It's amazing that so few people understand the gravity of the divergence "problem". I mean, dendroclimatology produces a prediction (the temperature graph) and hard data proves that prediction to be wrong. I wouldn't call that a "problem", I'd call that a catastrophe. But no, they keep using the graphs as if nothing happened. Unbelievable.
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
That's funny, I'd never heard of this group till today. I get all my information from the AAAS, NAS, NOAA and NASA. Why would I go anywhere else for my scientific information????
maybe you can do a vid with simple explaining what their scientific arguments for agw are and why you think they are wrong. bet General Electric wouldn't like that
"They (CRU) put together the big picture on global warming, right?" No, wrong. They are one of the groups that do this there are two in the US - GISS and NOAA - and they are not even the ones in charge of it in the UK that is the Hadley Center (UK MEt office) - CRU is a small university group of researchers.
"They gave us the Hockey Stick graph, right?" No, wrong. That was Michael Mann - PSU.
"The previous global consensus on temperature looked something like this" (02:55) Wrong again. That plot is a 30-year old plot of the temperature in central England - not the whole globe - Lamb (1982).
A paper (by Phil Jones) actually points out that you cant use tree ring data after 1950 as it is unreliable - probably associated with the atomic tests that started round that time. Lastly reconstructions not using tree rings get a similar result as the hockey stick.
@AssumptionTruncheon I only have 400 characters, I go alongwith none of those points as have none of the official enquiries into the emails - they all found no basis for the allegations, even the ones done by less friendly groups.
If I cede every point you've made, do you have a problem with the statement "The Earth had to be hotter than it is now- based on farms found in permafrost?"
And do you have a study that's better or more recent than Golovko and Kondranin?
@AssumptionTruncheon I am on travel at the moment and so dont have access to y research notes.
Farms in greenland does not mean it was hotter, it almost certainly was not - it just means that it was warm for longer. Remember that GW is 3-4 decades old, the MWP was 100's of years. Put an ice cube in the kitchen & it melts in a few hours but if I put a similar one in a hot oven but check it after just a few seconds & it hasnt melted does that mean the kitchen is hotter than the oven?.
If you acknowledge the Medieval Warming Period existed, I agree, the question becomes "Why doesn't the Hockey Stick?" Why doesn't it show that in the past it was warmer for a long time?
If the MWP existed, then what caused the farms to get permafrosted? The little Ice Age, right? This demonstrates significant swings in global temperature, over long periods of time, that the Hockey Stick fails to acknowledge to my satisfaction.
'The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.' -Phil Jones.
Antarctic ice cores, graphed alone (without tree rings) tend to show a MWP and LIA- warmer and colder temperatures than the present.
@AssumptionTruncheon Yes it is measured in N american records - the atlantic basin but the west was very cool at the same time as were parts of asia.
Do the following get one of the MWP reconstructions (not the central england one) and plot it over the hockey stick plot (one which shows the uncertainty - the grey area) - you'll find it lies within the uncertainty envelope.
Why does the black line of the Hockey Stick not lie closer to that part of the uncertainty envelope- where all our best evidence says it belongs?
Because it is married to tree rings. :)
I do think the Earth is our mother. We need to do her right because we have chosen to be the kind of people who do that. Not because someone terrorizes us into it.
We're on the same side, doc, this is just a discussion about tactics.
@AssumptionTruncheon Because it lies at the average of all the results incuding tree rings. Analysis has been done with and without tree rings - same result. The use of boreholes gives an even lower curve than tree rings.
Giving an appropriate warning is not terrorizing. The fact that the consequences of inaction are potentially disasterous i not terrorizing but it should be getting our urgent attention.
@AssumptionTruncheon 1) you can check the data yourself (as i have done) and prove to your own satisfaction that they are not. 2) The IPCC does not manipulate, analyze or take any data. They report that which has been puiblished. 3) CRU & IPCC are not keepers of the climaterecords - NOAA is in the US & the Hadely Centre in the UK plus about a hlaf dozen other places round the world. They all use different methods, weightings, selection criteria, but all get the same results to within 0.01-0.2C
What I have done is prove to myself that the IPCC crowd manipulate and obfuscate their data.
If you are telling me that the ONLY place I can find temperature reconstructions of the past is the IPPC gang, then that truely is a sorry state of affairs.
Does it not bother you that Phil Jones has admitted to "losing" original data files that pertain to the Hockey Stick? When someone talks about deleting files and then, when asked for them, claims to have misplaced them, I lose trust.
@AssumptionTruncheon So you giot the data nad analyzed it using the full statistical analysis tools available and got a different answer? I'm impressed seeing as nobody else has been able to do that including several of the skeptics.
The original data is not lost you can get it today. Its on the web at NOAA NCDC. Go request all you want. See you in about 10 years (there is about that much of it). All CRU did was dump a bunch of unreadable magnetic and paper tapes to save space.
My answer remains- the graphs in the IPCC report cited do not show a period in the past when it was "warmer for a longer time" to my satisfaction.
I think the problem is that you don't believe they could be lying. That's ok.
I come from a different perspective. I believe they could be lying or telling the truth. It gives me the ability to "see" more different types of evidence. You don't hafta see what I see, and I could be wrong.
@AssumptionTruncheon What you are missing is that the graphs in the IPCC report are not originally from the IPCC report but the scientific literate. You would have to postulate that 100's of others are lying in a grand conspiracy for some unfathomable reason. If you knew the science world as i do you would know that it would be hard to get any given group of scientists to agree what day it is let alone make up something and stick to it for 30 years.
What u are missing is Mikes Nature Trick combined with email4 combined with this
"Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers"
I do not disbelieve a conspiracy just because it is large To do so would be un-scientific
If you knew the world as I do doc, you would know that going along with what everybody says puts alot more food on the table than the opposite. even4scientists
@AssumptionTruncheon All that is traced back to a Daily Mail article - not a very trust worthy source with a reputation slightly below that of the National Enquirer which was running a headline about witches last time I looked at it on the stands.
Actually not about the food on the table, during the Bush administration - failure to support the WH agenda cost the climate community $100s of Ms each year.
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."
-timesonline.co.uk
THE SUNDAY TIMES
November 29, 2009
Right, doc. It's all about the money. :)
Would you like to say anything about Golovko and Kondranin?
@AssumptionTruncheon Please stop quoting blogs & Murdock owned rags. Neither are reliable sources about GW. Theyre just parroting Exxon talking points
CRU was under no obligation to keep or suplly data that can be gotten elsewhere. They gather no data themselves they get it from others. If you want to look at the raw data they threw away then request it from the same sources as CRU did. Anyone can do that & so check CRUs results. The data is alive & well, you can get most of it at NOAA NCDC
Didn't you just tell me that going through that data would take ten years?
Sorry, doc, but if you don't think science is in-itself the reason for hanging on to your ORIGINAL DATA, and not burying it for ten years in some maze, then we have a fundamental problem.
Hate to say it, doc, but it appears there is only one parrot in this conversation- and no one has taught him what to say about Golovko and Kondranin yet.
@AssumptionTruncheon It would probably take 1 person working alone that long but not a team which is what you would have in a research project. The ten years was meant to illustrate how much data is available and always has been. The data requests from CRU were not to get the data but an attempt to harass them and divert them from their work because everybody knows (except those that choose not to) that you can get the same data from the NCDC or the original sources. The same thing with Mann
You have just admitted to me that the CRU threw out data. Which causes me to need the resources to pay a team of men multiple years to go to the NCDC and figure out. This is another layer of obfuscation, doc.
The fact that you can't understand that shows alot to me.
Phil Jones and You do not get to decide what is a "harassing" request. ALL REQUESTS FOR DATA ARE OPENLY RESPONDED TO. If you do not look for flaws in the theory, how do you know it is solid?
@AssumptionTruncheon I just told you they threw out data that could no longer be read - read the reports- it was on 7 track tapes and paper tapes - I have not seen one of those in 20 years. Further they has no obligation to supply data to anyone especially when it is available elsewhere. Jones made that clear in the email he sent to the requestor - he gave the guy the links to go get his own data and correctly pointed out that CRU is a university research group not a national archive.
It's amazing that so few people understand the gravity of the divergence "problem". I mean, dendroclimatology produces a prediction (the temperature graph) and hard data proves that prediction to be wrong. I wouldn't call that a "problem", I'd call that a catastrophe. But no, they keep using the graphs as if nothing happened. Unbelievable.
NewFormofSilence 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@NewFormofSilence
Agreed.
I would call that a fascinating study in the guided perception of memes.
AssumptionTruncheon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 7 months ago
That's funny, I'd never heard of this group till today. I get all my information from the AAAS, NAS, NOAA and NASA. Why would I go anywhere else for my scientific information????
clgrayson1 8 months ago
@clgrayson1
Do you happen to know the AAAS explanation of viking farms found in Greenland's permafrost?
I have never heard a believeable answer to this simple question of thermodynamics.
It baffles me that archeological and historical evidence would carry less weight than tree rings.
AssumptionTruncheon 8 months ago
well done,
maybe you can do a vid with simple explaining what their scientific arguments for agw are and why you think they are wrong. bet General Electric wouldn't like that
cheers
slavendrijvert 10 months ago
"They (CRU) put together the big picture on global warming, right?" No, wrong. They are one of the groups that do this there are two in the US - GISS and NOAA - and they are not even the ones in charge of it in the UK that is the Hadley Center (UK MEt office) - CRU is a small university group of researchers.
"They gave us the Hockey Stick graph, right?" No, wrong. That was Michael Mann - PSU.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong Continued
"The previous global consensus on temperature looked something like this" (02:55) Wrong again. That plot is a 30-year old plot of the temperature in central England - not the whole globe - Lamb (1982).
A paper (by Phil Jones) actually points out that you cant use tree ring data after 1950 as it is unreliable - probably associated with the atomic tests that started round that time. Lastly reconstructions not using tree rings get a similar result as the hockey stick.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
GISS, NOAA, Hadley- agreed. I cede the point.
Does Email 1 not refer directly to the Hockey Stick? Isn't this why the IPCC doesn't use the Hockey Stick anymore?
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon
I use 3 graphs to show the "previous consensus" (3:17). I chose to highlight the one I thought was least confusing and matched the time period.
New Phytologist Journal (184:545-551, November, 2009) "A Relationship between Galactic Cosmic Radiation and Tree Rings" by Dengel, Aeby, and Grace.
Lastly, You don't seem to take issue with any of my major points- "Mike's Nature Trick," farming in Greenland's permafrost, and Golovko and Kondranin.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon I only have 400 characters, I go alongwith none of those points as have none of the official enquiries into the emails - they all found no basis for the allegations, even the ones done by less friendly groups.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
I'm sorry, man, I do my own enquiries. :)
If I cede every point you've made, do you have a problem with the statement "The Earth had to be hotter than it is now- based on farms found in permafrost?"
And do you have a study that's better or more recent than Golovko and Kondranin?
Shoot me 200 more characters if you do.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon I am on travel at the moment and so dont have access to y research notes.
Farms in greenland does not mean it was hotter, it almost certainly was not - it just means that it was warm for longer. Remember that GW is 3-4 decades old, the MWP was 100's of years. Put an ice cube in the kitchen & it melts in a few hours but if I put a similar one in a hot oven but check it after just a few seconds & it hasnt melted does that mean the kitchen is hotter than the oven?.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
You're a good man, doc.
If you acknowledge the Medieval Warming Period existed, I agree, the question becomes "Why doesn't the Hockey Stick?" Why doesn't it show that in the past it was warmer for a long time?
If the MWP existed, then what caused the farms to get permafrosted? The little Ice Age, right? This demonstrates significant swings in global temperature, over long periods of time, that the Hockey Stick fails to acknowledge to my satisfaction.
Happy travels. :)
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon The MWP was a local (atlantic basin) phenomenon - the hockey stick is for all the northern hemisphere.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
'The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.' -Phil Jones.
Antarctic ice cores, graphed alone (without tree rings) tend to show a MWP and LIA- warmer and colder temperatures than the present.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon Yes it is measured in N american records - the atlantic basin but the west was very cool at the same time as were parts of asia.
Do the following get one of the MWP reconstructions (not the central england one) and plot it over the hockey stick plot (one which shows the uncertainty - the grey area) - you'll find it lies within the uncertainty envelope.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
Precisely.
Why does the black line of the Hockey Stick not lie closer to that part of the uncertainty envelope- where all our best evidence says it belongs?
Because it is married to tree rings. :)
I do think the Earth is our mother. We need to do her right because we have chosen to be the kind of people who do that. Not because someone terrorizes us into it.
We're on the same side, doc, this is just a discussion about tactics.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon Because it lies at the average of all the results incuding tree rings. Analysis has been done with and without tree rings - same result. The use of boreholes gives an even lower curve than tree rings.
Giving an appropriate warning is not terrorizing. The fact that the consequences of inaction are potentially disasterous i not terrorizing but it should be getting our urgent attention.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
Please cite the analysis done without tree rings.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon IPCC FAR 2007 WG1 Chapter 6 Section 6 Subsection 1on Paleoclimate and references therein (13 of them).
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
My whole question is whether or not the CRU and IPCC are lying by manipulating data.
Why would I take their word that they are not lying to me?
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon 1) you can check the data yourself (as i have done) and prove to your own satisfaction that they are not. 2) The IPCC does not manipulate, analyze or take any data. They report that which has been puiblished. 3) CRU & IPCC are not keepers of the climaterecords - NOAA is in the US & the Hadely Centre in the UK plus about a hlaf dozen other places round the world. They all use different methods, weightings, selection criteria, but all get the same results to within 0.01-0.2C
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
What I have done is prove to myself that the IPCC crowd manipulate and obfuscate their data.
If you are telling me that the ONLY place I can find temperature reconstructions of the past is the IPPC gang, then that truely is a sorry state of affairs.
Does it not bother you that Phil Jones has admitted to "losing" original data files that pertain to the Hockey Stick? When someone talks about deleting files and then, when asked for them, claims to have misplaced them, I lose trust.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon So you giot the data nad analyzed it using the full statistical analysis tools available and got a different answer? I'm impressed seeing as nobody else has been able to do that including several of the skeptics.
The original data is not lost you can get it today. Its on the web at NOAA NCDC. Go request all you want. See you in about 10 years (there is about that much of it). All CRU did was dump a bunch of unreadable magnetic and paper tapes to save space.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
My answer remains- the graphs in the IPCC report cited do not show a period in the past when it was "warmer for a longer time" to my satisfaction.
I think the problem is that you don't believe they could be lying. That's ok.
I come from a different perspective. I believe they could be lying or telling the truth. It gives me the ability to "see" more different types of evidence. You don't hafta see what I see, and I could be wrong.
The argument has become circular, no? :)
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon What you are missing is that the graphs in the IPCC report are not originally from the IPCC report but the scientific literate. You would have to postulate that 100's of others are lying in a grand conspiracy for some unfathomable reason. If you knew the science world as i do you would know that it would be hard to get any given group of scientists to agree what day it is let alone make up something and stick to it for 30 years.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
What u are missing is Mikes Nature Trick combined with email4 combined with this
"Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers"
I do not disbelieve a conspiracy just because it is large To do so would be un-scientific
If you knew the world as I do doc, you would know that going along with what everybody says puts alot more food on the table than the opposite. even4scientists
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon All that is traced back to a Daily Mail article - not a very trust worthy source with a reputation slightly below that of the National Enquirer which was running a headline about witches last time I looked at it on the stands.
Actually not about the food on the table, during the Bush administration - failure to support the WH agenda cost the climate community $100s of Ms each year.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."
-timesonline.co.uk
THE SUNDAY TIMES
November 29, 2009
Right, doc. It's all about the money. :)
Would you like to say anything about Golovko and Kondranin?
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon Please stop quoting blogs & Murdock owned rags. Neither are reliable sources about GW. Theyre just parroting Exxon talking points
CRU was under no obligation to keep or suplly data that can be gotten elsewhere. They gather no data themselves they get it from others. If you want to look at the raw data they threw away then request it from the same sources as CRU did. Anyone can do that & so check CRUs results. The data is alive & well, you can get most of it at NOAA NCDC
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
Didn't you just tell me that going through that data would take ten years?
Sorry, doc, but if you don't think science is in-itself the reason for hanging on to your ORIGINAL DATA, and not burying it for ten years in some maze, then we have a fundamental problem.
Hate to say it, doc, but it appears there is only one parrot in this conversation- and no one has taught him what to say about Golovko and Kondranin yet.
I think I'm done here, bro. :)
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon It would probably take 1 person working alone that long but not a team which is what you would have in a research project. The ten years was meant to illustrate how much data is available and always has been. The data requests from CRU were not to get the data but an attempt to harass them and divert them from their work because everybody knows (except those that choose not to) that you can get the same data from the NCDC or the original sources. The same thing with Mann
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
You have just admitted to me that the CRU threw out data. Which causes me to need the resources to pay a team of men multiple years to go to the NCDC and figure out. This is another layer of obfuscation, doc.
The fact that you can't understand that shows alot to me.
Phil Jones and You do not get to decide what is a "harassing" request. ALL REQUESTS FOR DATA ARE OPENLY RESPONDED TO. If you do not look for flaws in the theory, how do you know it is solid?
This is SCIENCE, man!
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon I just told you they threw out data that could no longer be read - read the reports- it was on 7 track tapes and paper tapes - I have not seen one of those in 20 years. Further they has no obligation to supply data to anyone especially when it is available elsewhere. Jones made that clear in the email he sent to the requestor - he gave the guy the links to go get his own data and correctly pointed out that CRU is a university research group not a national archive.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
You're cut off, doc.
You are selling something you don't understand.
The difference between me and you is that I'll admit to it.
Good day, sir.
AssumptionTruncheon 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon Cut and run when you have no more arguments.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong Dick, still pushing your jewish DEPOPULATION agenda, eh ?
DownNWO 10 months ago
@AssumptionTruncheon No, the IPCC still uses it despite claims to the contrary. In fact I did a video about that see watch?v=vys9wUl3rZ0
drkstrong 10 months ago