Does anyone still believe in Global Warming? Have we all finally concluded that it was a hoax?

Lol "clammer"

Sally V wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Yes, you obviously know more about climate science that the

You don't even seem to know what science is.

Do you know about science? There is no "consensus" in science. Global Alarmists continually clammer about the "consensus" which is about the most idiotic thing a scientist could claim. Was there a "consensus" about the Theory of Relativity? Of course not. A scientist develops a hypothethis - then challenges it against repeated inquiries and then may develop a theory. To suggest that there is a "consensus" on Global Warming is the most idiotic thing ever. There is no "consenus" in science. None!

I hold a science degree from one of the top research institutes in the world. Yes, they taught me a thing or two about science.

There absolutely, positively is a consensus on Relativity. Same for AGW.

Like science itself, you also don't know what scientific consensus means. Here is a primer for you:

fisky wrote:

Studying ice cores, Davis and Taylor found 342 natural warming events over the past 250,000 years. They divided these events into low- and high-rate warming with high rates defined as >0.74 C degrees per century. The current warming is well within these natural fluctuations, ranked among the smallest in the high category of previous warmings. In the past 11,000 years, there have been 16 high-rate warmings. Today's warming trends are within normal variations of global climate change.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

I'm looking forward to my fence sitting friend's analysis of this steaming pile of crap.

Citizen Runner wrote:I'm looking forward to my fence sitting friend's analysis of this steaming pile of crap.

Grabbed the data, started to look. Skimmed the "steaming pile of crap" write up but have not read it carefully. It seems to be about an analysis of past warming trends extracted from the ice core proxy data. What's "crap" about that?

BTW - you owe me an explanation for your "world view" comment. I've been polite and cordial with you (and others).

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

BTW - you owe me an explanation for your "world view" comment. I've been polite and cordial with you (and others).

I think I already gave it to you. Human's are more rationalizing beings than rational beings and are remarkably blind to the fact. It's exceedingly rare that anyone significantly changes their viewpoint on a contentious topic based on a message board discussion. 90% of drivers rate themselves above average and all that. Don't over-personalize the comment, but it does apply to you the same as it applies to everyone else.

Citizen Runner wrote:

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

BTW - you owe me an explanation for your "world view" comment. I've been polite and cordial with you (and others).

I think I already gave it to you. Human's are more rationalizing beings than rational beings and are remarkably blind to the fact. It's exceedingly rare that anyone significantly changes their viewpoint on a contentious topic based on a message board discussion. 90% of drivers rate themselves above average and all that. Don't over-personalize the comment, but it does apply to you the same as it applies to everyone else.

OK maybe I read too much into the comment: "Perspective on global warming correlates much better with world view than it does most anything else." You probably could have phrased that better, I took it to mean my perspective was anchored to some specific (political?) set of views common among deniers and/or fence-sitters. I guess that's not what you meant.

I am above average in some things, below average in others. Same as everybody else... No such thing as a true "average" person. Norm in "The Norm Chronicles" is actually a fictional perfectly average person.

In the Vostok ice core data, I count 102 temperature rises with a rate of 1 deg/century or greater (roughly the extreme rate of rise since early 1900s) and 368 of more then 1/2 deg/century. What's wrong with the analysis in the "steaming load of crap" document?

I put the following together while watching Monday Night Football. Some posters might not be knowledgeable of how top climate researchers have played fast and loose with the data in the past.

Much of the original hysteria about climate change in the early 2000s came with the publication of Mann’s Hockey Stick chart that showed temperatures flat for 900 years and then spiking upwards like a hockey stick beginning in 1900. As you may recall, the hockey stick was an integral part of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth and was widely touted as “proof” of global warming.

The hockey stick chart was based on a study of tree rings (a proxy for temperature) by Keith Briffa in 2000. When Briffa’s study was challenged, it was fiercely defended for nearly a decade by climate activists, while Briffa refused to release details of his study. When data was finally released, the hockey stick was discredited and quietly slipped out of the climate change mantra. Here’s why.

Briffa used a sample of 227 old fossil trees and 17 living trees to create most of this data. However, for the last 200 years, he used a subset of only 12 trees. Of these 12, one tree (YAD06) showed an increase of 8 standard deviations above the average tree. Since the sample was so small, this one tree on the Yamal region of Siberia skewed the data to the point that it accounted for HALF of all warming in the 20th Century in the entire world! (It's mind boggling to write this, yet the data is online. I can provide more links if needed.) Here's a link to the subset of 12 trees in an article appropriately titled "The Most Influential Tree in the World."

http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/

Subsequently, a much larger study of 2,000 trees found no warming at all over the past 1,000 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/yamal-eps.jpg

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/more-yamal-tree-ring-temperature-data-this-data-is-flat-as-roadkill/

Another problem with the Briffa 2000 study was that his living tree rings showed no warming in the latter half of the 20th Century! Obviously, this would negate the entire global warming theory, so what could be done?

Mann came up with an ingenious solution. He cut off the flat years of the tree ring proxy and adding on satellite temperature data instead, under the rationale that satellite data was more accurate. True, but if the tree rings were wrong in the latter half of the 20th Century, how can we trust them to be right for the first half of the 20th Century?

It's called the "Hockey Schtick"

This whole affair has been investigated up, down, and sideways by multiple government and scientific agencies. Nobody found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Expanding on this a bit:

I added some of the Vostok ice core temperature data to the modern data plot. Here we have 100 years of real temperature data smoothed at three different time scales (monthly, annual, decadal), plus the Vostok proxy temperature data:

I selected a time period with similar (more dramatic, actually) temperature gains over the same period (in this case 2950-2850 BP). Both data sets have the same time and temperature scales.

Here are the same data zoomed into a 20 year window, comparing 1980-2000 with 2870-2850 BP:

I guess I can let you draw your own conclusions.

Sorry there was a minor scaling issue with the second image, here is the right version (no real difference):

This being 2014 and all, the current authoritative source for paleo climate data over the last 2000 years is from the PAGES 2k Consortium (

http://www.pages-igbp.org/workinggroups/2k-network/faq

).

That there is still a proxy war being fought over a 15 year old paper rather than focusing on the considerable body of more recent work suggests that converging on the best understanding of the science is not the objective of those interested in bringing up this topic.

Citizen Runner wrote:That there is still a proxy war being fought over a 15 year old paper rather than focusing on the considerable body of more recent work suggests that converging on the best understanding of the science is not the objective of those interested in bringing up this topic.

wtf?!? You brought this data up!

hmmmmmm? (the industry shill) wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:That there is still a proxy war being fought over a 15 year old paper rather than focusing on the considerable body of more recent work suggests that converging on the best understanding of the science is not the objective of those interested in bringing up this topic.

wtf?!? You brought this data up!

Fisky's post was about the Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 tree ring proxy paper. I didn't start that sub-topic.

One of the graphs from that paper, the so called "hockey stick graph" was featured in Gore's Inconvenient Truth, so it's become the focus of an extraordinary level of attention due to its political significance. In the mean time science has moved on with more data and better analysis techniques. MBH98 was the first application of using tree rings as a paleo temperature proxy and it was not without its flaws. That said, it's broadly consistent with subsequent work.

Ahhh sorry I read too quickly I assumed you had replied to the previous post (mine) about the Vostok data, which you did bring up.

And since you did point me to those other data (paleoclimate data for the past 2000 years), here is a sample plot, from the first (random) set of data I decided to crack open:

These are temperature anomalies (relative to 1943-1972, the final 30 years of the record) for the Agassiz ice cap. I've smoothed the reported annual proxy data to decade and century.

Again, I think one can draw their own conclusions.

And if you are interested to compare the Vostok ice core proxy temperature anomaly data with the Agassiz ice cap proxy temperature anomaly data over the past 2000 years, here you go:

First, thanks for posting a link and avoiding ad hominem attacks. Here's my rebuttal.

1. Climategate wasn't about the Briffa study. It was far more expansive. It involved suppression of data, failing to respond to freedom of information requests, blackballing research with differing opinions, and famously, an attempt to hide the decline from 1940 to 1970.

2. Lord Oxburgh chaired the most famous Climategate inquiry, which was basically a coverup. Lord Oxburgh was chosen by East Anglia University, which was far from unbiased. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia is the most prestigious climate research facility in the world. Any negative findings would negatively impact East Anglia.

3. Lord Oxburgh was chairman of Falck Renewables, a conglomerate that among other things makes wind farms. One of the subsidiaries lost millions in the stock market when Climategate occurred. Oxburgh had a strong, vested interest in finding no misconduct AND wrapping up this inquiry as quickly as possible.

4. We are constantly being told that CAGW is the #1 problem in the entire freaking world! Yet Oxburgh's spent only two days at CRU. His final report was only 5 pages long! He and his staff interviewed only members of CRU. They reviewed 11 unrelated studies by East Anglia. They did not interview anyone outside CRU. There was no attempt to explain the computer code "Fudge Factor" subroutine to "hide the decline." They never interviewed the programmer who wrote all those scathing remarks about the horrible state of the temperature database.

A frustrated skeptic at the time wrote that the actual interviews must have been something like this.

Oxburgh: Did you do anything wrong?

Mann: Nope

Oxburgh: Well, that clears that up. Thank you for your time.

I urge you to read the actual computer code that was never discussed in the Oxburgh Inquiry.

At the next link you will find 5 pages of comments by the programmer (who was never interviewed!) filled with frustration about the woeful state of the CRU temperature database.

Here's one telling quote.

Read through those comments by the programmer (who was never interviewed, incredible!) and then ask if you would believe a 100-year forecast based on this database?

Fat hurts wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports

The wikipedia link on the controversy surrounding MBH98 is here: