The truth about the hockey stick. - Topic Powered by eve community

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Chi Squared:
No...it's a totally fallacious argument. Just because Jupiter's red spot has been there 300 years ( i.e a seemingly 'stable' system ) does not mean it will still be there next year.

By the same token, you cannot argue that the seeming 'stability' of 4000 years is any indicator of a continuation in that trend. If past indicators show chaotic behaviour, then the system is inherently unstable.

Sure the LIA and MWP and not in the same league. But then neither is a rise of 0.6 degrees in a century in the same league as the ice age.

What odds will you give me that Jupitors red spot is there next year?? Ill put down a grand says it is. interested? Otherwsie please stop introducing totally eroneous arguments. You have been ruining threads all over this site by sidetracking main stream discussions with sort of rubbish.

A stable period of 4000 years is an indicator of stability all things remaining roughly equal as they have done for that period.

This is the point - things are beginning to change in that we now have levels of co2 in the atmosphere much higher than for the past stable period. This may well bring sudden change - but that is what we are trying to discuss.......will it???

ps temp rise has been nearer to 1dC not 0.6. Your at it again!

Ignored post by Robmb posted

Dr Ian B

Posted

robmb
refer to IPCC TAR and then IPCC 4AR SPM. TAR gives a value of 0.6 deg C rise for the 20th Century, 4AR has increased this to 0.78 deg C despite the fact that 1998 remains the hottest year on the record.

Posts: 38

Ignored post by Dr Ian B posted

New Member

Posted

Thought i would post up a link of a bibliography by Dr Madhav Khandekar of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliogr...ION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

Whats relevant is that these are published peer- reviewed papers..not random assumptions from discredited maverick scientists.

Ignored post by Retsuin posted

Posted

quote:
What odds will you give me that Jupitors red spot is there next year?? Ill put down a grand says it is. interested? Otherwsie please stop introducing totally eroneous arguments. You have been ruining threads all over this site by sidetracking main stream discussions with sort of rubbish.

What utter arrogance !! 'Ruining' threads by DARING to question the so-called 'evidence' as one is SUPPOSED to do in science !

My God.....you AGW fanatics truly take the biscuit.

On yer bike.

Ignored post by Chi Squared posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Retsuin:
Thought i would post up a link of a bibliography by Dr Madhav Khandekar of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.

http://friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliogr...ION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

Whats relevant is that these are published peer- reviewed papers..not random assumptions from discredited maverick scientists.

Thougtht you might like to check this out.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

Havent we been here before?

Ignored post by Robmb posted

New Member

Posted

Whats your point?

Ignored post by Retsuin posted

Posted

Have you looked at the link?

Ignored post by Robmb posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Chi Squared:
quote:
What odds will you give me that Jupitors red spot is there next year?? Ill put down a grand says it is. interested? Otherwsie please stop introducing totally eroneous arguments. You have been ruining threads all over this site by sidetracking main stream discussions with sort of rubbish.

i rest my case. How about that bet or are your points so absurd that even you wont back them up??

What utter arrogance !! 'Ruining' threads by DARING to question the so-called 'evidence' as one is SUPPOSED to do in science !

My God.....you AGW fanatics truly take the biscuit.

On yer bike.

Ignored post by Robmb posted

New Member

Posted

yes...are you suggesting that the list of peer-reviewed papers is complete fabrication or is it back to the old 'who's funding who' chestnut.

Ignored post by Retsuin posted

Posted

quote:
i rest my case. How about that bet or are your points so absurd that even you wont back them up??

Would you like me to tell you where you can put your stupid James Randi type bet ? You can probably guess with 90% confidence.

Ignored post by Chi Squared posted

Posted

im suggesting that taking this document at face value will lead you to one conclusion - the one the author wants you to take away. As he has prepared this for the FoS who have been funded by the oil industry and count many AGW sceptics on their home page i dont think you should be surprised to find that many people will take this with a pinch of salt. Anyone can review anti GW papers and prepare this sort of thing. Mind you you'd have to pay me.

FTR i am currently undecided in this whole issue. it is my view that more evidence points towards AGW than not but that there are issues which have not been answered.

Unfortunately for non scientists like me who do stick their heads above he parapit, there is alot of noise caused by blatant propoganda on both sides. But i enjoy getting my head shot off.

Ignored post by Robmb posted

Steve_M

Posted

Retsuin,

The papers have already been discussed. The statistical methods have been updated and found not to change the results, and other people have repeated the work.

Check the various temperature records of the past 1000 years in reproduced in Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Your source highlights the Moburg reconstruction (see Page 5) represented by the red line in the wikepedia plot, presumably because it best fits the MWP/LIA fantasy graph, but neglects to say that this is a reconstruction of Northern hemisphere temperatures, so highlighting the fact that the features were not entirely global phenomena as the current warming is now (6 continents with .5-1C warming, 1 continent with .2C warming).

Of course all this diversion does not take away the fact that the current significant warming has a cause, the most likely of which is increases in GHGs.

Posts: 1148

Ignored post by Steve_M posted

New Member

Posted

All GW research is funded by someone..be it oil company's, governments or independent company's, the face value of the document is a list of peer-reviewed papers..i.e reviewed papers by their peers (other scientists) not joe blogs down the road who has a little understanding of the issues, if you dismiss the report out of hand because somewhere along the line an oil company funded the research into compiling the list then surly you can equally dismiss the IPCC reports out of hand because it's government funded.
Just for the record i am not a GW skeptic but i'm also not going to jump onto a moving bandwagon because i was told to.

Ignored post by Retsuin posted

Posted

I am always at a loss to understand why simply daring to question the 'evidence' is such a crime. It goes on all the time in EVERY other branch of science !

I guess my point is that the same standards of evidence are NOT being applied to AGW. The entire scientific process has been relaxed for it, largely due to all the sensationalism.

If it were a study on the mating habits of Emperor penguins instead.................the case would be considered far from proven.

Ignored post by Chi Squared posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Chi Squared:
I am always at a loss to understand why simply daring to question the 'evidence' is such a crime.

Probably because when you question evidence people expect you to listen to the answer and try to understand it.

Ignored post by MindCrime posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Retsuin:
All GW research is funded by someone..be it oil company's, governments or independent company's, the face value of the document is a list of peer-reviewed papers..i.e reviewed papers by their peers (other scientists) not joe blogs down the road who has a little understanding of the issues, if you dismiss the report out of hand because somewhere along the line an oil company funded the research into compiling the list then surly you can equally dismiss the IPCC reports out of hand because it's government funded.
Just for the record i am not a GW skeptic but i'm also not going to jump onto a moving bandwagon because i was told to.

I am suggesting that he had come to his conclusion before he started so the peer reviewed papers are the ones he chose to best make his case. Just to give you one quick example he has not chosen a receent paper by Briffa in Science which supports the general conclusions of Manns research. you may have already joined the bus heading the other way

Ignored post by Robmb posted

Posted

quote:
Probably because when you question evidence people expect you to listen to the answer and try to understand it.

Oh dear.....yet more resort to ad hominem rather than science.

Ignored post by Chi Squared posted

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Chi Squared:
Oh dear.....yet more resort to ad hominem rather than science.

I'm sorry I didn't realise that you wanted me to prove scientifically that you aren't listening.

Ignored post by MindCrime posted

Dr Ian B

Posted

robmb
Briffa happens to be closely related academically with Mann (see Wegman and his network analysis about the close collaboration within the limited world of climate reconstructions), used a virtually identical dataset (including the particular bristlecone pines that are not generally accepted as being a proxy for temperature) and used a statistical method that is also abnormal.
I know that Steve McIntyre is currently looking at their method, but is having trouble obtaining the data to evaluate the method.

Obviously, the Friends of Science paper is not a neutral reflection, but has a bias to highlight those papers that agree with its position. Similarly TGGWS was not meant as a balanced doc, but was a polemic looking at a topic from one side (a bit similar to the average Michael Moore film). However, the whole field is full of cherry-pickers, emphasising the things that support one argument over another (e.g. why do most climate reconstructions only start at 1900 or later when the general warming started in the mid 18th century, with a dip in the 1850s and a fairly consistent upward trend since?)

It is worth remembering that the MWP and LIA were generally accepted before MBH98 and 99, and there have subsequently been a number of papers which agree with their existence as well as some that agree with Mann et al. (Indeed, there is the well known graphical representation in IPCC SAR showing the MWP as about as hot as currently, with teh LIA being a degree or so colder)

Posts: 38

Ignored post by Dr Ian B posted

New Member

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Robmb:
I am suggesting that he had come to his conclusion before he started so the peer reviewed papers are the ones he chose to best make his case. Just to give you one quick example he has not chosen a receent paper by Briffa in Science which supports the general conclusions of Manns research. you may have already joined the bus heading the other way

Actually the whole study was commissioned 'because of the widely distributed essay in Science by Dr Naomi Oreskes who had conducted a survey with limited key-words, which erroneously concluded that no such papers existed'
In other words the study was to determine that peer review papers were indeed available that questioned the IPCC's theory's.

Ignored post by Retsuin posted

Posted

quote:
I'm sorry I didn't realise that you wanted me to prove scientifically that you aren't listening.

Oh dear...yet more ad hominem rather than science.

Would you ever mind just ****ing the **** up. Your 'nanananana' style rants are nauseatingly boring. I am here to discuss science, not substitute for your lack of ego pampering.

Ignored post by Chi Squared posted

Posted

Priceless!

Ignored post by MindCrime posted

Posted

Of course..........the scientific advice on flamers is to just ignore them.

Ignored post by Chi Squared posted

Posted

You think?

You think maybe asking people if they would mind "****ing the **** up" isn't an appropriate way of contributing to a debate? And maybe using phrases such as "nauseatingly boring" or "lack of ego pampering" is not the way to convince people that you know what you are talking about?

Well thanks for clearing that up.