bjchip,

Re your link to that Guardian piece by Steven Rahmstorf.

Rahmstorf’s claims (and all the credulous headlines that automatically go with them) are based on his attempts at statistical analysis, for which he appears to have no qualifications whatsover (yes, like Mann’s Hockeystick.)

- “The only plausible reason that I can come up with for binning the 120 data points into 24 bins is because the resulting 24 points looked like they could conceivably be fit to a line without failing the laugh test…The full set of 120 data points also make it clear that when the temperature remains constant the sea level rise rate drops, in direct contradiction of one of Rahmstorf’s own working assumptions…I believe that Rahmstorf deliberately presented his data in a way calculated to deceive”
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/my-experience-with-rahmstorfs-non-linear-trend-line/

“When asked by UC (a highly competent academic statistician) where the file could be located, Rahmstorf, following GARP procedures, broke off communications……The “new” method had extracted a bigger uptick at the end than they had got using Mannian smoothing. No wonder Rahmstorf grabbed the method. Looking at the details of the caption, the uptick almost certainly arises simply from a difference in filter length.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6473
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6746

He just doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing, statistically. So why should we pay any attention to his headline-grabbing claims?

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Gerrit

We have been over this before.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/03/sea-levels-rising

I doubt that you’d detect a couple of cm…. but it is already going faster than it should, and it isn’t likely to be benign because once it turns into something you DO notice, you’ll have less than a decade before the water goes over the top of the ramp.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I have seen the claciers recede. What more can I say?

Perhaps start by saying where the water went. Sea levels haven’t risen, as judged by the high water mark on the local boat ramp in the Manukau Harbour.

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Well said Bj:Just to expand on what I have observed mysalf about global warming; From my lounge window in Lake Coleridge I have a view of the alps including the main divide.

I have seen the claciers recede. What more can I say?

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased ocean CO2 and acidification, which is definitely not good for coral reefs and other marine life.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

….and the rest of the story from RealClimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Trees were selected that had sufficiently defined annular rings to give annual resolution,,, as well as matching the actual data (which is a HS blade to be quite certain).

McIntyre has pushed this barrow for a long time. He needs a rest….

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I am getting sick of all this back and forth political crap. It seems to me that no one really wants to dig down and determine the actual impact of CO2. The video posted here is just silly. Increasing levels of CO2 whether they are contributing to Global Warming/Climate Change or not they are surely not good for animals. You can make an argument that higher levels of CO2 would benefit plant life, but at the rate of the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere it will soon be closing in on bringing the percentage to a level that would be undoubtably bad for animals.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t know for certain what is going on with Briffa, but I do know that if you are trying choose a proxy, you choose one that actually matches the data you have during the periods you actually have measurements for. That much has nothing to do with lying or fraud. Moreover, MacIntyre explicitly includes proxies that do NOT match the period we know of and can measure. This is… not good science. Good statistics, bad science.

The fact that MacIntyre et.al. and Mann et.al. have been almost unbelievably rude to each other may have something to do with it at this point. I don’t know where it started, but it has been personal between them for years. I doubt that either would be willing to bury the hatchet, except in the other’s skull.

I also know that the only thing that this realistically affects is the ability to work out how warm the medieval warm period managed to get, and the only thing that ALL of the smoke and heat can do is put a larger bunch of error bars on this information.

So I don’t get real excited about any of it. The kids are fighting on the playground again. They’ve been hitting each other with tree stumps for years now, and the problem is that proxies like that respond to all manner of things, not just temperature.

I basically just do not worry myself about it. The MWP was IMHO, warm. Might even have been warmer than it was yesterday…or not.

What we do know is that whatever its causes several things ARE true.

The first is that there isn’t a cause other than CO2 in evidence at present.

The sun hasn’t gotten significantly hotter.

There’s no evidence of changes in cosmic rays or insolation.

The CO2 presents a theoretical requirement for a certain amount of warming,

The CO2 is rising 50 times faster than it evidently has EVER risen in any measured core.

The CO2 is higher now than it has been in several million years.

I could go on… enough is enough.

+++++

So we can be pretty sure that whatever DID warm things up in the MWP, it wasn’t the same thing as is warming things up now.

Whether Briffa did something odd with his selection or not I can’t say. I am pretty confident that MacIntyre has made some real contributions to the accuracy of this particular set of studies… and some UNQUESTIONABLE contributions to the tone of incivility that attends the debate.

He seems to forget sometimes, that the goal is to accurately figure out what happened, not to make sure all the trees get counted. That there are other things besides warming affecting the trees.

Nobody in this play respects one another anymore. Makes me rather unhappy to see it, but Wat and GWD are perfect examples of the insulting way MacIntyre treats with the scientists… and it is not surprising if the cooperation with him has deteriorated under the strain of that incessant bombardment of insult.

For my part I don’t think it is just MacIntyre. I think Mann et.al. have gotten their own knickers in a twist about this stuff, and though they are relatively polite in public, they’re just plain p!ssed. Just as MacIntyre is.

….and it is all about a tiny tiny piece of the puzzle. Not relevant in the grand scheme of things.

A pox on both their houses.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I have been looking at some of the blogs that Wat has posted and there may very well be a few cheats fiddling the data maybe on both sides of the debate.

Granted the British met office should have shared the data with Mc Intyre to check Mr. Briffa’s data.

BUT one fact is so glaringly obvious that ships can navigate the North West Passage without any problems with icebergs. In 1978 the NW passage was unnavigatable.
The ice in the polar reageons are melting at an alarming rate and the Ross ice shelf has been breaking off into the sea at an unprecedented rate.

These are obvious laymans observations, like the little boy who notices that the king has no cloths

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

- Dog registration would be optional, but sadistic treatment of animals would be a crime.

I thought for Libs animals had no rights? Why would sadistic treatment be a crime?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

LOL

I have to laugh, because it’s laughable.

It’s a shame there will be so many people who don’t understand the back story and seriously contact their Senator.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Only in America!!
Hey they also just allowed people with a carry permit for a concealed weapon to go to bars and drink in Arizona!!

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I can’t believe this shit.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

One quick one for LibertyScott.

This move IS clearly a political one, in terms of making sure that there is a way for the Executive branch to overcome possible minority obstructions in the Senate.

It has nothing to do with the actual science. The OP was very clear about this.

I don’t think half the people who claim to be Libertarians actually have a clue about what they are claiming. Glad to see YOU… ‘Cept I really really have to go for a while.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I see that since I don’t have the time to respond to any of this cr@p right now the trolls are having a field day.

I have to hit and run.

IF you seriously think that tree-rings are the whole basis of the science of AGW you are not thinking at all.

I’ll be back in a day or two, workload permitting.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You are right it would be laughable if there werent some people who actually believe or force themselves to believe this crap. Scary World we live in.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hope after some day they dont say CO is also green :p

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC I haven’t been conditioned to think anything. I’ve only met libertarianism through guest appearances such as yours. Thanks for making things so clear. What does the post script mean?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

CO2 is no more a pollutant than water. It is essential for life, but too much is toxic. It may be an agent for climate change, but that does not mean the substance itself is a pollutant.

Galeandra: SPC is no libertarian from my observations. It’s a bit off topic, but maybe before you dismiss libertarians you might gain some very basic knowledge. Like how libertarians don’t believe in anarchy, do believe in private property rights and criminal law. Most of the strawmen you put up are easily dismissed.
- Carless days are unnecessary, the price of commodities should rise according to scarcity. Persistently high fuel prices will see less driving and different fuels becoming viable. People will make their own choices about what they use, and opportunities they find to meet the needs of others. It happens every day on a grand scale;
- Rubbish fires should be a matter of property rights, if you pollute your neighbour’s airspace, it is a trespass. If you seriously endangerk your neighbour’s property, steps can be taken to pre-empt that.
- The side of the road people drive on should be up to the road owner. It isn’t anarchy.
- Dog registration would be optional, but sadistic treatment of animals would be a crime.
- Liberty is the right to do as you wish with your body and property without infringing upon the same right of others to do so. You can pollute your own property, but not that of others without their permission. You can consume what you wish, but you pay for it. By definition this does recognise the interests of others, because you cannot infringe upon their personal sovereignty, and you have to interact with others on a voluntary basis. You can fight poverty if you like, or not. Indeed you can fight fascism, or not. In other words your life does not exist in order to benefit others, your life has its own value. What you do with it, and how others interact with you, become your own choices. Why fear it?

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Galeandra I note you have been conditioned to attack those associated with the word libertarian. A little over-conditioned perhaps …

PS Do not allow anyone to write the word on your mirror in the evening, you might not like yourself in the morning.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)