OT: Button your lips, data police are coming...

More of the burden that's put upon India by us:

joe

rote:

ds, I

of

heir

eld.

you are ever allowed to see are charts and graphs reduced from the data. Th e question is "What methods were used to reduce the data to the charts and graphs?"

Mann's actual words,rather quoting from the usual denialist sources, we co uld see where you are coming from.

ate my homework". Some dozen independent studies, using a dozen different proxies for historical temperature, have replicated his hockey stick - not perfectly, but closely enough to make it clear that they are all seeing muc h the same global temperature pattern.

doesn't look like "no variation" to me. It only covered the last thousand y ears.

More recent work compares the whole of the current interglacial - to date - with the last four interglacials.

There was a broad one degree positive temperature excursion from about 4700 to about 4900 years ago, which looks a bit unusual, but the rest looks muc h like the last thousand years (global warming excepted).

Mann's work was - wrongly - held to be suspect by the climate change denial crew in the late 1990's. It has been independently replicated, with differ ent - and independent proxies - in the twenty years since the false controv ersy was whipped up. You don't appear to be aware of the work that has been done - and published since then, which suggests that you get your misinfor mation from denialist web sites, which don't tend to be updated to reflect results that they find inconvenient.

That was McIntyre's decidedly specious claim. His results look plausible - but you have to pay attention to the fact that his "random series" were pin k noise rather than while noise. The Fourier transform of white noise is fl at - equal power in each frequency band. For pink noise the spectrum is til ted - there's more power in the lower frequency components - and, like a dr unkard's walk, the sequences do tend to move away from the origin, with an offset that increases as square root of the length of the series.

Far from exposing a weakness in Mann's approach, McIntyre's results suggest that Mann's methods were doing exactly what they were intended to do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The Mann curve shows a slightly dropping curve from 1000 to 1850 with a short term variation about +/-0.1 degrees from the trend. Where is the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period ?

That peak is for a single area in Antarctica. It was just a part of the Holocene climate optimum -9000 to -5000 years ago, with up to several degree variation, depending on the latitude.

White noise would cause large year to year variations,while pink noise would produce smaller year to year variations but could have large amplitude long (decades or centuries) variations. Low pass filtering (averaging) everything several times (first individual proxies and the combined series) and finally you just get a DC component :-).

"Intended to do" i.e. remove any variations.

Mann tried to convince that the temperature has been stable prior to the industrial age and then would be able to show a huge looking variation since 1850. In reality, climate has changed also before the industrial age and one would expect that natural variation also continued after 1850.

The problem is how to separate AGW from the natural variation.

Someone please explain this discussion to me...

It is well known that enough monkeys typing will eventually type the Decleration of Independence..

analogously... enough pink noise generators will eventually produce Bethovens 12th...

and random number generators will eventually produce whatever temperature record you want...

So if you prove that some particular temperature data set ____COULD____ have been generated at random, what does that prove?

Nothing as far as I can tell.

What am i missing?

Mark

}snip{

Easy: anything goes, if you have money available...

joe

NO!!!! I am Hillary C and have thousands of undisclosed e-mails and refuse to tell you how many, much less disclose any. Instead, I will run for President so that I will never be caught.

The "little ice age" was so little that it only covered part of the earth. the mediaval warm period was similarly limited in geograpic scope.

--
  \_(?)_

if you do that you can't calibrate the proxies against anything.

--
  \_(?)_

I wonder why hes asking, perhaps we need to see his emails?

--
  \_(?)_

What an idiot.

te:

ty

g

em

or

d

ll you are ever allowed to see are charts and graphs reduced from the data. The question is "What methods were used to reduce the data to the charts a nd graphs?"

ted Mann's actual words,rather quoting from the usual denialist sources, we could see where you are coming from.

dog ate my homework". Some dozen independent studies, using a dozen differe nt proxies for historical temperature, have replicated his hockey stick - n ot perfectly, but closely enough to make it clear that they are all seeing much the same global temperature pattern.

d

It was a Northern Hemisphere average. You are talking about stuff that larg ely happened around the North Atlantic. The events look important in Europe an history books, but most of it is ocean currents choosing different route s to transport heat from the equator to the North Pole. Search on the Atlan tic Multidecal Oscillation - you won't come out much wiser, since it's goin g to take the Argo buoys to give us an in-depth picture of what's going on

- but at least you'll get away from the denialist slogans.

e - with the last four interglacials.

700 to about 4900 years ago, which looks a bit unusual, but the rest looks much like the last thousand years (global warming excepted).

We are talking about global temperatures, mostly inferred from O-18 abundan ces.

There quite of lot of variation of temperature with latititude. the poles a re quite a bit cooler than the equator.

ial crew in the late 1990's. It has been independently replicated, with dif ferent - and independent proxies - in the twenty years since the false cont roversy was whipped up. You don't appear to be aware of the work that has b een done - and published since then, which suggests that you get your misin formation from denialist web sites, which don't tend to be updated to refle ct results that they find inconvenient.

- but you have to pay attention to the fact that his "random series" were pink noise rather than while noise. The Fourier transform of white noise is flat - equal power in each frequency band. For pink noise the spectrum is tilted - there's more power in the lower frequency components - and, like a drunkard's walk, the sequences do tend to move away from the origin, with an offset that increases as square root of the length of the series.

This is a statistically unsophisticated restatement of what I said. You don 't get a "DC component" - you get a trend, and with "pink noise" there real ly is a trend there, though you don't know which way it's going, which was what McIntyre "revealed", though his commentary was intended to create a ra ther different impression, which you seem to have been too dumb to see thro ugh.

est that Mann's methods were doing exactly what they were intended to do.

Not exactly. Providing a smoothed record was part of the task, and the rang e of variation was part of the data reported.

There has been a substantial and statistically significant rise in temperat ure over the past century, one that's impossible to make sense of without t aking into account the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over that period.

Most of it is relatively recent. The Mauna Loa figures start at 315ppm in 1

958, which is about 45ppm up on the 270ppm standard interglacial level. It' s now 400ppm, 85 ppm higher. No one is arguing that there wasn't climate va riation before 1750, and in fact nobody got too excited until around 1990 w hen the anthropogenic component got big enough to stick out of the noise.

Hand-waving comments about "natural variation" are a device that allow deni alists to skate around this inconvenient fact.

It helps if you've got ice core data to tell you about the natural CO2 vari ations over the last million years (from ice age to inter-glacial and back again four or five times. Once you've made sense of that, it's pretty obvio us what going on right now.

Unless you are making a lot of money digging up fossil carbon and selling i t as fuel. Anybody who is doing that finds the arguments much more difficul t to follow, and most of them seem to be spending money getting people to s pread the idea that the arguments are much too difficult to follow.

You've been taken for a sucker by the Lavoisier Group

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That's what the fossil fuel extraction industry is trying to prove.

Scientific facts are - in fact - quite hard to gloss over.

Unsophisticated audiences - and they don't come much less sophisticated than Joey Hey - are easier to fool.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Arguments either way are pointless. The subject has become an article of p olitical faith. There aren't many rational people left these days. In a l ot of the developed world 50%+ of the population are off their heads with d iabetes or pre-diabetes for one thing.

That's mostly diabetes type 2. Easy to get rid of, the same way you get it: through your diet.

joe

Models aren't facts. Get used to it. Models are an approximation of reality.

Any adjustment and 'calibration' needed proves the fact that there can be a layer of interpolating functions considered to be layered over the part of the model that happens to be 100% correct. And as we all know, a polynomial function can have his parameters (including the order) adjusted to approach reality within any accuracy, only to find out that outside the space in which it has been 'calibrated' the result will be more unpredictable the higher the accuracy in the calibrated region is.

And as we even don't know what the mathematical formulation of that 'layer' will look like, nobody has any idea about the accuracy of the AGW models in predicting the future values. Let alone 'proof' of correctness.

Some people still think they need to get personal if they don't understand or can't counter an argument.

joe

}snip{

Don't be such a conspiracy theorist now.

"Secretary Ray Evans describes the 90-odd Lavoisier members as a "dad's army" of mostly retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries, ..."

This sounds like a group of highly intelligent well-educated and very experienced engineers and scientists. I sincerely doubt they all would be as stupid as you want to believe me to be...

joe

That is not a fact. Although being overweight is a factor in getting the disease and reducing weight can help to mitigate the effects, it is not an assured cure. So "easy" is a misrepresentation.

That said, I have reached a high water mark in my weight due to my inability to exercise. I am starting a diet to get back to a more healthy weight. Diabetes is just one of many problems which are associated with being overweight.

--

Rick

Yes, but you are wrong. Where the diet has played a role in acquiring type 2 diabetes, scientists have found that a highly energy restrictive diet can in many cases cure the disease.

Well, 'many'..., this study was carried out with a group of 11. Dietary intervention seems to me preferable over bariatric surgery, which also seems to 'cure' type-2 diabetes. Which also made me say 'easy'.

Good luck,

joe

I think you just agreed with me. You say, "can" and "in many cases" which means in no way assured and so not so "easy".

None of these words are in any way a scientific description. So you can use any of them you wish and they mean little to anyone but you.

BTW, there is nothing "easy" about a 600 kcal/day diet!!! I am currently trying to stay below 1500 kcal/day and finding it hard. I would be worried about doing harm to other parts of my body on 600 kcal/day. I have not researched it, but was told by a reliable source that below about 1100 kcal/day your body digests muscle in addition to fat... including your heart!

--

Rick