Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the actual global temperatures are recorded in several different ways? Do you think the instruments recording them are biased? (The black line on the graph is instrumental records)
Additionally, the report notes, “NOAA does not centrally track whether USHCN stations adhere to siting standards…nor does it have an agency-wide policy regarding stations that don’t meet standards.” The report continues, “Many of the USHCN stations have incomplete temperature records; very few have complete records. 24 of the 1,218 stations (about 2 percent) have complete data from the time they were established.” GAO goes on to state that most stations with long temperature records are likely to have undergone multiple changes in measurement conditions.
In today's news... The high atmosphere over the Arctic lost an unprecedented amount of its protective ozone earlier this year, so much that conditions echoed the infamous ozone hole that forms annually over the opposite side of the planet, the Antarctic, scientists say.
So, they began monitoring this in 1979 (there are no previous records of measurement of this) and you think they can establish the position of "unprecedented"?
When the actual global temperatures are recorded in several different ways? Do you think the instruments recording them are biased? (The black line on the graph is instrumental records)
One more thing about that black line.
do you know the history of why it is added in?
It’s a nice story.
Keith Briffa did a reconstruction that gave the famous hockey stick you find in your graph. However, there was a problem. After about 1960 Briffa’s reconstruction diverged from the instrument record. The IR went up. Briffa’s reconstruction went down.
You have to understand that a reconstruction is only good if you can show how the reconstruction fits the overlapped instrument record period. This was a huge problem.
Enter Michael Mann…
Mann knows about Briffa’s work. In fact they have worked together for a long time. They are colleagues. Briffa works at CRU. Phil Jones was the head of CRU at the time. Jones and Mann were talking about the subject of this “decline” in Briffa’s reconstruction and Mann offered what he called a “trick”. The “trick” was to take the instrument record and overlap the reconstruction thereby hiding the decline.
It worked nicely until someone outted the emails between Jones and Mann…. Along with a lot of other information.
Mann suggests this “trick” is a technical term meaning “good established scientific method” or some such.
This is but one of the reasons for my disgust toward Mann, Jones, Briffa….
while there is plenty to discuss about the instrument record... including why more than a thousand of the most rural and higher elevation instruments have disappeared from the list.... I am more interested in methodology of recording the Palio-Climate record.
the methods used to reconstitute what the climate was like in 1000AD is very important to this debate since Michale Mann and Keith Briffa have spent their careers dispelling conventional wisdom on what that number was like then.
Both the work of Mann and Briffa have been systematically dismantled. Yet they continue to publish gibberish.
Systematically dismantled? How? By who?
In any case, I think I showed clearly that your link didn't disprove the hockey stick analysis. You picked the study that was the most outlying...
Keith Briffa did a reconstruction that gave the famous hockey stick you find in your graph. However, there was a problem. After about 1960 Briffa’s reconstruction diverged from the instrument record. The IR went up. Briffa’s reconstruction went down.
You have to understand that a reconstruction is only good if you can show how the reconstruction fits the overlapped instrument record period. This was a huge problem.
Enter Michael Mann…
[color=black][font=Verdana]
The decline was only tree rings at high latitudes. The tree rings matched other proxies (methods used for reconstruction) until the 1960s and they diverged for reasons unknown. There are other methods that didn't decline. Odd, yes. Don't think invalidates everything.
The decline was only tree rings at high latitudes. The tree rings matched other proxies (methods used for reconstruction) until the 1960s and they diverged for reasons unknown. There are other methods that didn't decline. Odd, yes. Don't think invalidates everything.
I am not dismissing the content provided by that site Nei (that is major argument to which honestly I have no desire to rehash over again), but Skeptical Science has an extremely terrible reputation. From post editing responses to their articles to make the posters look dumber and them smarter, to their immature treatment of Roger Pielke Snr when he was trying to explain his position. I have absolutely no respect for that site and its ability to be honest about anything it provides.
Again, I am making it clear, I am not saying that the information you linked is "false" as that would require direct attention to what is being stated, but as a basic behavior of that site, it sickens me.
Some people who deny the existence of global warming claim they are skeptics, however skepticism denotes that they are "open minded". That is the complete opposite of what denialists do. There is nothing open minded about their blatant struggle to cause doubt amongst the general populace by spreading lies that global warming/climate change isn't real. Global Warming Denialism - The Environmental eZine
Some people who deny the existence of global warming claim they are skeptics, however skepticism denotes that they are "open minded". That is the complete opposite of what denialists do. There is nothing open minded about their blatant struggle to cause doubt amongst the general populace by spreading lies that global warming/climate change isn't real. Global Warming Denialism - The Environmental eZine
Political propaganda.
Sorry, but your position is hilarious. You go on about "science" and claims of reality and then link garbage like this?
What next? The 1010.org video showing kids and people being blown to bloody bits because they do not toe the line of your belief?
Sorry, but your position is hilarious. You go on about "science" and claims of reality and then link garbage like this?
What next? The 1010.org video showing kids and people being blown to bloody bits because they do not toe the line of your belief?
Ok keep your head buried in the sand, if that is your choice. Your mind is like a steel box...Nothing penetrates...I'm done with wasting my time on you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
