Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Isnt Alric the same guy that was whining about us copying blog posts in the closed thread

 

Isn't there an attribution for every graph?

 

You have to understand - Alric operates in a alternate reality - although it exists only in his mind.

That is why he keeps posting Michael Mann charts even though it has been shown that not only did Mann throw his prior analysis by flipping data upside down but he is still doing it with his latest "work" -- and of course Mann is implicated in the climategate emails as well.

And he posts glacier melt charts that conveniently stop before showing the medieval warm period.

And he is still showing temperature data using the climategate CRU temperature charts based on data that Phil Jones conveniently avoided sharing with the world and now says has been deleted.

And he finds nothing wrong with surface temperature records despite the fact that they are known to be highly contaminated with urban heat effects. And despite the fact that NASA GISS - in defiance of FOI requests - will not release the source data, methodology, or code.

 

For copying blogspots to make scientific arguments, yes. I would love it if people would just show data.

 

Alric you keep copying and pasting - LOL!!! I really do believe you are a robot that goes around the internet and copies and pastes random articles from different websites into message board forums and claims them to be his own.

A.L.R.I.C. = Automatic Literature Retrieving Internet Copypaster

 

Err..I am copying myself...

 

It's only ok to copy and paste blogs that are FOR global warming. If they're against global warming then they are just garbage that isn't worth reading

 

Good one. I always wondered what he looked like!

 

Ahhh..this is good. I love the sound of denialists when they run out of points to make.

 

PHP:

10 print "Hello I am A.L.R.I.C.  Global warming is true.  Send Max to space!"
20 goto 10

That's what confused me so much the first time he copy-and-pasted that explanation. He used the flipped graph and several of us pointed out that out and he wanted us to explain that to him. I would have thought if he could assemble a mass of graphs he would at least have known about them. But it doesn't take much knowledge to copy-and-paste from a pro-AGW blog.

Tim, I'm sure you already read this, but this is a fantastic example of exactly what you are talking about. In it, Anthony argues that a full 69% (61% >= 2'C, 8% >= 5'C) of surface stations have an error of greater than or equal to 2'C.

About NASA and code, etc. I don't see how they can even publish without releasing their data and methodology. That seems highly unscientific. Disgusting in fact. It sucks because I always thought of NASA as a scientific hope for the USA. Fulfilling dreams, like going to the moon (which still blows my mind!)

 

Mann - hero of the Climate Revolution:

Climategate: how the conspirators gagged on their deceptions | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Steven Hayward points out that many other Climategate scientists privately had trouble swallowing the practices of their colleagues:

In 1998 three scientists from American universities--Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes--unveiled in Nature magazine what was regarded as a signal breakthrough in paleoclimatology--the now notorious “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction (picture a flat “handle” extending from the year 1000 to roughly 1900, and a sharply upsloping “blade” from 1900 to 2000). Their paper purported to prove that current global temperatures are the highest in the last thousand years by a large margin--far outside the range of natural variability. The medieval warm period and the little ice age both disappeared. The hockey stick chart was used prominently in the 2001 IPCC report as “smoking gun” proof of human-caused global warming. Mann and his coauthors concluded that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.”
Case closed? Hardly. The CRU emails reveal internal doubts about this entire enterprise both before and after the hockey stick made its debut. In a 1996 email to a large number of scientists in the CRU circle, Tom Wigley, a top climatologist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, cautioned: “I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product.” Mann and his colleagues made use of some of the CRU data, but some of the CRU scientists weren’t comfortable with the way Mann represented it and also seemed to find Mann more than a bit insufferable.
CRU scientist Keith Briffa ... emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: “I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series,” adding that he was tired of “the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years .??.??. and (better say no more).”
Cook replied: “I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon[struction], particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. ...”
In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: “Of course [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective...”
Even as the IPCC was picking up Mann’s hockey stick with enthusiasm, Briffa sent Mann a note of caution about “the possibility of expressing an impression of more consensus than might actually exist. I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent consensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence.” Briffa had previously dissented from the hockey stick reconstruction in a 1999 email to Mann and Phil Jones: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
Even Malcolm Hughes, one of the original hockey stick coauthors, privately expressed reservations about overreliance on their invention, writing to Cook, Mann and others in 2002:

All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None of the datasets used so far has anything like the geographical distribution that experience with recent centuries indicates we need, and no one has yet found a convincing way of validating the lower-frequency components of them against independent data....
​

Mann didn’t react well to these hesitations from his colleagues. Even Ray Bradley, a coauthor of the hockey stick article, felt compelled to send a message to Briffa after one of Mann’s self-serving emails with the single line: “Excuse me while I puke.”

The emperor's clothes...an ugly sight.
​

 

Show me where the flipped graph (Tiljander) is present in the graphs I posted. It for sure is not present in all the graphs that do not show tree-ring data.

 

Points against Alric:

1. Why do you argue against the use of blogs for getting data when you copy and paste other blogs to use as your arguments?

(Stealing from TimBikes)
2. Why do you keep posting Michael Mann charts even though it has been shown that not only did Mann throw his prior analysis by flipping data upside down but he is still doing it with his latest "work"?

3. Why do you post glacier melt charts that conveniently stop before showing the medieval warm period?

4. Why do you find nothing wrong with surface temperature records despite the fact that they are known to be highly contaminated with urban heat effects? And despite the fact that NASA GISS - in defiance of FOI requests - will not release the source data, methodology, or code.

Points against AGW:

1. How can we trust surface station temperature records when we know they are contaminated by urban heat effects?

2. How can AGW explain 40 years of cooling in the previous century?

3. How can AGW explain the last 11 years of cooling?

4. How can we think we are not just experiencing a warming period like the MWP?

5. Why do AGWers try to minimize the appearance of the MWP and the LIA?

6. How can we have any faith in AGWers graphs that show hockey sticks when they do not reflect reality?

etc etc

 

1. Because each of my posted graphs have an attribution to a scientific paper, not the blog post itself.

2. Because the flipping you keep talking about is not even included in Mann's analysis for the reason discussed in the paper itself, if you took the time to read it:

If you read that Tiljander paper rather than relying on a blog post you'll come across the following sentence:

“Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at AD 1720.â€

And here is the reference you didn't provide:

Ref: Tiljander, Mia, Matti Saarnisto, Antti E. K. Ojala and Timo Saarinen, 2003. A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland. Boreas, Vol. 26, pp. 566–577. Oslo. ISSN 0300-9483, December 2003

3. Glacier data goes that far because of the method used. It still shows nicely a dramatic contemporary temperature increase.

4. Because that is all addressed in the methodology. Surface stations are many and are purposefully not placed in urban settings. If they were efforts are made to take that into account.

5. There have not been "years of cooling".

6. Because it is warmer now than during the MWP and we don't want it to get any warmer. CO2 concentration continues to increase in the atmosphere and that WILL increase temperatures even more, whether we are, or not in the middle of "another" MWP.

 

Atte Korhola, a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist, familiar with the Tiljander and other sediments, recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here):

data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa.
​

--------------------------------------------------------------

What seems to be done this time is that the proxy network of Mann et al (2008) is processed with a slightly modified screening of Mann et al (2008), and then the reconstruction is done with a slightly modified RegEM CFR of Mann et al (2007)! Now to answer the question that seems to be on everyone’s lips: yes, Tiljander series are still used as inverted. This can be seen from the positive screening correlation values reported in the file 1209proxynames.xls. In fact, going quickly through the screening code, it seemed to me that they have really “moved on†from the screening employed in Mann et al (2008): only “two-sided test†is used!%------------------------------------------------------------------
%% below is for selecting full/screened/1856-1925 screened/1926-1995 screened proxy-network
%% replacing "abs(z(4,i))>=0.165"/"abs(z(5,i))>=0.513" in line 75/84 with the followings for your expected proxy-network
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0 / abs(z(5,i))>=0 (full proxy-network)
%% abs(z(4,i))>=0.162 / abs(z(5,i))>=0.496 (screening over 1850-1995)
%% abs(z(6,i))>=0.195 / abs(z(7,i))>=0.602 (screening over 1896-1995)
%--

This means that if a proxy has a strong inverted correlation to the (two-pick?) local temperature, it gets picked – no matter what the physical interpretation is! Since RegEM doesn’t care about the sign, it is now really so that the sign does not matter to them anymore. Anything goes!


============================


​

Now if Mann would simply make his data and methodology available to outsiders, this could all be checked out. But so far he refuses to do this.


Why might that be Alric?

 

Why do you say this? This is not true at all. And I don't know how to say this anymore but none of Mann's data contains data from Tiljander. Why do you keep repeating that?

 

Alric can satisfy himself by venturing to this blog post at * shudder * Climate Audit:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7855

As long as we're talking about attribution...

 

Let's see, GWB lived in Texas. Yup, there you go, proof that he was 'in bed'.

It is a fact that the funding provided by big oil to research in the area of AGW is entirely dwarfed a thousand times by money from governments (via taxpayers) and 'environmental' groups.

Mankind has everything to lose to AGW lies.

This answers many of your previous questions about the WHY of an AGW conspiracy (he does not call it a conspiracy, rather an ideological cabal carrying out a plan) are found in the following, Icarus.

The Global Warming Series:

Maurice Strong Politics 101


Part 1: Environmental Extremism
Part 2: Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.
Part 3: How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change
Part 4: How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
Part 5: Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies
Part 6: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
Part 7: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming
Part 8: UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance
Part 9: Carbon Taxes: Hand over your money! “We are saving you from yourself”
Part 10: Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science
Part 11: Maurice Strong Politics 101

 

"Let's see, GWB lived in Texas. Yup, there you go, proof that he was 'in bed'.

It is a fact that the funding provided by big oil to research in the area of AGW is entirely dwarfed a thousand times by money from governments (via taxpayers) and 'environmental' groups."

The fact that GWB called Ken Lay "Kenny Boy",,,,,


Can you provide any evidence that your statement above, about the funding sources from" governments (Via taxpayers) and environmental groups" dwarfing that from big oil? Or did you just make it up?

I opined that "I thought that the cumulative budgets for all the mainstream environmental groups in toto were less than that of XOMs quarterly profit". I didn't state it as fact, as I don't have the facts at hand to back it up.

 

GWB is fond of giving prople he knows nicknames. There is a difference between knowing someone and being 'in bed' with them, unless of course you are reading the Bible (KJV).

The facts about funding:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/08/climate-money-big-government-outspends-big-oil/