Donald Trump Speaks Out on Climate Change Hoax

[ygolo]

CO2 levels today are higher than they've been in the 1930s and during the medieval warming period, but temps were higher in the 1930s and during the medieval warming period. That is a fact. This means that other factors are at play and no one disputes this.

I do.

State Temperatures | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Maybe I just need to find the right state, but most of them show mean temperatures higher now than in the 1930s.

Or maybe the right month for the year?

Unless of course, you are cherry picking a particular year in that bouncing around to compare to 2015 (which just began summer). You wouldn't do something like that would you?

Who knows? No one but the keepers of the data know for sure and they won't let me or anyone else see the raw data. Surely, if the data is as presented, they'd have no reason to hide it from the public.

The data is available to the public. Where do you think I found it?

Paleoclimatology is pseudo-science.

One would have to be a gullible person to believe that we can measure temperatures with any precision several hundred thousand years ago. There's an entire book written about paleoclimatology and the fraudulent practices of these clowns. Look up the work of Steve McIntyre; he's a statistician who peer-reviewed the hockey stick papers.


Excel has a fun trend line function for its scatter plots. You can do linear regression analysis and derive an R^2 coefficient from it. A perfect correlation would be a 1; no correlation or random data would be a 0. Paleoclimatology relies on correlation coefficients of less than 0.3 to make these grand pronouncements.

The models make predictions, and are put to the test.
Paleoclimatology: Understanding the Past to Predict the Future : Feature Articles

I don't have to look up Steve McIntyre. He is the same person with the blog and an ax to grind you linked in the previous post. He hardly "peer-reviewed" the hockey stick. He has financial interests in mining, and his only involvement in climate science that climate audit blog where tracks down the particulars of station information, and cherry picks stations with issues, and uses the fact that the data is incomplete to ignore the overall trend, and similar data from many other sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

And no, the R^2 aren't universally 0.3. There may be some studies somewhere that have things that lack statistical power suggesting further study. It wouldn't surprise me if he cherry picked one. Maybe you can point me to it.

The data in most of the correlations I've seen are about R^2=0.8.

Look at the recent hurricane record; we're at a very slow activity period for hurricanes the past 15 years. There have been no global warming for the past 18 years. California has had droughts in the past; it's a semi-arid region.

Oh really? Now I know for sure that even our sources of facts are different. Can you tell me your sources? and explain your reasoning?

Although the violent storm issues are relatively new in terms of being processed, the temperature increases are clear. And california's current drought is worse than it has in 1200 years (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062433/abstract)

I realize now that you don't believe paleoclimatology (or at least putting up a great act). But what is that you do believe? What is your reasoning?

It'd be easier if you just posted a proof of concept paper on using satellites to measure water depth. I'd be especially interested in the precision of such a technique.

We don't have to measure water depth to identify the sea level. Just the surface. The same way we build topographical maps from satellites. Here is a tutorial on Radar altimetery: http://www.altimetry.info/html/alti/principle/welcome_en.html
a paper on accuracy and resolution:
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat/...Precision_and_Accuracy_of_Satellite_Radar.pdf
and a pdf of a power point lecture on it:
http://earth.eo.esa.int/dragon/ocea...DAY5-19Oct2007/D5_L1-2_letraon_lecture1_2.pdf

30 samples out of 198,000 is statistically irrelevant. Show me the data when they've collected data from 3,000 glaciers.

Since you asked: http://glims.colorado.edu/glacierdata/asterintro.php

You can install a plug in in Google Earth and go at it to your heart's content. As you can with the CRUTEM data that McIntyre is supposedly having so much trouble accessing.

 

[Tellenbach]

Maybe I just need to find the right state, but most of them show mean temperatures higher now than in the 1930s.

A Simple Proof That The 1930s Were Hotter

The top five years for setting record maximums were all during the 1930s. No year this century even shows up in the top fifteen. Last year didn’t even make the top sixty.

Global Temperature Update: Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months – Since Sept. 1996

According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.

If, as you allege, there is a correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperature, why haven't we seen it these past 18 years when the CO2 levels have increased?

Where do you think I found it?

Let's see the raw (untouched) data. Where is it?

The data in most of the correlations I've seen are about R^2=0.8.

Let's see some of these studies and correlations. I think you just made up that R^2 = 0.8 number. The fact is that there is better correlation between global temperature and cheese prices than between tree ring size and temperature.

Why am I skeptical? Because every day, we get daily temperature predictions from meteorologists (weather forecasts) and they are very frequently off by several degrees and you expect me to believe that we have some magical method that can "reconstruct" temperatures from several hundred thousand years ago that are more accurate than today's satellites? Wow.

We don't have to measure water depth to identify the sea level. Just the surface. The same way we build topographical maps from satellites. Here is a tutorial on Radar altimetery: 404 Not Found

Read the whole thing.

This paper shows the precision of ICESat-retrieved elevations over the ice
sheets to vary from 14 to 50 cm as a function of surface slope.

The precision is an order of magnitude off. Earlier, you cited something about the sea levels increasing by several millimeters. Here, we are dealing with centimeters and a solid surface (ice sheets). Would you expect the precision to increase or decrease if we were measuring a moving surface like the sea level? If the most accurate measurements are in the centimeter range, doesn't this mean the earlier millimeter measurements of sea level that you cited are non-sense?

You can install a plug in in Google Earth and go at it to your heart's content. As you can with the CRUTEM data that McIntyre is supposedly having so much trouble accessing.

Interesting site, but I don't see any measurements of glacier size.

 

[Luke O]

I don't use the terminology Global Warming, I do use Climate Change. But on the subject of Global Warming, and I thought I'd like to a Right Wing news outlet to link to for this, our descendents are going to live in a world, where a large part of that world will be uninhabitable.

Nasa maps reveal how the world will need to adapt to climate change | Daily Mail Online

 

[Riva]

Well, I can't help but admit he's turned quite a few heads with his passionate vocalizations on immigration, then deftly endured the choppy seas of a full-fledged network transition for the Miss USA pageant. He is casting the Republican party in an entirely new light.

At first I was like what a racist.

Then I realized that political correctness is bad bad bad.

Look at Europe.

If what he is saying is meritless people would eventually realize this and he would be humiliated and ignored.

But then again media and propaganda are good tools for manipulation and maybe he is doing that.

I don't know.

I just don't think American citizens should be the victims of child abuse, rape and crime due to illegal immigrants. As long as he doesn't call every latino a rapist, murderer and a criminal I don't think he is being a racist.

 

[Totenkindly]

At first I was like what a racist.

Then I realized that political correctness is bad bad bad.

Look at Europe.

If what he is saying is meritless people would eventually realize this and he would be humiliated and ignored.

But then again media and propaganda are good tools for manipulation and maybe he is doing that.

I don't know.

I just don't think American citizens should be the victims of child abuse, rape and crime due to illegal immigrants. As long as he doesn't call every latino a rapist, murderer and a criminal I don't think he is being a racist.

I was less concerned about what he said and more concerned that he shows himself incapable of handling political complexity and delicacy in a multicultural world. He's a bull in a china shop and thinks of things through a paradigm that isn't accurate.

 

[Luke O]

I was less concerned about what he said and more concerned that he shows himself incapable of handling political complexity and delicacy in a multicultural world. He's a bull in a china shop and thinks of things through a paradigm that isn't accurate.

I can't imagine him standing with other leaders at the G8. Or handling a guy like Vladimir Putin.

Who would so laugh at his follicular insecurities...

 

[Tellenbach]

Nasa maps reveal how the world will need to adapt to climate change | Daily Mail Online

Every projection of climate change by the global warming hysterical society has been wrong and wrong by quite a large margin (on average, by 400%). These clowns said we'd be in an ice age today back in the 1970s.

"By that time (2100), carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will have reached 935 parts per million, meaning the gas comprises nearly 0.1 per cent of the atmosphere.

Earlier this year carbon dioxide levels reached 400 parts per million."

This model assumes we won't have nuclear fusion or some other form of clean energy in the next 85 years. This model also assumes we won't have any new technologies to mop up the CO2 in the atmosphere. Both are stupid, unjustified assumptions.

On the subject of nuclear power and CO2 emissions: whose fault is it that we don't have more nuclear power? Do you blame the Mother Gaia environmentalist wackadoos for stopping clean, nuclear power? or do you blame mankind for wanting to turn on television sets and air conditioning? I blame the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the other environmentalist crazies for the high CO2 emissions today. CO2 levels would be much lower today if the USA had built more nuclear power plants in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s.

If CO2 levels are as dangerous as these crazies say, then we should be building 100 nuclear power plants around the nation today.

 

[ygolo]

First of all, Thanks [MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION] for keeping a reason and data based discussion even when getting flustered. I apologize if my last post took a bit of a sarcastic tone.

This discussion has been quite enlightening to me. I believe I now understand the basic difference between how we look at data and the sources we trust.

I'll elucidate what I see as the difference, let me know if you agree in how we differ.

The basic difference seems to be when and how we do averaging and interpretation of data points.

I believe it is more correct and accurate to do the data culling, averaging and interpretation closer to the physics of the instruments and equipment being used.
Whereas you believe it is more correct to do data culling, averaging and interpretation closer to analysis for the answer to the question.

Examples of this basic process of interpreting data can be found in our exchanges, so far.
1) You took a source that looked at the record high temperatures in North America, but I am using sources that only look at average temperatures.
2) You seemed unsatisfied with how the lecture slides I posted take cm precision of the satellites(outlined in the paper) and correct for them based on models and GPS to get the mm precision.
3) You seemed unsatisfied about the "rawness" of the datasets publicly available, while I am not. I'll link the data I used for the R^2=0.8 statement I made.
4) It seems like when you or your sources do correlation studies, you are less likely to remove clear outliers in trendline fits than I am. I will link the actual spreadsheet I made for regression as well.

This difference, I believe, is a fair and important point to hash out. Especially the last one. When and how to ignore outliers is always tricky business. Clearly there are a lot of factors.
But the CO2 correlation is pretty clear to me.

Climate is not just average weather. There are things we know about ecosystems, stocks and flows of heat, carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles, jet streams, long term geological stress, that are all part of the system that plays out.

So, now to respond to your post.

A Simple Proof That The 1930s Were Hotter



Global Temperature Update: Still no global warming for 17 years 9 months – Since Sept. 1996



If, as you allege, there is a correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperature, why haven't we seen it these past 18 years when the CO2 levels have increased?

I addressed some of this above. Assuming the source is trustworthy, the is not a good indication to just take highest highs and plot the trend.
This has more to do with weather, not climate. We already know the average temperatures don't follow the trend you posted. What about the lowest lows in particular years?
Why the highest highs? This ignored a lot of data without accounting for overall trends.

Let's see the raw (untouched) data. Where is it?

Here are a few links:
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide (download button is top left)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (temperature data in text file format)
Simple Subset Wizard (SSW): Search for Data Sets (You can search for particular data sets here)
http://nsidc.org/ (On the left side of the page there are search options for data, and datasets)

Let's see some of these studies and correlations. I think you just made up that R^2 = 0.8 number. The fact is that there is better correlation between global temperature and cheese prices than between tree ring size and temperature.

Now, I did get R^2=0.8 myself. But it's not made up. I've downloaded similar data to what I did yesterday in the past, and have generally gotten about 0.8.
I used the data from these two links:
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide (download button is top left)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (temperature data in text file format)
Made this spreadsheet from the data for the years that overlapped:
https://storage-us.mail.com/qx/mail...jCW8Z4Qi6hisiZX34DnA&loginName=ygolo@mail.com
And got this graph:


Note that I did remove two outliers (the red points) when doing the blue version of the regression, which R^2=085. But, even with them in there, R^2=0.68.

This is just me goofing around, true. But the data is there for us to see, and it's a sanity check. How did, R^2=0.3 come out?

Why am I skeptical? Because every day, we get daily temperature predictions from meteorologists (weather forecasts) and they are very frequently off by several degrees and you expect me to believe that we have some magical method that can "reconstruct" temperatures from several hundred thousand years ago that are more accurate than today's satellites? Wow.

Once again, weather and climate are different. Averaging of many measurements is well known to increase the precision of a measurement.
Beyond that, a lot of variation comes about from known sources and can be subtracted out.
We've already had a thread on this video, but it's rather illustrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

Read the whole thing.



The precision is an order of magnitude off. Earlier, you cited something about the sea levels increasing by several millimeters. Here, we are dealing with centimeters and a solid surface (ice sheets). Would you expect the precision to increase or decrease if we were measuring a moving surface like the sea level? If the most accurate measurements are in the centimeter range, doesn't this mean the earlier millimeter measurements of sea level that you cited are non-sense?

To reiterate what I said earlier in this post. We have a fundamentally different way of looking at data.

The lecture slides show the process of model based corrections and averaging that lead to much more precise values from what the altimeter alone can do.
There are cosine corrections for ocean altimetry, there are GPS corrections for satellite position, grid based smoothing, and adjustments based on other satellite pictures.

You can look up the Jason 1 and Jason 2 papers if you want more details on how it is actually done.

There is also a lot of data here: http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/data/

Averaging measurements before reporting, and correcting for known principles before reporting values has been the practice of science since its inception.

When you take three measurement, how do you report the summary of that data? Usually the average and standard deviation, no? Unless there is just cause?
When you weigh something, you tare for the container no?
When you dispense liquid you can look at how much you started with and how much you end up with assuming that the rest goes into the sample you wanted, no?

The use of models and averaging in altimetry is the same thought process, just leveled up a bit.

Interesting site, but I don't see any measurements of glacier size.

This may be more to your liking:
http://nsidc.org/ (On the left side of the page there are search options for data, and datasets)

 

[Xann]

CNN GOES FULL PROPAGANDA ON CO2

CNN makes Soviet Pravda look like honest reporting

 

[Tellenbach]

The basic difference seems to be when and how we do averaging and interpretation of data points.

No, I believe that most climate "scientists" are ideologically driven leftist nutjobs who are paid lots of money (over $100 billion the past decade) to push a socialist agenda and everything they present is either fraudulent, deliberately misleading, or so incompetently performed (measuring tree ring widths) as to be completely worthless.

What about the lowest lows in particular years?
Why the highest highs? This ignored a lot of data without accounting for overall trends.

All the alarmist headlines focus on the highs and ignore the lows. That's probably why Steven Goddard posted that graph.

1936 North American heat wave

The 1936 North American heat wave was the most severe heat wave in the modern history of North America. It took place in the middle of the Great Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s, and caused catastrophic human suffering and an enormous economic toll. The death toll exceeded 5,000, and huge numbers of crops were destroyed by the heat and lack of moisture. Many state and city record high temperatures set during the 1936 heat wave stood until the Summer 2012 North American heat wave.[1][2] The 1936 heat wave followed one of the coldest winters on record.

Some stations in the American Midwest reported minimum temperatures at or above 90 °F (32 °C) such as 91 °F (33 °C) at Lincoln, Nebraska on July 25, 1936; the next and most recent time this is known to have happened is a handful of 90 °F (32 °C) minimums during a similar heat wave in late June 1988 but far less intense than that of 1936. The highest nightly low temperature outside of the desert south-west was 94 °F (34 °C) at Atchison, Kansas during the heat wave of July 1934.

1) You took a source that looked at the record high temperatures in North America, but I am using sources that only look at average temperatures.

Average temps were also higher in the 1930s until NASA changed the data. This animated gif from Steven Goddard shows what NASA did.

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Averaging of many measurements is well known to increase the precision of a measurement.

Are you suggesting that if we take 1 million measurements using a bathroom scale, that we can accurately weigh items at the milligram level? I think there is a limit to the resolution of an instrument and it doesn't matter how many measurements you take.

Note that I did remove two outliers (the red points) when doing the blue version of the regression, which R^2=085. But, even with them in there, R^2=0.68.

We're talking about two different types of proxies. You're analyzing ice core samples for CO2 levels. That's very different from using tree rings to "reconstruct" temperature. I can believe that we are able to accurately measure CO2 levels in ice core samples and reconstruct the CO2 record; I don't believe we can reconstruct temperatures using tree rings. The correlation for tree ring proxies is non-existent (R^2 ~0.3 or lower) but it's used and presented as valid data. The R^2 ~0.3 information comes from Steve McIntyre's reconstruction of Mann's hockey stick graph using Mann's tree ring proxies.

 

[Crabs]

At first I was like what a racist.

Then I realized that political correctness is bad bad bad.

Look at Europe.

If what he is saying is meritless people would eventually realize this and he would be humiliated and ignored.

But then again media and propaganda are good tools for manipulation and maybe he is doing that.

I don't know.

I just don't think American citizens should be the victims of child abuse, rape and crime due to illegal immigrants. As long as he doesn't call every latino a rapist, murderer and a criminal I don't think he is being a racist.

Some of his comments reflect concerns the country has had for a while, particularly among right-wingers. The recent shooting in San Francisco is a good example.

San Francisco Suspect Had Been Deported Multiple Times

San Francisco (CNN)—Kate Steinle was walking on a busy pier in San Francisco with her father when there was a single popping sound in the air.

She fell to the ground, struck by a bullet, the victim of what police say appears to be a random killing.

The man accused of firing the deadly shot -- 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez -- is an undocumented immigrant, a repeat felon who has been deported five times to Mexico, according to immigration officials.

As crass and politically incorrect as he may be, at least he's honest about his opinions, as opposed to Hillary Clinton who isn't honest about anything. If it came down to Trump vs Clinton, I would vote for the Donald.

I was less concerned about what he said and more concerned that he shows himself incapable of handling political complexity and delicacy in a multicultural world. He's a bull in a china shop and thinks of things through a paradigm that isn't accurate.

This is why I don't think he will get the republican nomination. His no-nonsense, "what you see is what you get" approach is refreshing compared to most two-faced politicians, but it could have negative consequences on the world stage which might cost republicans the election. I doubt that he's completely inept at diplomacy though, considering his success in business.

 

[Riva]

Some of his comments reflect concerns the country has had for a while, particularly among right-wingers. The recent shooting in San Francisco is a good example.



As crass and politically incorrect as he may be, at least he's honest about his opinions, as opposed to Hillary Clinton who isn't honest about anything. If it came down to Trump vs Clinton, I would vote for the Donald.



This is why I don't think he will get the republican nomination. His no-nonsense, "what you see is what you get" approach is refreshing compared to most two-faced politicians, but it could have negative consequences on the world stage which might cost republicans the election. I doubt that he's completely inept at diplomacy though, considering his successful in business.

Yes he seems honest. Hillary seems like she is agreeing with everyone's opinion. Don't know why people don't see through her. If you can't disagree with people and be open about it you are never going to be a good leader or a dependable friend. I like that Sanders dude.

Anyway, my point is, i think Americans don't deserve even a single death caused by a illegal immigrant and they should have the right to take actions against illegal immigrants if they are causing damage. As long as these are done in humane ways. Remember laws could be passed that are inhumane. So that's a danger if Donald has hatred towards these people. But then again laws are passed in the parliament.

I just can't believe Hillary is leading all polls. That seems disappointing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I just can't believe Hillary is leading all polls. That seems disappointing.

What might be worrying to some is that we have other string pullers acting behind the scenes that nobody even expects. That seems scary to me.

 

[Riva]

What worries me is that we have other string pullers acting behind the scenes that nobody even expects. That seems scary to me.

Every politician has these people. As long as they say what they believe (to a certain extent) and have the guts to disagree with people openly their ability to be manipulated by these string pullers are minimized. Or perhaps people should think that the people who have the guts to disagree are the one's coming to power with least amount of help from puppeteers.

 

[ygolo]

No, I believe that most climate "scientists" are ideologically driven leftist nutjobs who are paid lots of money (over $100 billion the past decade) to push a socialist agenda and everything they present is either fraudulent, deliberately misleading, or so incompetently performed (measuring tree ring widths) as to be completely worthless.



All the alarmist headlines focus on the highs and ignore the lows. That's probably why Steven Goddard posted that graph.

1936 North American heat wave

Average temps were also higher in the 1930s until NASA changed the data. This animated gif from Steven Goddard shows what NASA did.

These are serious allegations. What is Steven Goddard's evidence that what happened in 1998 was not legitimate?

Are you suggesting that if we take 1 million measurements using a bathroom scale, that we can accurately weigh items at the milligram level? I think there is a limit to the resolution of an instrument and it doesn't matter how many measurements you take.

We need to distinguish between precision and accuracy. Precision is about how little variance there is in data from an instrument, accuracy is about how close the data reported is to the actual value.

If you used a bathroom scale a million times on the same weight, and could remove the systematic error through some model you have of how the scale works (which presumably works in kilograms), and have it give values read out below the desired level, you could get to the gram level of precision (not milligram, to get milligram, you'd need a trillion measurements). The precision improves by the square root of the number of samples if it is know that the distribution from which the samples are drawn meet certain conditions.

We're talking about two different types of proxies. You're analyzing ice core samples for CO2 levels. That's very different from using tree rings to "reconstruct" temperature. I can believe that we are able to accurately measure CO2 levels in ice core samples and reconstruct the CO2 record; I don't believe we can reconstruct temperatures using tree rings. The correlation for tree ring proxies is non-existent (R^2 ~0.3 or lower) but it's used and presented as valid data. The R^2 ~0.3 information comes from Steve McIntyre's reconstruction of Mann's hockey stick graph using Mann's tree ring proxies.

The data I used also shows an increase in global temperatures over time, however. One graph gets sensationalized, and somehow that's the only one that matters?

This has still been elucidating. Why is it that you trust the bloggers like Steven Goddard and Steve McIntyre for sources of data over whole organizations of NASA, NOAA, and UK Met?

 

[Tellenbach]

you could get to the gram level of precision (not milligram, to get milligram, you'd need a trillion measurements)

No you can't. There is resolution limit to all instruments and measuring something a trillion times will not improve the resolution. You are suggesting that the resolution is somehow a function of experimental factors; it is not. It is a function of engineering design.

What is Steven Goddard's evidence that what happened in 1998 was not legitimate?

Haven't you been following the climate change story? They've been "re-adjusting" temperatures quite frequently.

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

“Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

Why is it that you trust the bloggers like Steven Goddard and Steve McIntyre for sources of data over whole organizations of NASA, NOAA, and UK Met?

McIntyre is not merely a blogger. He's a professional statistician and he's published critiques of Mann's hockey stick paper in a peer reviewed journal. Bet you didn't know that. Also, the critiques raised by McIntyre are questions that everyone should ask.

Why won't Dr. Mann give up the raw data? How does Dr. Mann justify using a single population of trees in Canada to reconstruct temperatures globally? The entire uptick in Mann's hockey stick graph came from a single population of tree ring data in Canada. Why won't Dr. Mann divulge the correlation coefficient of his analysis?

See, I trust McIntyre because he's transparent. His methods and the data he uses are freely available to everyone. NASA, the IPCC, and NOAA and the entire climate change community are not transparent and they engage in very suspect scientific practices like using statistical analysis (short-centering) that isn't used by any other scientific discipline. Climate scientists engage in name-calling ("climate deniers", "anti-science"). They use consensus as a shield as if lemming behavior is good science. Dr. Mann even endorsed a politician. Sorry, but "climate science" doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[INTP]

Hes a businessman(quite ruthless one like everyone knows) and wants corporations to be more efficient(like he admitted) at making money. First of all, the term global warming is incorrect, no one says that its global warming thats alarming. What people are talking about is climate change. It doesent just mean that places get warmer, but more extremes on both ends. Like he mentioned that it was unusually cold in many places like texas. This sort of stuff(and things like droughts in cali and unusually early start of hurricane season) is what climate change is about.

He mentions that people are walking on ice on antarctica, but ofc fails to mention that the ice does get back in the winter, but its thin because it hasnt accumulated there for a long time, instead its just an thing yearly ice sheet that comes and goes there every year. There is a lot of evidence showing that overall amount of ice getting lower, and its not just the edges of glaciers where the ice is melting, but there are more sink hole type of things forming and the water flows down.

If you look at co2 levels, they have been raising quite a lot over the years. When old ice melts on antarctic, it releases methane. Both methane and co2 absorb heat really efficiently, which means that more heat is left on earth than releasing to space. Not to mention that since its clear that ice on antarctic has been melting quite rapidly, this means that less light is reflected back to space(ice is white so it reflects light = heat in this case better than dark water, which absorbs heat). You could easily think that this should give only more warmth all over the earth during all seasons, but its much more complex than that. For example cold air coming from antarctic will naturally cool down some places, hot air coming from south will react to this cold air more by creating hurricanes and other fun stuff. Or when the cold air is leaving from antartic to one direction, hot air will follow it. But its much more complex than just those things alone and i dont even clam to know all of it, but i know enough to know that trup is either a retard or an evil bastard just trying to get more power by spreading this sort of lies to dumb people for votes.

Its sad to see that USA is so damn corrupted country that all presidential candidates are rich business men or come from the same rich families that already had presidents. Whats even more sad is the amount of stupid people who are voting this sort of scum to run their country.

 

[ygolo]

No you can't. There is resolution limit to all instruments and measuring something a trillion times will not improve the resolution. You are suggesting that the resolution is somehow a function of experimental factors; it is not. It is a function of engineering design.

I was trying to extend your scale analogy to the fundamental physics underneath, springs and compressions, and an understanding of that. But the biggest issue with the analogy itself is that electromagnetic radiation can be used to extreme, almost arbitrary precision. The reason the simple satellite trajectories weren't as precise were because of uncertainties in satellite position, uncertainties in atmospheric conditions, uncertainties of ocean conditions...all things that can be corrected with data from other systems and improved with averaging.

There is a basic fact of statistical analysis called the central limit theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem. One of the main practical consequences is the improvement of precision of measurement by the square root of the number of samples for well behaved distributions.

Haven't you been following the climate change story? They've been "re-adjusting" temperatures quite frequently.

NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus’

These claims have been made since 1998, and even earlier. I still have yet to see anything other than accusations with little logic behind them. If you can highlight the actual argument behind the accusation, instead of posting links to the same old sources, we could get somewhere.

McIntyre is not merely a blogger. He's a professional statistician and he's published critiques of Mann's hockey stick paper in a peer reviewed journal. Bet you didn't know that. Also, the critiques raised by McIntyre are questions that everyone should ask.

Why won't Dr. Mann give up the raw data? How does Dr. Mann justify using a single population of trees in Canada to reconstruct temperatures globally? The entire uptick in Mann's hockey stick graph came from a single population of tree ring data in Canada. Why won't Dr. Mann divulge the correlation coefficient of his analysis?
t.

I wouldn't go to a mathematician to fix my car, not would I go to a business statistician to understand climate. Nevertheless, the questions would be valid if the tree ring data wasn't actually published in a book.

See, I trust McIntyre because he's transparent. His methods and the data he uses are freely available to everyone. NASA, the IPCC, and NOAA and the entire climate change community are not transparent and they engage in very suspect scientific practices like using statistical analysis (short-centering) that isn't used by any other scientific discipline. Climate scientists engage in name-calling ("climate deniers", "anti-science"). They use consensus as a shield as if lemming behavior is good science. Dr. Mann even endorsed a politician. Sorry, but "climate science" doesn't pass the sniff test.

He doesn't seem transparent. I haven't found his data. I linked you NASA's. It was easy to find.

 

[Tellenbach]

But the biggest issue with the analogy itself is that electromagnetic radiation can be used to extreme, almost arbitrary precision.

The optics of the instrument used to detect the electromagnetic radiation determines the resolution. You are saying that if we looked through a $10 telescope a trillion times, we can eventually see the Delta quadrant, but I'm saying...NO!!! There is a limit to the resolution and that limit is determined by the quality of the lens.

These claims have been made since 1998, and even earlier. I still have yet to see anything other than accusations with little logic behind them.

These are not claims or accusations. They are facts. The climate scientists have published a paper explaining why they changed the raw data. Go look this up and look up Lindzen's critique of them.

I wouldn't go to a mathematician to fix my car, not would I go to a business statistician to understand climate.

It's a statistical argument (that tree rings indicate warming trend) so a statistician would be the ideal person to go to.

He doesn't seem transparent. I haven't found his data.

You aren't going to find a single person who says McIntyre is hiding data; you'll find lots of people making those claims of climate scientists.

 

[ygolo]

The optics of the instrument used to detect the electromagnetic radiation determines the resolution. You are saying that if we looked through a $10 telescope a trillion times, we can eventually see the Delta quadrant, but I'm saying...NO!!! There is a limit to the resolution and that limit is determined by the quality of the lens.

What I was trying to be clear about was that the limits were not just the optics themselves, but also things like satellite position, atmospheric distortions, and ocean waves.

Also, even if the optics were the "limit", in principle, your argument is incorrect. The principle behind Very Large Arrays of Telescopes is essentially the averaging effect, I was talking about. The whole array gets much better resolutions than a single telescope.

Optical proximity correction has been used to correct for the limits of optics for years. My old company did it with amazing success. Most of our modern microprocessors would not exist without this technique.

Beyond that, the mathematics of Fourier Optics has been used to go past the "limits" of optics in many realms. It has been done for confocal microscopy, optical coherence tomography, and adoptive optics in general have been used at places like the European Southern Observatory.

These are not claims or accusations. They are facts. The climate scientists have published a paper explaining why they changed the raw data. Go look this up and look up Lindzen's critique of them.

Once again. The corrections are similar to taring for the container when you weigh a sample. They changed the raw data because they had systematic errors in it.

The so-called "original" or "raw" data of Lindzen was just land temperatures. The so called "new" data included land and ocean data. Considering the heat capacity of water, this seems like a good idea to me.

It's a statistical argument (that tree rings indicate warming trend) so a statistician would be the ideal person to go to.

The statistics involved is high school stuff. The physics involved is more advanced.

Even as a statistician, he didn't seem to spend much time on the p-values, but instead focused on correlation by itself. This is a better bias in business and social sciences, but ignores the high fidelity of models in the physical sciences.

Beyond that there are plenty of other sources beyond tree rings, like ice cores, that back up the trends. Not to mention the basic physics of the greenhouse effect making sense.

You aren't going to find a single person who says McIntyre is hiding data; you'll find lots of people making those claims of climate scientists.

There certainly are people who say that McIntyre is a fraud. Here is one of them:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

Besides, that still doesn't show, in this thread, the "facts" behind the accusations that McIntyre is making.