Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

In short. The "hide the decline" comment was about one line in one graph out of the multiple lines in multiple graphs that show unequivocally there is warming. It only refers to how to graph the data points to better make an argument. BTW, the decline is there in the graph but is put into context by the actual instrumental record.

http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...man-based-global-warming-201.html#post1011615

 

Alric, I think you need to read this:

American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline Watts Up With That?

Look at graph 1, and then graph 2 I've attached. Graph 1 is the "real" graph, and graph 2 is the "hide the decline." I challenge you to actually *read* the above link and then justify what they did. It's downright fraud.

From the comments:
"The fraud exists not in the substitution/mixing of data from reconstructios and actual measruement, but in the substitution/mixing of that data without specifying that you have done so. The reader is left with the impression that all of the data points in the reconstruction are from proxies, when, in fact, they are not. Of course, they could not POSSIBLY have stated what they had done because every reputable climate scientist would have had to reject thier work as invalid.

If the post 1980 /1960 proxy reconstruction temperatures diverge as much as it appears from actual temperature measurements in the same period, it calls into question the accuracy of the entire 1,000 year proxy reconstruction. They purpetrated this fraud not to ‘hide the decline’, but to hide the fact that thier work is useless and invalid."

 

Exactly! It is all about one particular set of data using one particular method and all after there is an instrumental record. This was in 2004. By now there are numerous methods and observation, including the instrumental record, that confirm contemporary warming.

http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...man-based-global-warming-201.html#post1011615

At first I was a bit concerned it was the instrumental record data that was fiddled with in the graph. Turns out it is much less important than that.

 

I think it is important to report all the different sets of data. With and without tree ring data:

The other problem is that you are looking for problems in the original 2004 paper that since has been superseded by this:



in 2008. (Mann 2008). I've posted before but note how many sources of temperature data are in that dataset. All agreeing with recent temperature increases and a hockey stick.


Then you have all these:

We start with the original MBH hockey stick as replicated by Wahl and Ammann:



And what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans derived from glacier retreat since 1600?



How about Osborn and Briffa’s results which were robust even when you removed any tree of the records?



Or there. The hockey stick from borehole temperature reconstructions perhaps?



No. How about the hockey stick of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and direct measurements?



Err… not even close. What about the the impact on the Kaufman et al 2009 Arctic reconstruction?



Oh. The hockey stick you get when you don’t use tree-rings at all (blue curve)?



No. Well what about the hockey stick blade from the instrumental record itself?



Nah….

Not a lot of text. Just a lot of published peer reviewed data.

 

It's interesting you use the term "contemporary" when we have had 11+ years of cooling.

With hiding the decline, do you not see how the proxies all show a downward decline as their data set ends, and then in the fraudulent graph he made it look like the proxy data continues upwards? When it in fact does not. ??

 

Do you realize it's 2009?

 

Your explanation is incorrect. As shown above.

 

The American Thinker piece is remarkably concise and accurate - a description of what happened at CRU, the IPCC, other publicly funded institutions and among the small group of extremely influential scientists that wanted to exaggerate the recent, quite natural warming we experienced. It explains EXACTLY what Phil Jones meant by "trick" and "hide the declie". The uninformed would be well advised to read it all - it does not refer to the recent cooling over the last decade or so.

It explains what has been linked to before at Climate Audit (which no AGWer here read, I'm sure) in terms a layperson can easily understand.

American Thinker: Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

This link is to American Thinker rather than WUWT. Some here, I believe, are actually frightened to visit a site such as WUWT or ClimateAudit, much less take the time to read what is there. It's like people who have never once listened to a Rush Limbaugh broadcast claiming he is a racist and hate-monger. They'll cheerfully lap up anything Media Matters 'reports' without using their own ears to give a listen. Sad, really.

 

Didn't I just post an explanation that debunks this logic? Two posts above?

 

You've posted this same stuff multiple times, yet refuse to address comments made about it.

You're hopeless.

 

What stuff! What is the rebuttal for that explanation? All that deniers do is repeat that there are 11 years of cooling or such without showing any relevant data.

 

Hardly.

 

How so?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Alric will not read it. Or if he does, he will be unable to understand it. Or if he does, he will go into denial. One thing he will NEVER do is relinquish his belief. If Phil Jones and Michael Mann ADMIT to defrauding a gullible AGW audience, Alric will visit them in jail and bring them cookies. And Gavin Sch(m)idt, as well.

 

Ufourya,

The reason Alric can not comment on his post about hiding the decline is because he is PLAGIARIZING it!

Hey Ya! (mal)

Climate Change: The Next Generation: Real Climate finally kicks some butt! Yeah!!!

RealClimate: Hey Ya! (mal)

He can not elaborate on this because he is literally copying and pasting from other websites. Alric, I think the CRU has a job opening for you!

 

so.

 

Interesting article about the corruption of Science Magazine

American Thinker: Donald Kennedy and the corruption of Science Magazine

(Alric noticed how I posted my source? Instead of copying and pasting the article - lol)

 

Ok. Without a link. Explain to me how the comment "hide the decline" undermines the instrumental record observation of contemporary warming. I've already explained it like this:

"Exactly! It is all about one particular set of data using one particular method and all after there is an instrumental record. This was in 2004. By now there are numerous methods and observation, including the instrumental record, that confirm contemporary warming.

At first I was a bit concerned it was the instrumental record data that was fiddled with in the graph. Turns out it is much less important than that."

 

That's all you do.

 

I must leap to Alric's defense here. I think PLAGIARIZING may be too strong a characterization. He just fails to give attribution (every time he posts it).

It's probably just a bad recurring memory.