(click for full size)
Comment 33;
Forgetting for a moment that none of those lines is what it purports to be … just take the whole mess at face value. What I see is this:
1) The caption is proven false by the graphic it allegedly describes. “… all suggest that it is warmer now than at any time in the last 1000 years”. No they dont all suggest that. Their ‘Esper 2002′ line suggests that it is no warmer now than at any time in the last 1000 years, and the ‘Juckes 2006′ graph says that it is cooler now than at least three past temp peaks. And many of the rest show current temps within ~0.1C of some pre-SUV peak … certainly within error.
2) Speaking of error, apart from the ‘Crowley 2000′ splice job, all ‘temperature reconstructions’ miss the ‘Direct measurements’ of the latest temperature by ~0.8C.
3) The error in 2) is pretty well matched by the typical discrepancy between the high and low estimates for any particular time in the last 1000 years, which seems to hover around 0.6C.
4) Uh, arent the errors in 2) and 3) approximately the same size as the alleged measured warming that is going to kill us all?
5) (-1.0C) – (-0.8C) = 0.4C
This is ‘The New Scientist’? Seems like ‘The Emperors New Tailor’ to me.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand that nothing is a valid proxy for temperature unless there is a rigorous derivation of a temperature metric from the observable. This is the case for oxygen isotope fractionation. It’s not the case for tree ring widths or densities. Divergence raises the issue that the correlations could well be empirical happenstance. What divergence “proves” is that maybe tree rings correlate with temperature, and maybe they don’t. It proves that tree rings, as such, are not worthy of blind trust or qualitative justificationisms.
Only a derivation from theory will establish the issue, one way or the other. Until then, it’s all just shouting.
Some time ago on CA I discussed with Paul Dennis a 13-C kinetics approach to derivation of a true temperature from tree wood. If that worked out, it would be a method of deriving a valid temperature metric from ring wood that is independent of ring width and ring density. It would suffer from its own suite of confounding variables, primarily to do with night-time respiration, but it would be a physically valid metric on the same order as 18-O fractionation in ice cores. But I’ll bet no one is working on any such thing. If Rob Wilson or anyone else really loved their field of dendroclimatology and wanted to bring quantitative rigor to it, they’d be working on a project like that. Derive a valid temperature from wood from quantitative physical theory. Not doing one more hand-wavingly justified, speciously normalized, pseudo-temperature publicizing, tree ring study. Those things are nothing more than mathematically embellished propaganda for dendroclimatology groups — look guys, at what we did this time! Isn’t it fun!
In other areas of science, people who publish conflicting results argue about them in terms of theory until a clear winner emerges. And the winning idea is ultimately the one grounded most firmly in objective theory. Those spaghetti graphs all claim — each and every one — to tell a single story. However, they clearly have different story-lines, and the set we see doesn’t exhaust all the possible, equivalently pseudo-justifiable, story-lines. They are conflicting results that should cause the groups of origin to argue vigorously about who is right or wrong in terms of applicable theory. But that doesn’t seem to happen, perhaps because there is no applicable theory. Instead we get uncritical composite plots like Rob Wilson’s, or like the lovely IPCC hash that John A reproduced in #65, and various new proxy studies that merely present some new compilation of trees and cores representing yet one more soon-to-be-bypassed statement about past pseudo-temperatures. It’s a scientific scandal.
While I am happy to discuss this elsewhere, the reason that it is important to the current topic is that we have several “global mean temperature” dataesets, which show both different trends and different anomalies. Because “global mean temperature” has no agreed upon meaning, none of these datasets is theoretically superior to any other. This has a couple of effects.
1) People are free to choose which “global mean temperature” dataset they wish to use to compare and fit their proxy data … which in turn changes the result of the proxy exercise in whatever direction they may prefer.
2) It increases the uncertainty of both the data and the proxy reconstruction. For example, even using a single dataset, an average of all of the stations in the world shows a different trend than averaging the hemispheres individually and then averaging the two hemispheres. Which one is correct? We can’t say, there is no theoretical reason to prefer one over the other, but it certainly must increase the uncertainty of whichever one we may choose.
For example, were all of the various proxies in the graphic above done using the same “global mean temperature” dataset? I would doubt it, although I don’t know … but if they are not, it must perforce increase the uncertainty.
Thus concludes today’s scientific consensus moment.
Thankyou.
h/t
Cold days must REALLY bum leftists out…
When 2007 is colder than 2006 what will they all say?
The grid shows .8 degree warming….oooh…scary.
In my part of the country, friends and neighbors tell whether it is hot outside if they see me in the middle of July, WITHOUT A TURTLENECK, LONGSLEEVED SWEATER, and a jacket. Doesn’t happen very often.
“Cold days must REALLY bum leftists out…
When 2007 is colder than 2006 what will they all say?
Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at May 22, 2007 8:24 PM ”
Absolutly nothing. They can’t,because it is not within the 1000 year span. Why do you think they picked that span? Kyoto cultist/AGW nutbars are very good at the propaganda they throw out to the non-thinking sheeple of the West.
They are now announcing heat alerts and smog warnings in advance in Toronto.
When they dont occur= they just shut up but they have the alert on record for their GW agenda.
the spike in the graph circa year 2000 appears to be a total fabrication to me.
Environment Canada is forecasting snow showers for southern Saskatchewan for Saturday.
May 26.
Is the Goreacle travelling somewhere in the upper plains states?
A great deal of informed opposing viewpoints at:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
“Arctic Warming: Is It as Real and as CO2-Induced as Climate Alarmists Claim?: Sweden’s Wibjorn Karlen answered this two-part question a little over a year and a half ago. We here report his response – a little tardy on our part, but better late than never.
Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week
This issue’s Medieval Warm Period Record of the Week comes from Lake Tsuolbmajavri, Finnish Lapland. To access the entire Medieval Warm Period Project’s database, click here.
Subject Index Summary
Africa (Glaciers): What has been falsely claimed about them? And what has been determined to be the real truth?
Plant Growth Data
This week we add new results (blue background) of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for: Japanese Larch, Pignut Hickory, Redbud, and Sweetgum
[and so on…]
It snowed today here in Charlottetown.
Doesn’t everybody know yet? If it’s warmer, it’s global warming; if it’s colder it’s global warming – somehow. Anything in fact that is either predictable or unpredictable is global warming.
To quote the organizer of a failed polar expedition (they had to quit because it was too cold):
“They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” Atwood said. “But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.”
Do you why the data doesn’t back up the claims that this is the hotest it’s ever been? Global warming;)
New Scientist’s does some a lot of interesting stories but there are three things which their editorial stand on will remain fixed and on which they will never here criticism:
1) Video games cause violence even though rates of violence have gone down while games have gotten more realistic, more violent, more widely played, more often played and played by younger ages.
2) The most insane estimate of casualties in Iraq must be true because it is the one they like most.
3) Capitalists are burning the planet to a cinder and everyone agrees except the jerks who do not which makes them jerks.
‘Man made global warming’ slithered into ‘climate change’. Obviously to cover all the bases.
Suzuki was on The Weather Network awhile back.
Chris Sinclair, to his credit, asked Davy why the kyoto kroud morphed it into climate change.
Even though it was rehearsed, Suzuki was sputtering. Well, that’s because, you see, to take into account that it, AGW, can also cause cooling. If ice melts and it upsets ocean circulation, well, it can cause cooling somewhere. Hhhhuh ??
Pretty lame, I would say.
To be fair, I think this is where DZ dug up that speil.
Only 15000 years ago most of Canada was covered by a kilometer of ice. (BTW, how n’ hell did it get so cold ?)
About 10000 yrs ago the ice was melting. (how n’ hell did it now get so warm ??)
Huge glacial lakes formed(Agazzi) in the glaciers. Ice damns held back many, many cubic kilometers of fresh water. When the ice melted enough and the ice damns gave way — look-out !!
Washington state in places resembles the moon because of the torrents of water.
Lake Agazzi dumped so much fresh water into the North Atlantic, probably in just a matter of weeks, that it affected the salinity, bouyancy, ect. The jet stream shut down for awhile and Europe cooled. Cool.
But Dave, before AGW can cause the Earth to also cool (in small locations) we would first have to go through an ice age. How will man, and Mann, arrange that ??
That is how twisted the Kyoto Kult is.
Chris Sinclair has very disciplined facial muscles, I would think.
Squiggley lines are the new world order.
ron in kelowna, said: “BTW, how n’ hell did it get so cold?”
THERE WERE NO GAS GUZZLING SUVs back then; so it is obvious why it got so cold. jeeez!
/sarcasm off
Don’t expect these man-made global warmers to be rational; this is an emotional issue for them. After all, they are trying to save the planet, to save the planet for the CHILDREN. So, whatever they say is sacred, and must not be questioned.
Well.. that about sums it up. Gore can no more define “consensus” than Clinton could define “sex”.
I makes you wonder who is gonna end up with what…where?
Syncro
Has it occurred to anyone else that the alarm-of-the-week pattern, whether it be AGM or health scares, is just a combination of “Look at what we’ve done!” and “send funding”?
I offer the opinion that the “scientific community” has discovered they can get their hands on more dollars from scare stores than from brag stories nowadays. If so, it says little that’s good about government-funded science.
The private sector coughs up dollars based on a result that’s optimistic. The government sector coughs up dollars based upon a result’s fear factor. Not a very nice demarcation, but it is consistent with the traditions of modern liberalism, which regards the State as a gigantic bailout program.
(Unfortunately for us, post-modern liberalism is currently experiencing a return to its Carrie Nation phase, last endured about a hundred years ago.)
And even with summer coming up and our hot days just around the corner the liberals,greenwackos,al gore and big goverment wussietards will say its becuase of GLOBAL WARMING what a buanch of jerks
Gotta ban that dihydrogen monoxide.
It’s gonna friggin kill us all!
** It’s a scientific scandal. **
Or, is it really an unscientific scam?
Or is it a scandal because it*s unscientific?
Or is it a Liberal left wing plot?
Will the cause raise money? Ah ha! = TG
”to save the planet for the children”. seems my two children aren’t listening.they seem to be focused more on ”he’s so hot”.the global warming message seems to be going in one ear and out the other.i can’t describe the joy this brings me.
Well…I guess it’s settled then…not!
Put a hold on the slab of granite they were going to carve the hocket stick graph on and place on the UN front lawn.
As I have said repeatedly, fear not the predicted catastrophic flooding of coastal areas as the ice caps melt, nor should one fear the predicted desertification of mid-continent North America. What the thinking person should righteously fear are those pseudo-scientists who have been elevated to oracle-like status. They demand that you join their cult so that they may pilfer your gain while supported by political mandates.
Not one of these saviours can withstand the scrutiny of properly applied scientific methods. The fact that they realize this becomes increasingly obvious as their demands become more strident that the issues be moved from the realm of study to the realm of solution. ‘It’s a done deal; now give me your soul, your wealth, and your future!’
Kate: interesting link. I skimmed through the thread and there was some good informative discussion. I am pleased to see that ClimateAudit now seems to allow different points of view. I will have to go back when I have time.
Terrence. You said Don’t expect these man-made global warmers to be rational; this is an emotional issue for them.
In fact it was this type of statement that attracted me to this site. I have not posted anything out of emotion. I have shown in posts on here that I am happy to admit when I am wrong. But above all I have tried to engage in meaningful rational discussion about the science.
While I do get some discussion I also get derogatory comments (i.e. ron called my work mush – without any apparent reason) or accused of being a tool of Al Gore (even though I have never seen his movie and I have never used him or his movie as a reference). While this does not bother me (I figure I am in a minority on this site and thus will come under a certain amount of abuse), in the context of my posting, I would say that your statement is not really justified.
Regards,
John
But we’re approaching a wall, and we have to hit the brakes, or turn the wheel, or we’ll keep speeding up, and then we’ll smash into the wall, and it’ll be a lot harder and more expensive to pick up the pieces than to just hit the brakes now and turn the wheel….for GOD sakes, turn the wheel…for the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN…..
/sarcasm off
JCL
Mr. Iron Man said: ” Cold days must REALLY bum leftists out…
When 2007 is colder than 2006 what will they all say?”
We are getting there. From the news:
54 records for cold weather fell in South Africa recently.
http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3844594
Eight inches of snow expected in the Rockies on Memorial Day.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5551185,00.html
Locally, around here, April set some records for low average temps, and May is set to do the same.
All this cold weather may become the REAL “Inconvienent Truth”, for the AGW supporters that is.
John Cross,
You are perhaps the only person who has posted here with an obviously contrary opinion that has not resorted to insults, calumny, etc. In fact, you have been very respectful and deserve the same returned. But please be aware, there have been some unbelievably ignorant and I might say fundamentalist GW pushers here and the reactions are to be expected.
Irwin Daisy: Thank you for your kind words. I will recripociate and say that I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t think I have been abused excessively here – I understand that when one goes against the general opinion it does tend to act like a lightening rod. In regards to ignorance and fundamentalism I regret such posts no matter what side of the spectrum they represent. Needless to say I am not very popular with either side of this debate. 😉
Regards,
John
John Cross,I would like to echo Irwin Daisy’s view that it is refreshing to actually discuss AGW theory, whatever side, is a rational way, without namecalling and links to nowhere that only restate arguments.
Again, I think this is a neat debate, but the real issue is transitioning out of carbon fuels, to get rid of all pollution, with a comphrehensive and thoughtful long term strategy.
I believe, as others do, that Kyoto is not only not the answer, it is the “anti-answer,” for lack of a better term. Canada, at 2% of worldwide emissions, cannot meet its overblown Kyoto obligations without shutting down most of industry, or selling international carbon credits.
These credits are supposed to, in theory, promote clean fuels, but how does sending credits to China do that, when they are building coal-fired generating plants, and will surpass US as top emitter nation. In practice, they are guilt payments that do not eliminate a single CO2 molecule.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t begrudge China, or any other nation, from modernizing using the same cheap power approach we used in the West. Furthermore, a bunch of neomarxists running around Africa preventing them from using their resourses, or banning DDT, are not only counterproductive, but criminal.
WRT Cdn politics, all of the opposition parties have taken the Kyoto line, with not one specifically outlining their policies, just criticizing Tories clean air and water approach.
We must all remember the Liberals did nothing about the environment except sign us on to ridiculous Kyoto targets which they should have known were unachievable. How can we expect anything different this time. Dion clearly does not get it with his “we’ll make megatons of money” statements.
Dion blames Tories when in opposition for stalling Lib majority government, and now accuses minority Tories of obstructionism, knowing, but hoping we won’t notice, they can force election anytime; but he won’t. Why not?
IMHO, they are only interested in power for its sake, so they won’t come up with policies until last minute, and couch them in emotive and populist language. Once they achieve power, as is their history, promises will be jetisoned.
Glad to see John, that people can debate, without emotive terms such as denier and knuckledragger used. Thanks again.
Attacks are an opportunity to explain one*s point of logic or admit to error, learn and go forward.
Some people are employed by or invested in Chevron and Exxon-Mobile and I am attacked because my views are at their expense.
Corporations have a right to maximize their advantage and I am not *against* them at all.
I am simply enthused about the dawning of the *Electric Automotive age*.
Not having an auto industry pension nor employment with Big Oil, Magna or GM, I admit it is easier for me to be pro EV. = TG
Shamrock
Pretty sure it works the other way.
We would send billions of our taxpayer dollars to China to buy carbon credits from them.
Shamrock. Likewise, thanks for posts that make me assess my position and for keeping things civil.
regards,
John
Back 1000 years ago we did,nt have SUVs or 747s and it was warming back then and well al least we did,nt have that blabbering jerk AL GORE back then
Yes, clair voyant, that’s what I meant.
The real question is, if we’re talking about serious climate study, why are we only going back 1000 years in this graph?
Why not half a million using ice-core data, to show the pattern of warming and cooling that we’re in, such that the .8 degree difference they think they see here is noise?
TG: I have no fiscal or emotional stake in any automotive-related company, and I’m not particularly enthused about EVs. (For that matter, as the idea of CO2 from cars causing Global Warming is laughable I’m not sure why I’m supposed to be. But I’m a troglodyte that way.)
Perhaps the problem is not being “bought” or otherwise in fiscal servitude to or dependence on Them Car Companies (and anyway, can’t GM make EVs just as unprofitably as it makes IC-powered cars?), but reaction to the often naive claims of EV-proponents. (Not saying you’re one; I haven’t seen your claims. But they such people and such claims do exist, and I’ve seen them countless times.)
Wow, its really amazing how much you love to agree with each other on this site! Real in-depth analysis of the issues.
Stick to blogging, science just ain’t bag I guess.
Sigivald: There is a good reason for the 1000 year limit. This is pretty much the limit for our current climate proxies. The oxygen isotope proxies that you mention are good for longterm values and trends, but do not show year to year changes well.
Ya, like , when we are researching the Earth’s climate trends, a thousand, ten thousand, a million, a billion years ago, we have to know what the temp was in each and every year , eh ??
895,121 BP and 895,122 BP — Big diff, eh ??
The decade or a century out of a miilion just isn’t good enough…. sigh.
The sounds of a Kult’s dying days ?? Straws.. grasp, grasp —- straws, grasp, grasp..
So, over the long record, using 1000 year intervals is sufficient to determine what the climate was like. I’ll accept that. Now, if you look at the last 1000 years, the line should be flat since only 10% or 11% of the period contains any warming according to MBH98 and that only accounts for about 0.6 degrees C. That’s good news, we can all go home and find new things to do.