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.
You're wrong: the law is more complex than you suggest. Everyone who posts other peoples' content without permission is risking getting this site DMCA'd.
ToS:
Wrong, hotlinking is not a copyright violation because the copy resides on the owners server. If they want to block it from being hotlinked it's easily done using htaccess which is server directives. I'm very careful to cite my sources when possible but In this case I didn't cite the source because I found it through an image search and the page it was found on was hotlinking it.
Now you are really being funny. Of course it doesn't show global temperature. That's clear from the papers that it's supposed to represent. They show Northern Hemisphere reconstructions: (Yes I know: they hid it from you in the caption.)
Do not avoid the question and answer it, I'm not asking you what it is I'm asking you Why is this not an accurate graph of global temperatures? If you can't answer this question then you must agree it's accurate.
I don't think there was any deception; I don't doubt the papers explained there was a discrepancy. However, it does make me a bit skeptical of tree ring data.
If the new graph brings up any new questions at all then it's deceptive.
I don't think there was any deception; I don't doubt the papers explained there was a discrepancy. However, it does make me a bit skeptical of tree ring data.
Perhaps there's something specific to today's period (perhaps pollution ?) that's making trees grow slower. Or maybe not. Maybe any time it warms above a certain point tree rings grow slower. Then if it was as warm as today in the past, tree rings wouldn't show it.
Do you think this problem isn't an issue? Hopefully, there are other ways to reconstruct the past temperature that don't have this divergence problem.
Of course it's not an issue: we have modern thermometers so we don't have to rely on proxies. However the only way to have some idea of pre-thermometer temperatures is to use proxies.
Note that proxies are calibrated against the modern temperature record but there is no guarentee that they are as precise: that's why they have a greater uncertainty... explained in the links given in the WMO document. (FYI IIRC +/- 0.3°C)
The divergence problem of tree rings was noted in the literature and also linked to from the WMO document that tcm is probably channeling from WUWT and CA.
The one thing that is still missing from this discussion is tcm explaining what exactly is wrong with the WMO graph. I've seen a lot of handwaving and "it's obvious" but nothing concrete. My suspicion is that he's just dog whistling something from WUWt or CA without actually knowing what it is. Please prove me wrong and present your case tcm.
The one thing that is still missing from this discussion.....
What is missing from this discussion is you answering the direct question I've asked above not once or twice but three times. Can we assume based on your silence you think it's an accurate depiction of global temperatures and global warming doesn't exist?
What is missing from this discussion is you answering the direct question I've asked above not once or twice but three times. Can we assume based on your silence you think it's an accurate depiction of global temperatures and global warming doesn't exist?
It's been answered a few times. Either you don't understand what is being discussed or you are being obtuse in order to further propagate dishonesty.
It's been answered a few times. Either you don't understand what is being discussed or you are being obtuse in order to further propagate dishonesty.
Show me the post where he explains why the graph with just the proxy data is not a fair measurement of global temperatures. Let me explain what is going on here because it's apparently gone over your head. I know it isn't fair measurement, he knows it isn't fair but he's been trapped with his own arguments to explain why it isn't fair.
Understand now? That's your class on debating 101 for today.
The current discussion in this thread involves how data has been truncated and then spliced onto another set in a graph and whether or not it's deceptive presenting two sets of data as one, I'd suggest you go back and read from the beginning to come up to speed before posting more irrelevant comments and links.
The current discussion in this thread involves how data has been truncated and then spliced onto another set in a graph and whether or not it's deceptive presenting two sets of data as one, I'd suggest you go back and read from the beginning to come up to speed before posting more irrelevant comments and links.
Actually the topic is global warming, so if anyone is off topic it is not me is it?
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.
)
