am sorry, Entropic man; I had thought you smart enough to work out that clicking on any of the little balloon-shaped icons on the world map gives you information on a particular paper on research particular to that global location, such information containing further links to more detailed sites, containing such things as data, numbers and such like, which you can then peruse at your leisure. By rotating your mouse wheel, you can even zoom in to see more accurately the location of that particular paper’s data provenance. Amazing!

Here it is again: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.038185000000084&z=1

Apologies for over-estimating your intelligence.

Jul 10, 2017 at 8:00 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Jul 10, 2017 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

"We are >0.3C warmer now, according to the same dataset."

So what?

I lied about the dates. The graph doesn’t show the period of surface warming between 1965 and 2004. It shows the period of surface warming between 1907 and 1942.

Why did I lie about the dates? To show that we have had two periods of warming during the 20th century that are effectively identical...

Jul 10, 2017 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

effectively identical

Jul 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Supertroll

If I Remember Correctly

Radical rodent

Thank you. I missed that.


In my declining years any assumptions about my intelligence are likely to be optimistic. :Ditto assumptions about my IT skills. :-/

Jul 10, 2017 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Jul 10, 2017 at 8:00 PM | Radical Rodent
Jul 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM | clipe

I think Peak Climate Scientist Sensitivity approaches faster with every mention of the Descent of Mann, and His Holy Hockey Stick.

Jul 10, 2017 at 11:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic man:

Thank you. Your self-deprecating, humorous humility is humbling.

Jul 10, 2017 at 11:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical rodent

What site was that? IIRC all you've given me is a world map full of pretty coloured icons(twice). No numbers, no data, no graphs and no explaination.
Jul 10, 2017 at 7:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Paid to be willfully obtuse?

Jul 11, 2017 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Radical rodent

Your link is fascinating. I have not read so many pollen analysis papers since I was doing it myself in the 1970s. :-) I'll come back to what I'm finding later.

Regrettably I was not being humble. I can feel my intellect draining through my hands like Thomas Moore's soul.

Clipe

Chance would be a fine thing. I wonder how much they pay golf Charlie?

Jul 11, 2017 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Clipe: do not be so judgemental, please. We can all have our moments of intellectual blindness; to berate someone for such a slip is to descend to the level of the alarmists, and their name-calling of all who do not fervently follow The Cause.

Entropic man: it is more than only pollen – there is a vast range of subjects studied: ice cores; off-shore cores; carbon and geochemistry; oxygen isotopes, to name but a few.

Jul 11, 2017 at 10:48 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Chance would be a fine thing. I wonder how much they pay golf Charlie?

Jul 11, 2017 at 9:51 AM | Entropic man

Whoever "they" are, I am not paid by them, or anyone else.

As Radical Rodent has mentioned, there is a wide range of evidence. I am particularly partial to historical evidence, linked to seafarers, especially if archaeology can provide supporting evidence.

Jul 11, 2017 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Here is information about the latest PAGES2k dataset.

They are up to 692 records from 648 sites now. If you look at the global composite graph it still looks like a hockey stick.

Jul 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man
Jul 11, 2017 at 11:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterclipe