Loehle multiproxy paper (Nov 2007 E&E) looks different than hockey stick
Steve Schulin
chemist
> http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Certainly does, but he omitted tree rings which
have been proved to behave similar to random numbers
in the Mann reconstruction as well those of scientists
who have "confimed" it.
Roger Coppock
> http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Take this with a grain of salt and a drop of oil.
E & E is not a peer reviewed science journal.
It is an carbon fuel industry front which publishes
the pseudo-science of lapdog scientists uncritically.
B0nzo
news:d09c7773-478f-48fd...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLMAO
Reminds me of the "full-of-bullshit" lies and deception coming from Ban
Ki Moon et al!, not to mention the lapdog shameless pontification from
Popcock.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
GLOBAL warming alarmist Dr Graeme Pearman tells you to look out of your
window for proof that warming is wrecking our world.
Or, as the CSIRO's former head of atmospheric research put it in his
best booga-booga voice: "They talk about climate change being on the
radar. But it's not. It's right outside the window."
What? The monster is outside my window? Right now?
Stopping only to grab a golf club, I fling open my curtains and see ...
gasp! A typical spring day, with warm wind and a garden still green from
the welcome recent rain. No hurricanes. No fireballs. No horribly
bloated hailstones the size of Al Gore's head.
Of course, other scaremongers will say I'm just looking out of the wrong
window. Devastating man-made global warming is here, they insist, and
causing terrible, terrible suffering.
They sound so very sure of it that you'd think they could pick, ooh,
dozens of examples of this present cataclysm that are so obvious, so
incontrovertible, that sceptics like me will slink back into our
irresponsibly airconditioned homes, flushed from shame and an eerily hot
sun.
What if the examples they choose turn out to be dodgy, if not outright
shonky?
What if we find these fear merchants are scaring us with bogeymen
outside our windows that aren't actually there, or are as innocent as
the postman?
What do we conclude then about their honesty? Or about their claims that
devastating man-made global warming is already here?
Keep those questions in mind as we check what two big climate alarmists
claimed last week was the warming hell some people were already seeing
out of their own windows.
The biggest noise of the two is United Nations secretary general Ban Ki
Moon, who won front-page headlines around the world for releasing yet
another reworking of computer modelling claiming we were doomed, doomed,
doomed.
In fact, announced Ban, he'd already seen that doom for himself -
"scenes like those of a science-fiction film, but ... still worse
because they are real".
"Having just witnessed with my own eyes a few days ago in Antarctica and
in the Amazon rainforest the effects of a changing climate, I can tell
you with assurance that global, sweeping concerted action is needed now.
There is no time to waste."
Wow. But let's now fact-check those two proofs - those two monsters Ban
claims to have stared in the face.
In his trip last week to Antarctica, Ban said, he'd seen ice melting so
fast that if it wasn't stopped "sea levels could rise by six metres ...
almost overnight in geological terms".
Really? First, "overnight in geological terms", a phrase meant to panic
you, actually means hundreds, if not thousands, of years. You may resume
calm breathing.
Secondly, while the Antarctic peninsula shows local melting, the
southern hemisphere's ice cover overall is growing, as the University of
Illinois' Polar Research Group reported in September:
"The southern hemisphere sea ice area has broken the previous maximum of
16.03 million sq km. This represents an increase of about 1.4 per cent
above the previous SH ice area record high."
Ban didn't see - or forgot to mention - all that extra ice down south.
What's more, he managed to fly on to Brazil without noticing that much
of southern South America was going through a cold period, too.
In fact, Argentina's capital, Buenos Aires, saw snow this winter for the
first time in 89 years and dozens of people in Argentina and Uruguay
have died from the cold.
Ban had eyes only for heat, a dreadful heat causing all sorts of
unlikely strife. So in Brazil he claimed even to see "in the Amazon
rainforest the effects of a changing climate".
Those "effects" turned out to include bits of forest cut down not by
warming, but by farmers. And there was also a distressing interruption
to his tour when a branch of the Amazon had too little water for his
boat.
Damn you, global warming!
Yet if Ban had on that very same day been standing instead by the banks
of the huge Rio Magdalena, to the northwest, he'd have been swept away
by enough flood water to flush him clear into the Caribbean Sea.
So, those are the two proofs of man-made global warming singled out by
the head of the UN. These are the "proofs" Ban claims convinced him
man-made warming was already here.
Hmm. Ban must be Korean for bull.
This kind of fake-but-true atrocity mongering is standard for global
warming alarmists.
Remember Al Gore suggesting global warming caused Hurricane Katrina,
melted the snows of Kilimanjaro and drained Lake Chad? All false, of
course.
As the Pope, so the priests. Which brings me to the other warming
alarmist, who yelled this week there was something scary in the
windows - and, no, not the Myer Christmas windows, this year devoted to
warning children against offending Mother Earth.
In a piece on these same pages, Oxfam chief Andrew Hewett decried "the
deep injustice of climate change", claiming "the countries which have
contributed least to the problem are the worst affected".
He gave two examples:
"In our own region, Carteret Islanders in PNG have seen the seas rise
over land where they once grew crops. Similarly, in Tuvalu, strong wind
and high tides regularly crash through damaged sea walls..."
Just more Ban, I'm afraid.
The Carteret Islands? They seem to be drowning not because the seas are
rising, but because the islands are sinking. These lumps of coral are
built on a dead volcano, which means they were always likely to sink
anyway.
Worse, they are on one tectonic plate that's sliding under another.
To add to the islands' woes, the locals - who haven't lived there long -
have used dynamite not only to fish but to blast two channels through
the atoll and out to the ocean, which seems to have made erosion worse.
Aid activists like Hewett may claim the Carterets as proof of
catastrophic man-made warming, but few serious climate scientists would
dare agree.
As for Tuvalu, all Pacific islands get bad weather, but despite Alarmist
of the Year Tim Flannery warning that global warming would unleash more
hurricanes, the hurricane season in the Pacific this year has again been
quiet, says the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
And if the seas are rising in Tuvalu (why there, especially?), they are
taking their sweet time, creeping up just 0.8mm to 1.9mm a year - not
necessarily unusual for the past few centuries and not necessarily
caused by man-made warming, either.
Well, if those are the scariest monsters Hewett and his kind can see in
their windows, relax. The bogeyman isn't going to get you any time soon.
This farce should make you ask the bottom-line question: why did the
head of the UN and the head of Oxfam need to use such trashy "proofs" to
persuade you that man-made warming was already devastating our planet?
Why wouldn't Ban use a better example than some melting in an Antarctica
that's actually freezing?
Why wouldn't Hewett choose an island that's being drowned because of
rising seas, not falling land?
Here's a clue. By most measures, including those of Britain's Hadley
Centre, the world still hasn't got hotter than it was in 1998.
And when catastrophe doesn't come, what's left for an alarmist but to
stand by the dark window, shouting:
"Oh, my green god! I swear I saw something moving out there!"
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
chemist
If an article supports AGW it will be published
and criticism will be suppressed.
The scientists who peer review in the science
magazines are all AGW believers.
They have probably been indoctrinated by that
travesty of science the greenhouse gas warming
experiment.
kdt...@yahoo.com
And the direct intimidation that they better not step upon the toes of
anyone's funding. The politics of academics is always oriented to the
funding dollar. Any dissent is immediately attacked as 'republican',
or fossil fuel corporate shill.
It is this intimidation that is the backbone of contemporary
'science', and from which is derived the consensus which is so
important to maintaining funding. Actual scientific and objective
study has no place in the constant need to keep the funding coming.
A good example is the exposure today of the UN committee on AIDS. They
clearly knew their projections for the spread of AIDS was much too
high, but to accurately report this would mean reduction in their
funding. Who needs science when you've got the cash cow of
scaremongering with psuedo science??? Why let scientific facts get in
the way of procuring money from public funds for your enterprise???
KD
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Certainly does, but he omitted tree rings which
> have been proved to behave similar to random numbers
> in the Mann reconstruction as well those of scientists
> who have "confimed" it.
Hardly. Tree ring data shows follows the other proxy records quite well.
Educate yourself Moron.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> If an article supports AGW it will be published
> and criticism will be suppressed.
> The scientists who peer review in the science
> magazines are all AGW believers.
> They have probably been indoctrinated by that
> travesty of science the greenhouse gas warming
> experiment.
Ya, quacks say thte same thing about perpetual motion machines too. It's
all a big scientific conspiracy to keep you KKKonservative Fuckups Stupid...
Tim Murphy
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:07ce5e34-f553-4c36...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Hahaha AL-CHEMIST good laugh, best anti-AGW BS I heard all week.
I think your brain cells grow the same way...
Which is why you are such a sucker.
--------
Tunderbar
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote
Tree ring data is not a good proxy. Tree ring width is not affected
solely by temperature. There are other factors like availability of
moisture. Therefore you cannot definitively apply a temperature to a
given tree ring width. A dry warm year may lead to the same tree ring
width as a wet cool year. There is no way to separate the wet or dry
effects from the temperature effects.
Bill Ward
You're back already?
chemist
> "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
I suggest you read Climate Audit and the report
of the ANC to Congress on the subject
It is people such as yourself who are suckers
being taken in by such travesties as the Hockey
Stick, the various greenhouse gas warming
experiments and the "melting"Antarctic that is
actually cooling ( its winter sea ice has been
expanding for at least 30 years )
John M.
It seems everyone has overlooked the 30-year smoothing of the data,
implying the period from 1980 to the present cannot be included.
Lloyd
> On Nov 22, 4:35 pm, "Tim Murphy" <i...@cinox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "chemist" <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:07ce5e34-f553-4c36...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 21, 10:48 pm, Steve Schulin <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > >>http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
> > >Certainly does, but he omitted tree rings which
> > >have been proved to behave similar to random numbers
> > >in the Mann reconstruction as well those of scientists
> > >who have "confimed" it.
>
> > Hahaha AL-CHEMIST good laugh, best anti-AGW BS I heard all week.
>
> > I think your brain cells grow the same way...
>
> > Which is why you are such a sucker.
>
> > --------
>
> I suggest you read Climate Audit
Yeah, you would get your info from right-wing blogs.
>and the report
> of the ANC
The African National Congress? Nelson Mandela?
>to Congress on the subject
> It is people such as yourself who are suckers
> being taken in by such travesties as the Hockey
> Stick,
Validated by the National Academy of Sciences.
> the various greenhouse gas warming
> experiments and the "melting"Antarctic that is
> actually cooling ( its winter sea ice has been
> expanding for at least 30 years )
I suggest you read what the following say about GW:
IPCC
National Academy of Science
National Research Council
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
NASA
NOAA
WMO
EPA
Royal Society
Find one scientific group or agency which agrees with your looney
tunes position.
Steve Schulin
wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
>
> > Take this with a grain of salt and a drop of oil.
> > E & E is not a peer reviewed science journal.
> > It is an carbon fuel industry front which publishes
> > the pseudo-science of lapdog scientists uncritically.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
>
> It seems everyone has overlooked the 30-year smoothing of the data,
> implying the period from 1980 to the present cannot be included.
Loehle says he calculated "running mean", and he does indeed show
values for many years since 1980. You may be thinking of different
"rolling mean" smoothing techniques -- as have been used by such
authors as Levitus et al, where the smoothing is centered on the
reporting year. Our own dear Roger here in sci.environment a couple of
months ago -- see http://tinyurl.com/38a727 -- said he used a rolling
approach in an analysis he performed. I asked him then about the very
type of point you raise now, but he has been silent on the matter as
best I can tell. I see he's participating in this thread, too, so
maybe he'll take this as an opportunity to tell the group how the last
approximately 15 years in his set of 30-year rolling values were
obtained.
One thing I really appreciated about Loehle's paper was his reporting
of how much each individual time series affected the overall results.
His combination of proxies seems on much firmer ground when it comes
to claiming robustness than was the Mann et al 1998 assortment. In an
Eos article critical of McIntyre and McKitrick's original audit
article, Mann and others stressed that omitting a particular two of
the MBH time series yielded impressively different shape than hockey
stick. Do the folks over at real(biased)climate ever try to explain
how MBH98 results can continue to be called robust when the authors
admit that the inclusion or exclusion of two particular series has
such a significant effect?
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
and coming soon http://www.calamitology.com
Phil.
> On Nov 23, 12:38 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 3:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, SteveSchulin<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
>
> > > Take this with a grain of salt and a drop of oil.
> > > E & E is not a peer reviewed science journal.
> > > It is an carbon fuel industry front which publishes
> > > the pseudo-science of lapdog scientists uncritically.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
>
> > It seems everyone has overlooked the 30-year smoothing of the data,
> > implying the period from 1980 to the present cannot be included.
>
> Loehle says he calculated "running mean", and he does indeed show
> values for many years since 1980.
Actually he says:
"The mean of the eighteen anomaly series was then computed for the
period 1 to 1995 AD (smoothed values for 16 to 1980 AD)"
And as he points out in the paper, "The series ends with a downtick
because the last set of points are
averages that include the cool decades of the 1960s and 1970s.", if
you look carefully you'll see that the last data points drop below 0
(rather more than a downtick).
This suggests to me that the treatment of the end-condition hasn't
been done correctly, and it's particularly inappropriate to make the
following statement:
"Even keeping in mind that Figure 1 shows 30-year running means, it
would indeed seem to show the MWP to be warmer than the late 20th
century."
> You may be thinking of different
> "rolling mean" smoothing techniques -- as have been used by such
> authors as Levitus et al, where the smoothing is centered on the
> reporting year. Our own dear Roger here in sci.environment a couple of
> months ago -- seehttp://tinyurl.com/38a727-- said he used a rolling
> approach in an analysis he performed. I asked him then about the very
> type of point you raise now, but he has been silent on the matter as
> best I can tell. I see he's participating in this thread, too, so
> maybe he'll take this as an opportunity to tell the group how the last
> approximately 15 years in his set of 30-year rolling values were
> obtained.
>
> One thing I really appreciated about Loehle's paper was his reporting
> of how much each individual time series affected the overall results.
> His combination of proxies seems on much firmer ground when it comes
> to claiming robustness than was the Mann et al 1998 assortment. In an
> Eos article critical of McIntyre and McKitrick's original audit
> article, Mann and others stressed that omitting a particular two of
> the MBH time series yielded impressively different shape than hockey
> stick. Do the folks over at real(biased)climate ever try to explain
> how MBH98 results can continue to be called robust when the authors
> admit that the inclusion or exclusion of two particular series has
> such a significant effect?
And yet basically he ends up with the same result as Mann (except for
his end condition).
Steve Schulin
> On Nov 23, 6:26 pm, SteveSchulin<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 12:38 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 3:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, SteveSchulin<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
>
> > > > Take this with a grain of salt and a drop of oil.
> > > > E & E is not a peer reviewed science journal.
> > > > It is an carbon fuel industry front which publishes
> > > > the pseudo-science of lapdog scientists uncritically.
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
>
> > > It seems everyone has overlooked the 30-year smoothing of the data,
> > > implying the period from 1980 to the present cannot be included.
>
> > Loehle says he calculated "running mean", and he does indeed show
> > values for many years since 1980.
>
> Actually he says:
> "The mean of the eighteen anomaly series was then computed for the
> period 1 to 1995 AD (smoothed values for 16 to 1980 AD)"
Hi Phil - John's point referred to 30-year smoothing of the data. The
excerpt you quote refers to subsequent step performed on a time series
of anomolies produced from the data. Notice that the excerpt you quote
indicates that the anomoly series includes values to 1995.
> And as he points out in the paper, "The series ends with a downtick
> because the last set of points are
> averages that include the cool decades of the 1960s and 1970s.", if
> you look carefully you'll see that the last data points drop below 0
> (rather more than a downtick).
> This suggests to me that the treatment of the end-condition hasn't
> been done correctly, ...
Are there any multiproxy studies which have been better designed in
this regard? One benefit to Loehle's method, versus the Mann et al.
approach (of splicing 20th century surface record together with the
pre-20th century multiproxy construction) is that it avoids comparing
smoothed vs unsmoothed values. Loehle touches on this in the new
paper, but his discussion of same concept in prior papers has long
been discussed here in sci.environment. Each of the proxy series has
its own unique dating error. The more such series you combine, the
more any actual variation gets smeared away. To compare the smoothed
proxies from long ago with the 20th century observational record (with
zero dating error) is one of those apples and oranges kind of
comparisons.
> ... and it's particularly inappropriate to make the
> following statement:
> "Even keeping in mind that Figure 1 shows 30-year running means, it
> would indeed seem to show the MWP to be warmer than the late 20th
> century."
Well, there's enough qualification to make it a reasonable comment.
Not that I agree with everything Loehle says. For example, his calling
Mann et al's approach a "reconstruction" seems as inappropriate as
Mann et al's use of the same word. I agree with McIntyre and
McKitrick's preference, stated in their initial audit paper to view it
as a "construction".
> > You may be thinking of different
> > "rolling mean" smoothing techniques -- as have been used by such
> > authors as Levitus et al, where the smoothing is centered on the
> > reporting year. Our own dear Roger here in sci.environment a couple of
> > months ago -- seehttp://tinyurl.com/38a727--said he used a rolling
> > approach in an analysis he performed. I asked him then about the very
> > type of point you raise now, but he has been silent on the matter as
> > best I can tell. I see he's participating in this thread, too, so
> > maybe he'll take this as an opportunity to tell the group how the last
> > approximately 15 years in his set of 30-year rolling values were
> > obtained.
>
> > One thing I really appreciated about Loehle's paper was his reporting
> > of how much each individual time series affected the overall results.
> > His combination of proxies seems on much firmer ground when it comes
> > to claiming robustness than was the Mann et al 1998 assortment. In an
> > Eos article critical of McIntyre and McKitrick's original audit
> > article, Mann and others stressed that omitting a particular two of
> > the MBH time series yielded impressively different shape than hockey
> > stick. Do the folks over at real(biased)climate ever try to explain
> > how MBH98 results can continue to be called robust when the authors
> > admit that the inclusion or exclusion of two particular series has
> > such a significant effect?
>
> And yet basically he ends up with the same result as Mann (except for
> his end condition).
I respectfully disagree. The hockey stick had a relatively flat shaft.
Loehle's findings "show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice
Age (LIA) quite clearly." And Loehle's is a global construction,
rather than the Mann et al. "Northern Hemisphere" construction (I use
the quote marks because, even though Mann et al call it NH, their time
series include at least one site from SH).
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Phil.
Their 30-year running mean data extends only to 1980 and peaks in 1967
and bears no resemblance to the actual temperature history,
how that can be used as a representatitive comparison with the MWP
when the measured T increase since then has been ~0.6ºC (HADCRUT3)?
> Not that I agree with everything Loehle says. For example, his calling
> Mann et al's approach a "reconstruction" seems as inappropriate as
> Mann et al's use of the same word. I agree with McIntyre and
> McKitrick's preference, stated in their initial audit paper to view it
> as a "construction".
>
>
>
> > > You may be thinking of different
> > > "rolling mean" smoothing techniques -- as have been used by such
> > > authors as Levitus et al, where the smoothing is centered on the
> > > reporting year. Our own dear Roger here in sci.environment a couple of
> > > months ago -- seehttp://tinyurl.com/38a727--saidhe used a rolling
> > > approach in an analysis he performed. I asked him then about the very
> > > type of point you raise now, but he has been silent on the matter as
> > > best I can tell. I see he's participating in this thread, too, so
> > > maybe he'll take this as an opportunity to tell the group how the last
> > > approximately 15 years in his set of 30-year rolling values were
> > > obtained.
>
> > > One thing I really appreciated about Loehle's paper was his reporting
> > > of how much each individual time series affected the overall results.
> > > His combination of proxies seems on much firmer ground when it comes
> > > to claiming robustness than was the Mann et al 1998 assortment. In an
> > > Eos article critical of McIntyre and McKitrick's original audit
> > > article, Mann and others stressed that omitting a particular two of
> > > the MBH time series yielded impressively different shape than hockey
> > > stick. Do the folks over at real(biased)climate ever try to explain
> > > how MBH98 results can continue to be called robust when the authors
> > > admit that the inclusion or exclusion of two particular series has
> > > such a significant effect?
>
> > And yet basically he ends up with the same result as Mann (except for
> > his end condition).
>
> I respectfully disagree. The hockey stick had a relatively flat shaft.
I assume you're referring only to Mann et al by the 'hockey stick'
which couldn't show the MWP since it only goes back 600 years (1000 in
the later version)?
If you plot the two datasets they overlay each other, the Loehle data
is very high at about 800AD (perhaps due to their reference point)
but if you compare with the other reconstructions that go that far
back the difference between the min & max is similar. The statement
by the author "It is clear that the 1995-year reconstruction shown
here does not match the famous hockey stick shape (Crowley, 2000;
Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Jones, 1998; Jones et al., 1999; Mann and
Jones, 2003; Mann et al., 1995, 1998, 1999; Overpeck et al.,1997)." I
think isn't justified if you do a direct comparison over the last 1000
years
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"chemist" <tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> I suggest you read Climate Audit and the report
> of the ANC to Congress on the subject
> It is people such as yourself who are suckers
> being taken in by such travesties as the Hockey
> Stick, the various greenhouse gas warming
> experiments and the "melting"Antarctic that is
> actually cooling ( its winter sea ice has been
> expanding for at least 30 years )
Odd, the Antarctic has shown a definite warming trend at virtually all
observation posts over the last several of years, and on the peninsula
dramatic warming.
Two summers ago, liquid water was seen on the surface of the ice just 500
miles from the south pole during a week where temperatures reached almost
50'F in the inner regions of the AntArctic.
As to the Hockey stick, which one are you referring to? There are at
least a dozen of them now, each one showing the same curvature over the same
time period.
RussRuck
>
>
>
>
>
> > Not that I agree with everything Loehle says. For example, his calling
> > Mann et al's approach a "reconstruction" seems as inappropriate as
> > Mann et al's use of the same word. I agree with McIntyre and
> > McKitrick's preference, stated in their initial audit paper to view it
> > as a "construction".
>
> > > > You may be thinking of different
> > > > "rolling mean" smoothing techniques -- as have been used by such
> > > > authors as Levitus et al, where the smoothing is centered on the
> > > > reporting year. Our own dear Roger here in sci.environment a couple of
> > > > approach in an analysis he performed. I asked him then about the very
> > > > type of point you raise now, but he has been silent on the matter as
> > > > best I can tell. I see he's participating in this thread, too, so
> > > > maybe he'll take this as an opportunity to tell the group how the last
> > > > approximately 15 years in his set of 30-year rolling values were
> > > > obtained.
>
> > > > One thing I really appreciated about Loehle's paper was his reporting
> > > > of how much each individual time series affected the overall results.
> > > > His combination of proxies seems on much firmer ground when it comes
> > > > to claiming robustness than was the Mann et al 1998 assortment. In an
> > > > Eos article critical of McIntyre and McKitrick's original audit
> > > > article, Mann and others stressed that omitting a particular two of
> > > > the MBH time series yielded impressively different shape than hockey
> > > > stick. Do the folks over at real(biased)climate ever try to explain
> > > > how MBH98 results can continue to be called robust when the authors
> > > > admit that the inclusion or exclusion of two particular series has
> > > > such a significant effect?
>
> > > And yet basically he ends up with the same result as Mann (except for
> > > his end condition).
>
> > I respectfully disagree. The hockey stick had a relatively flat shaft.
>
> I assume you're referring only to Mann et al by the 'hockey stick'
> which couldn't show the MWP since it only goes back 600 years (1000 in
> the later version)?
At about 500 years back the Loehle graph shows a short term spike in
the WMP wind down that is 0.2C warmer than the 1995 year average. The
preceeding 100 years which are part of the original purported data set
of Mann et al is cooling and reaches a point 0.6C colder than the 1995
year average. "Hockey Stick" doesn't show the 0.8C swing visible in
Loehle's data of 600bp. To go back to the 1000bp data you get a piece
of the MWP that is 50% hotter than the projected 0.6C change of man's
horrifying wrecking of the climate. So much for IPCC being right
about the hottest in recent history.
> If you plot the two datasets they overlay each other, the Loehle data
> is very high at about 800AD (perhaps due to their reference point)
> but if you compare with the other reconstructions that go that far
> back the difference between the min & max is similar. �
If by similar you mean there is 33% larger high and a 33% lower low
than the Mann chart you are right. In my book 1/3rd of a pie is a
pretty big piece.
>The statement
> by the author "It is clear that the 1995-year reconstruction shown
> here does not match the famous hockey stick shape (Crowley, 2000;
> Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Jones, 1998; Jones et al., 1999; Mann and
> Jones, 2003; Mann et al., 1995, 1998, 1999; Overpeck et al.,1997)." I
> think isn't justified if you do a direct comparison over the last 1000
> years
>
When I do a direct comparison I see a 0.4C cooler period just before
1750. The Mann et al. stick is flat through that 600 year period.
Not just 1750 to the rise. That seems to be a significant change
since the total according to IPCC is 0.6C over the important time
frame. Next the IPCC repeats over and over that there is no recently
recorded event of greater change. Just before about 1500(500bp+)
there is a down turn over the -0.2C of 1750. It is about another 0.4C
that rises to 0.2C above the 1995 year average. That in my books is a
0.8C swing in less than 100 years. That counts to a difference in the
two charts. It also belies the IPCC statement there is no record of a
faster change in recent history. That is only about 500 years which
is extremely small for geological times. That makes a minimum of 18
records that disclaim the IPCC report.
Russ
>
>
> > Loehle's findings "show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice
> > Age (LIA) quite clearly." And Loehle's is a global construction,
> > rather than the Mann et al. "Northern Hemisphere" construction (I use
> > the quote marks because, even though Mann et al call it NH, their time
> > series include at least one site from SH).
>
> > Best wishes,
>
> > Steve Schulinhttp://www.nuclear.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> It is this intimidation that is the backbone of contemporary
> 'science', and from which is derived the consensus which is so
> important to maintaining funding. Actual scientific and objective
> study has no place in the constant need to keep the funding coming.
Yup, the earth is flat and anyone who denies tenure to a flat earther is
guilty of intimidation.
Ahahahahahahahha....
Eric Swanson
>
>On Nov 23, 10:20 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 6:26 pm, SteveSchulin<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 12:38 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 22, 3:26 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, SteveSchulin<steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Sorry to get to this so late.
Well, Steve, old Nuke guy, Loehle's done it again. There's a lot to
question about his methodology, such as the way he uses a 30 year
running mean. That only works when you have a yearly time series, and
these data typically do not have that sort of resolution. So, how
does he do it? Well, here's one way:
"If data occurred every 100 years, each point would be stretched
by the smoothing to cover 30 years..."
But, that is not a 30 year running mean. And, that's the only
description of his approach. There's no way to know what he did
with each data set, since he tells us nothing else. He thus ignores
the basics of science, which is telling the method used in analysis.
From my previous experience with these sorts of data, the sampling
usually collects a batch of material representing a range of dates,
such as a core sediment which is sampled every centimeter along it's
length. Thus, each data point represents an average for the entire
centimeter of the core. One can't simply "stretch" the data point to
represent a 30 year period, when the data already represents a longer
average. This technique shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the
physical nature of the measurement.
Also, I noticed that he provides a link to his data, which actually
points to the data plotted in his Figure 1. There's no link to his
smoothed data for each of the referenced data sets. Thus, nobody can
look at what he actually did. The really idiotic thing is that his data
is presented in a file with 16 significant figures. I would expect to
see the original data as maybe 3 significant figures and presenting
data with more significance than is available in the source data is a
sure sign of ignorance.
Keigwin's data is given in 2 significant figures and the first date is
47 BP, or 1903. Many of Keigwin's samples represent more than 100
years per sample and some represent 250 years. The data from Spannagel
cave presented by Mangini is of higher resolution, being sampled at 3 to
6 years per sample, but that's not yearly either. One can't just apply
a 30 point running mean to that and call it a 30 year running mean. The
Spannagel data ends in 1935 and is presented as 2 or 3 significant
figures of precision.
Yes, fellow intrepid travelers of the Usenet, Loehle has done it again.
And, so has Old Nuke Schulin...
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schulin
> On Nov 24, 1:31 am, Steve Schulin <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 10:20 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
I wish you and many other scientists had been similarly vocal and
adamant about the claims that Mann et al made, based on apple and
oranges comparison of multiproxy data with late 20th century surface
record. Instead, the hockey stick quickly became one of what I've come
to call the "icons of calamitology", and was embraced by the 2001 IPCC
report not only as scientifically defensible, but even as policy
relevant.
In addition to the qualifications to the comment in the "Discussion"
section of the paper, Loehle explicitly agrees with much of your
reasoning in the "Results" section, where he states "Note that the use
of smoothed data (30-year running mean) means that peaks and troughs
are damped compared to annual data (Loehle, 2005). Some of the input
data were also integrated values or sampled at wide intervals. Thus it
is not possible to compare recent annual data to this figure to ask
about anomalous years or decades."
> > Not that I agree with everything Loehle says. For example, his calling
> > Mann et al's approach a "reconstruction" seems as inappropriate as
> > Mann et al's use of the same word. I agree with McIntyre and
> > McKitrick's preference, stated in their initial audit paper to view it
> > as a "construction".
>
> > > > You may be thinking of different
> > > > "rolling mean" smoothing techniques -- as have been used by such
> > > > authors as Levitus et al, where the smoothing is centered on the
> > > > reporting year. Our own dear Roger here in sci.environment a couple of
> > > > months ago -- seehttp://tinyurl.com/38a727--saidheused a rolling
> > > > approach in an analysis he performed. I asked him then about the very
> > > > type of point you raise now, but he has been silent on the matter as
> > > > best I can tell. I see he's participating in this thread, too, so
> > > > maybe he'll take this as an opportunity to tell the group how the last
> > > > approximately 15 years in his set of 30-year rolling values were
> > > > obtained.
>
> > > > One thing I really appreciated about Loehle's paper was his reporting
> > > > of how much each individual time series affected the overall results.
> > > > His combination of proxies seems on much firmer ground when it comes
> > > > to claiming robustness than was the Mann et al 1998 assortment. In an
> > > > Eos article critical of McIntyre and McKitrick's original audit
> > > > article, Mann and others stressed that omitting a particular two of
> > > > the MBH time series yielded impressively different shape than hockey
> > > > stick. Do the folks over at real(biased)climate ever try to explain
> > > > how MBH98 results can continue to be called robust when the authors
> > > > admit that the inclusion or exclusion of two particular series has
> > > > such a significant effect?
>
> > > And yet basically he ends up with the same result as Mann (except for
> > > his end condition).
>
> > I respectfully disagree. The hockey stick had a relatively flat shaft.
>
> I assume you're referring only to Mann et al by the 'hockey stick'
> which couldn't show the MWP since it only goes back 600 years (1000 in
> the later version)?
The relatively flat shaft of the 1998 Mann et al hockey stick went
back far enough to include LIA years. The relatively flat shaft of the
1999 Mann et al hockey stick went back far enough (yes, 1000 years) to
include many MWP years. My particular comment was indeed responding to
your mention of Mann, although my use of the term hockey stick applies
as well to the 1,000-yr graph shown in Fig. 1 of the IPCC WG1 TAR
Summary for Policymakers.
> If you plot the two datasets they overlay each other, the Loehle data
> is very high at about 800AD (perhaps due to their reference point)
> but if you compare with the other reconstructions that go that far
> back the difference between the min & max is similar. The statement
> by the author "It is clear that the 1995-year reconstruction shown
> here does not match the famous hockey stick shape (Crowley, 2000;
> Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Jones, 1998; Jones et al., 1999; Mann and
> Jones, 2003; Mann et al., 1995, 1998, 1999; Overpeck et al.,1997)." I
> think isn't justified if you do a direct comparison over the last 1000
> years
Well, I continue to respectfully disagree. The most famous hockey
stick graph is the Fig 1 in IPCC WG1 TAR Summary for Policymakers.
I'll post it and Loehle's Fig 1 together this week as inaugural item
on http://www.calamitology.com -- and if I were to ask "Which one of
these two clearly shows LIA and MWP?", any quibbles would not detract
from the stark difference between the two graphs.
Whata Fool
>Yes, fellow intrepid travelers of the Usenet, Loehle has done it again.
>And, so has Old Nuke Schulin...
It sounds like he is almost as bad as the IPCC, or even
Roger, and that guy Swanson sees way too much importance
in temperatures too.
Seen many all time records lately?
Eric Swanson
>
>swa...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>
>>Yes, fellow intrepid travelers of the Usenet, Loehle has done it again.
>>And, so has Old Nuke Schulin...
>
> It sounds like he is almost as bad as the IPCC, or even
>Roger, and that guy Swanson sees way too much importance
>in temperatures too.
Hey there, Fool!
At least, the IPCC and Roger do present and discuss their methods.
> Seen many all time records lately?
Careful Fool, your ignorance is showing again.
Whata Fool
>In article <2h5qk3lhrt43m1pea...@4ax.com>,
>wh...@fool.ami says...
>>swa...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>>>Yes, fellow intrepid travelers of the Usenet, Loehle has done it again.
>>>And, so has Old Nuke Schulin...
>>
>> It sounds like he is almost as bad as the IPCC, or even
>>Roger, and that guy Swanson sees way too much importance
>>in temperatures too.
>
>Hey there, Fool!
>
>At least, the IPCC and Roger do present and discuss their methods.
Methods of what, playing with numbers in a computer program?
Do they "round up"? Round-ups should be banned
to avoid any accidental conclusion of warming which does not exist.
People who would round up obviously want to be able
to show a warming even if it never goes more than one degree
warmer than any base-line they choose.
I would prefer people who are able to work with data with
some consideration for what the data shows, if one hemisphere
has warmed and the other has not, then it should be called
hemispheric warming.
If there are reasons known for the apparent increase or
decrease in temperature in a particular hemisphere or region,
then the reason becomes more important than the objective
of presenting a global number.
>> Seen many all time records lately?
>
>Careful Fool, your ignorance is showing again.
And the GW statements about more moisture trapping
more heat are not supposed to be ignorant, when dry air allows
temperatures to rise faster and higher, giving data which is
skewed the opposite way from the GW statement.
What if all the apparent warming in the northern hemisphere
and in the Arctic is the result of more area in Northern Africa being
dry, and doesn't involve any real increase in thermal energy absorption,
but shows a serious regional problem, shouldn't scientists begin to
focus on what the problem is and how to mitigate it, as it may not
be related to CO2 at all, but to less moisture in Africa?
The present situation is very common, any organization
created to handle a certain job will do things to perpetuate that
job, even after it becomes clear the problem is someplace else.
It is not possible to have normal low temperatures unless
the soil is moist, and it is not possible to have normal low
temperatures when the air is dry and the sun shines.
These two statements can be easily shown to be true,
and they are directly opposite of what the GW and IPCC claims.
Rich
> On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, Steve Schulin <steve.schu...@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
>
> Take this with a grain of salt and a drop of oil.
> E & E is not a peer reviewed science journal.
Neither is Scientific American, which is not even American owned,
but it gets touted as such by John Fernbach and others all the
time.
Same advice WRT SA BTW.
> It is an carbon fuel industry front which publishes
> the pseudo-science of lapdog scientists uncritically.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
Have ya not heard, industry is editing Wiki pages to omit
things they don't like (whether true or not).
Cheers,
Rich
Ouroboros_Rex
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:44srk3hs6uglrj31s...@4ax.com...
ROFLMAO Make stupid crap up much?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote
> Neither is Scientific American, which is not even American owned,
> but it gets touted as such by John Fernbach and others all the
> time.
Very little is AmeriKKKan owned these days.
"Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote
> Have ya not heard, industry is editing Wiki pages to omit
> things they don't like (whether true or not).
Where is the public punishment of this corporate deceit?
V-for-Vendicar
>> Hardly. Tree ring data shows follows the other proxy records quite
>> well.
>>
>> Educate yourself Moron.
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote
> Tree ring data is not a good proxy. Tree ring width is not affected
> solely by temperature. There are other factors like availability of
> moisture.
I agree that there are other confounding factors. But they are generally
averaged out. One region will be dry while another wet. On average the
rainfall will be the same, and over a span of a decade or so the rainfall
will also generally be the same. So when properly analyzed tree ring data
provides an estimate of the temperature rather than the amount of water
available.
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote
> Therefore you cannot definitively apply a temperature to a
> given tree ring width.
Ahahahahahahaha... What makes you think that anyone is doing that? Fool!
Look at the title of this thread <MORON>. It's titled "loehle multiproxy
paper"
What the hell do you think "multiproxy" means? You Fucking Ignorant
Loser.