Hockey Stick

climate wars

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• none

[CobblyWorlds]

Easy Es

Shall we stick to Moberg?

Visually looking at the supplementary data I see trends all over the place. Which doesn't surprise me - I can pull signals out of similarly noisy data.

If you want to discuss changes to datasets you will have to be specific.

But using Occam's Razor I'd say 10 studies with different researchers and different peer-reviewers... For what you claim there would have to be a conspiracy. Surely that isn't what your saying?

[EasyEs]

I am going to ask you this question and maybe you have an answer. Why do all the studies you have listed do this. They merge data sets that use very different methodology. Why not let the data trend continue and superimpose other methods above or in a second figure that is scaled properly?

[EasyEs]

For example look at Briffa et al. Look closely at his inflection point in the data and where he decides to switch data sets. If you do this you will see what I mean.

[EasyEs]

I am a bit confused as to why you don't see a problem with the data series that were removed. They show a very different trend.

I am not bluffing, look at Manns latest study and see for your self.

My degree is in geology -thermal evolution of sedimentary basins with some Palynology thrown in on the side.

My point is that these types of studies are very sensitive to the same errors. My point on merging data series stands in my opinion. This error is consistent with most of them.

[CobblyWorlds]

EasyEs,

"Look at the data series that they remove...you'll get a clearer picture."

I still see no problem.

"might work if the data wasn't smoothed with out proper error application and then used as a data injected into an analysis giving said results."

I get the distinct impression you're bluffing.

That said, my degree's in electronics; my specialisation Digital Signal Processing. So perhaps you'd better take your concerns direct to Nature/the authors.

TEN studies show the same...

[EasyEs]

No sorry that doesn't stand up. Look at the data series that they remove from their final results and I think you'll get a clearer picture. There is no consistency in methodology to enplane why some proxies are merged with instrument data at the points they are. What you described above might work if the data wasn't smoothed with out proper error application and then used as a data injected into an analysis giving said results.

[CobblyWorlds]

EasyEs

Moberg et al calibration: They state "mean value and variance were adjusted to agree with the instrumental record of Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperatures in the overlapping period AD 18561979. This technique avoids the problem with underestimation of low-frequency variability associated with regression-based calibration methods."

They also note that removal of single proxies doesn't affect the result.

They find the 1990s are warmer than any time in the last 2000 years.

[EasyEs]

I have a real problem when all of the studies you have listed don't reconcile their proxy data with modern measurements or adequately enplane why these proxies don't seem to follow the non proxy data sets in the 20th century. I don't think that is a straw and it is a major flaw in the papers you presented bellow. If current observational evidence is observation what the proxies are doing then it is Mann et al who are ignoring it.

[CobblyWorlds]

Correct Greyflcn, :)

Your paragraps in order...

1) Clutching straws.

2) Ignoring the current observational evidence.

3) Clutching at some more straws.

4) Sleight of Hand - directed attention - conman's tricks.

But as the denialists have lost a footing in the primary peer reviewed science they have to resort to such rubbish. They even have to invent their own "peer-reviewed" journals, like E&E.

[CobblyWorlds]

Jones et al 1998, MBH 1999, Crowley & Lowery 2000 Briffa et al 2001 Esper et al 2002 Mann & Jones 2003 Jones & Mann 2004 Huang 2004 Moberg 2005 Oerlmans 2005 All those 10 studies support the statement: "The northern Hemisphere warming of the second half of the 20th Century is exceptional in the last 1000 years." All this Mann-bating onanism is just a smoke-screen to hide the bare arses of the deniers and their evidence-lite psuedo-science.