Do you seriously believe that such thinking is not logically flawed? Really?
It is interesting how nature always seems to cooperate with AGW theory. If it is warming, we have no explanation other than CO2 and strong positive feedback. Natural cycles? Impossible! They are not powerful enough!
If warming stops while CO2 goes up, we know for certain that it has stopped because of something else, like, uhm, natural cycles?
Sorry, but I do not buy that. Call me denier.
The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data.
"not properly calibrated" means they did not match temperature, were pointing down while temperature up. And there was no way to "calibrate" them.
There has been much hoo-hah about this "throwing out" of data when really it is the instrumental data that matters, not the proxy data. If temperature is what you are after, thermometers are the gold standard. Therefore the post 1960 results really aren't in question.
Yes. But if post 1960 results of proxy vs temperature do not match, PRE 1960 proxy temperatures ARE in question. In other words, how can we know that proxy shows correct temperature for MWP, if it cannot be "calibrated" to match instrumental record?
If one completely ignores any of the above data sets (whether they be direct measurements or proxies), there exist many disparate observations of global warming ranging from the rise in sea level which threatens various nations' lands to the melting of the arctic tundra to the loss of glaciation document global warming independently of these scientists' data.
No dispute about that.
All the data seem to indicate is that the warming is happening on a scale that it has not before.
But a lot of question here. Was there MWP? Was there little ice age? Is this really happening on a scale not known before?
By itself, this should indicate that the hockey stick curve is real.
It can only indicate that there was warming 1975-2000. Nothing more. If you join random noise for 1000-1960 and then put 1975-2000 intrumental record next to it, you will get the curve too.
This year, the Chinese government limited fossil fuel burning before the Olympics with apparently stunning results. When I was in Beijing for nearly a month 10 years ago, smog was a daily occurance. Even miles outside the city at Badaling (the Great Wall), it was hard to see for more than a mile. Smog is considered to be the third most important greenhouse gas by the IPCC. Evidence that we are changing our own atmosphere by fossil fuel emission is obvious just by looking.
Nice anectodal story, but what that has to do with AGW?
I notice you don't mention which data had arbitrary fudge factors applied to it - probably because it sounds more ominous that way. Data from tree cores taken in the Nothern hemisphere post-1960 had arbitrary fudge factors applied to it, and as far as anyone can tell the results were thrown away. It appears the code was part of an attempt to determine why and how the temperatures claculated from the tree cores diverged from the actual temperature. In the end, the researchers didn't find an answer and just advised not using that data.
Well, but you should tell the whole story then. In IPCC graphs these records were simply replaced by instrumental data.
Now, if they "didn't find an answer", it makes the whole reconstruction a little bit strange. If proxies do not match temperatures when you have the most accurate datasets, how can you tell they correctly represent temperatures 1000 years ago?
Really, I do not care about about cheering somebody's death or calling sceptics crackpots. I understand that emails were private.
But if you raise the issue of "trick", I thought I will help you to understand the problem.
Maybe the term "deleted" is wrong, but these data were simply removed from the hockey stick graph, replaced by instrumental record, creating false illusion of "unprecendented warming". And then the graph is used in Al Gore's presentations.
See, nobody disputes that instrumental records for past 30 years are more accurate than data obtained by proxy. Anyway, if there is such a divergence of proxy data and instrumental record (proxy data pointing downwards), it casts serious doubts about validity of proxy data of the past.
Also, it means that to show the hockey stick, you in fact do not need care about proxy data too much. Instrumental record will make the right shape even if you feed anything before with noise.
I guess that the most important issue in Mann's and Briffa reconstruction is that MWP was downplayed and current warming thus became "unprecedented". Which is exactly what you get if you choose noisy unreliable proxy data, and 'stick' real temperature records where it fits...
If you see any flaws in this analysis of "trick to hide the decline", I would be glad to hear your objections.
Uh huh...and pull this leg, it plays jingle bells! Seriously, how many times have you had to go CLI in the past month?
Less often than I had to use that fancy Registry editor in Windows to solve issues with broken installs or drivers.
See, if everything goes fine, GUI is all that you need in both Win32 and Linux. If things get broken (e.g. because some app installs get them broken, which happens on both platforms), you need to get yout hands dirty, in any OS.
Accidentally, if things get broken, there is much higher chance that they get fixed in Linux, with its CLI and text based configs (and even with those opened sources, ya know?).
Contrary, common practice to repair Windows is reinstall. Maybe that is why you live in impression that GUI is fine to manage Windows. When Linux user uses CLI to fix the problem, Windows user reinstalls....
Data...good data that the CO2 is man made and oh now BTW it's a solid fact that carbon dioxide + water = carbolic acid and therefore is killing and has killed a hell of a lot of fish. The reef systems may be gone in as little as 20 years.
How did coral reefs survive periods when CO2 was several times higher than today?
I am not 100% sceptic, but sometimes I wonder:
What would convice you the contrary?
10 years of cooling? 10 years of rise in arctic ice sea extent?
Somehow I am afraid that any climate status will be now explained as an effect of "global climate change".
Well, you would probably get more than just IDE with that, as TheIDE is quite tightly coupled with the U++ library (http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_3.png, http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_4.png), anyway, ide-wise:
- it has cool highlighting, including highlighting of C++ blocks and coloring parenthesis (see http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_2.png)
- its C++ code-parsing abilitites (for purposes of code-navigation and 'intelisense') are at the moment said to be better than CDT's or at par with Visual Studio, although the problem is that it parses only the project files (not 'external' headers) http://www.ultimatepp.org/L$www$uppweb$idess$en-us.html_5.png.
- if you are rebuilding large projects often, it has very fast build process. It uses two tricks, one widely known (using multiple CPU cores to launch compiler instances), one special (combining files to avoid header reparsing). In practice, on quadcore CPU, it can build up to 16 times faster than plain make.
- works in Win32 and X11.
But there is also a drawback for many users:
- as it adds a strong crossplatform modularity layer, it gets a lot of suffering getting used to it. Simply do not expect your usual Visual Studio copy...
Siberia? That is quite unpopulated area, because generally, temperatures are too harsh today.
See, we have all kinds of crops. Many of them do just fine in tropics today. None of them can grow in arctic.
For all we know, one thing is sure. We are in warmer period and that will end some day. There is solid evidence that we are in fact at the end of it. IF co2 really causes greenhouse effect, maybe we should consider to pump more of it into the air, just to slow down the transition to the next ice age.
BTW, speaking about poor people in poor countries, maybe somebody should estimate how many already died because of "biofuel". I am speaking here about food prices driven up last year, where one of reasons was market's anticipation of "biofuel" related shortages.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll
