Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Sea levels are rising at increasing rate.
Sea levels suddenly rapidly rising along with temperature at start of ind revolution.
nothing wrong.. with hiding the proxy data which was going down?
nothing questionable about pretending the thermometer data matched up with the proxy data.
Showing the incongruence would have called into the question the whole concept of pretending proxy data... can really give us thermometer equivalence.
so what would the unethical do? they would hide and distort the proxy data.
nothing questionable about pretending the thermometer data matched up with the proxy data.
Showing the incongruence would have called into the question the whole concept of pretending proxy data... can really give us thermometer equivalence.
so what would the unethical do? they would hide and distort the proxy data.
Last edited:
Is there no lie that you will not repeat jerm? You are by far the most intellectually dishonest cretin I have ever met.
The problem with the explanation for the dumb science deniers is that it uses too many words and requires some thought. So they stay with the simple one line quote. Duh.
*********************************************************
Much of the Climategate furor was over the use of the word "trick," specially when Phil Jones of the CRU wrote:
“”I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
While the denialists see this as some sort of conspiracy,[6] it is a mathematical way of dealing with a problem (a mathematical "trick") and reflects scientists interacting with each other (the "decline" also refers to tree ring density, not global temperatures).[7] The quote is used out of context to alter its original meaning.
The "trick" in question is quite simple, and is the result of how to go about time-averaging (e.g., "five year moving average") graphs and statistical trends.[8][9] In order to make a moving average, it's sometimes necessary to pad out the data series beyond its end point with model statistical data to get the smoothed out average to run up to the edge of the time period. So, if a data series ends in 1980, then 4-5 years of model data, which is projected from the local statistical trends (rather than some form of PIDOOMA method) needs to be incorporated to get a reliable moving average to end in 1980, rather than 5 years previously.
The problem faced by Michael Mann and co. back in their 1998 paper — and what Phil Jones was talking about in his email — was that with the proxy data they used there is a well-documented divergence of some tree ring density (specifically, proxies selected from high latitudes) from the recorded temperature and other proxies exists starting around 1960. The time-averaged temperature began to decline towards 1980 due to these known inaccuracies as well as some statistical outliers.[10] Mann's solution, the "Nature trick" was to augment this proxy data with real, and reliable, instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the reconstructed proxy data was processed to more closely match the accurate data.
Sounds pretty sneaky, eh? In fact, the "hide the decline" issue was so cleverly hidden that it was discussed by several authors and glaringly published in IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 onwards.[11] The denialists also called for the data to be released, despite the fact that 95% of said data was already available.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate
The problem with the explanation for the dumb science deniers is that it uses too many words and requires some thought. So they stay with the simple one line quote. Duh.
*********************************************************
Much of the Climategate furor was over the use of the word "trick," specially when Phil Jones of the CRU wrote:
“”I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
While the denialists see this as some sort of conspiracy,[6] it is a mathematical way of dealing with a problem (a mathematical "trick") and reflects scientists interacting with each other (the "decline" also refers to tree ring density, not global temperatures).[7] The quote is used out of context to alter its original meaning.
The "trick" in question is quite simple, and is the result of how to go about time-averaging (e.g., "five year moving average") graphs and statistical trends.[8][9] In order to make a moving average, it's sometimes necessary to pad out the data series beyond its end point with model statistical data to get the smoothed out average to run up to the edge of the time period. So, if a data series ends in 1980, then 4-5 years of model data, which is projected from the local statistical trends (rather than some form of PIDOOMA method) needs to be incorporated to get a reliable moving average to end in 1980, rather than 5 years previously.
The problem faced by Michael Mann and co. back in their 1998 paper — and what Phil Jones was talking about in his email — was that with the proxy data they used there is a well-documented divergence of some tree ring density (specifically, proxies selected from high latitudes) from the recorded temperature and other proxies exists starting around 1960. The time-averaged temperature began to decline towards 1980 due to these known inaccuracies as well as some statistical outliers.[10] Mann's solution, the "Nature trick" was to augment this proxy data with real, and reliable, instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the reconstructed proxy data was processed to more closely match the accurate data.
Sounds pretty sneaky, eh? In fact, the "hide the decline" issue was so cleverly hidden that it was discussed by several authors and glaringly published in IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 onwards.[11] The denialists also called for the data to be released, despite the fact that 95% of said data was already available.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate
you call me a liar and then prove what I was saying was true... you truly are a moron and a dick for calling me a liar. I have no reason to lie and don't.
you need to learn how to read... and separate spin from fact...
note the fact is the decline - the spin is why and the way they hid it.
here is your quote...
"The time-averaged temperature began to decline towards 1980 due to these known inaccuracies as well as some statistical outliers."
you need to learn how to read... and separate spin from fact...
note the fact is the decline - the spin is why and the way they hid it.
here is your quote...
"The time-averaged temperature began to decline towards 1980 due to these known inaccuracies as well as some statistical outliers."
IPCC 2007 abandoned the original hockey stick in favour of - another hockey stick [above left]. The "spaghetti" graph looks different - but it's virtually the same hockey-stick, disguised with minor concessions... Look: (a) the data is from a limited set, bristlecone pines and Polar Urals data sets are both highly suspect - see Steve's 2009 ICCC presentation [above right] (b) it's mostly procured by "The Team" [both diagrams above]; (c) the MWP is still devalued way below what the real evidence suggests, (d) the graph still uses the same unholy splice of data – thermometer for the twentieth century and questionable proxies for earlier - despite existing temperature records.
Hockey Stick 2008 The Team constructed yet another Hockey Stick. Despite no tree-ring temp. proxies, the latest model bears every sign of the original flaws: cherrypicking proxies that are already suspect (contaminated Finnish lake sediment)... the unholy maths that automatically produces a hockey stick... To add insult to injury, BBC has been parading the original hockey stick (Iain Stewart, Climate Wars) as if it had never been discredited by top statistician Wegman.
Yamal Sept-Oct 2009 Steve McIntyre finally got data after years of asking - data that should have been released with the original publication. One of the three rogue records used to maintain the IPCC Hockey Stick depended on just 12 trees, with 1 rogue outlier YAD 061. Bishop Hill tells the story, and I did three pages with pictures. See here hereand especially here, where you can see the "treemometer" records direct and compare with all the local Siberian thermometer records (GISS).
