Man Based Global Warming....

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by JSH

Yes, the recent spike in temperature corresponds with the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years with a few exceptions. (1880-1900, 1950-1970, 2000-2008) Does the temperature decrease from 1000 to 1700 have a corresponding decrease in CO2?

One wouldn't expect it to. You don't seem to be able to understand that just because CO2 is not always controlling, doesn't mean than it can not control...especially when you go well out of its normal bounds. The previous cause and effect cycle has been interrupted by a species that has developed the capacity to significantly alter the atmosphere over a few generations.

As an engineer that has worked in manufacturing I would look at the temperature data from 0 to 2000 AD on a control chart. Is the process in control or out of control. To determine that I would need to establish upper and lower control limits. To do that I would need the actual data to calculate standard deviation. (UCL and LCL are usually set at 3 sigma) With that data we could determine if a 0.6 C increase in temperature in 100 years is statistically significant or part of normal variation.

As an engineer who was working with statistical process control while you were still in elementary school I would point that this is a long enough trend out of control with a clear assignable cause: a known greenhouse gas that correlates with the trend. The system has been altered. On top of that we have a clear case of a run rather than a random walk. We don't have one point, we have many.

Same would be true in troubleshooting with Kepner-Tregoe analysis, etc. You look for what has changed in the time where the difference/problem became apparent.

Engineers who instead take no action in such a case with an assignable cause risk making a lot of off spec product. If management learns that said engineer ignored the warning signs, then at best it erodes management confidence in the engineer's professional judgement. ...so they will likely promote him/her into management where he can't directly screw up the process...

[Alric]

Ugh..we made six sigma ads pop up on our thread...

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Alric - it's not a "small correction" as you claim. A number of problems have arisen with Mann's latest work, just as with his previous work. The "hockey stick" is still broken:

Correlation Distribution Analysis shows that the hockeystick shape is entirely due to Tiljander proxies plus high-altitude southwestern US "stripbark" pines (bristlecones, foxtails, etc). When these are removed, the hockeystick shape disappears entirely.

The work I show has 16 different proxies, all with the same hockey stick shape tracing temperature for the past 2000 years. McIntyre's criticism dealt with Mann's original paper and was answered already. It applies even less to this more recent work.

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by Alric

Ugh..we made six sigma ads pop up on our thread...

LOL, from what I've seen of six sigma (not statistical control limits in actual processes, and not TQM) it seems to mostly be a way of teaching those who aren't very good at troubleshooting a system so that they perform better/get headed down the right path. For natural troubleshooters it is more of a way to make the obvious exceedingly tedious and slow, but going through the exercise reaches the real target audience: managers. Same for Kepner-Tregoe...

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

The work I show has 16 different proxies, all with the same hockey stick shape tracing temperature for the past 2000 years. McIntyre's criticism dealt with Mann's original paper and was answered already. It applies even less to this more recent work.

As noted, only 2 of the 16 proxies support the trend. And those 2 proxies are highly suspect (one contaminated, and one contaminated and inverted). Remove the suspect proxies and the trend goes "poof". So basically, what you have, is 14 proxies that don't show sh!t.

This goes well beyond McIntyre's critique of Mann's previous, shoddy work.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Well for starters your chart refutes your own CO2 argument. You know what matches that recent uptrend...CO2 concentration.

So are you trying to prove global warming or what?

Not my chart - it's Alric's. And as I pointed out, the "16 proxies" are just 14 that don't prove what is claimed. By the way, if you think "strip bark pine" is a suitable proxy for global temperature, consider the resulting implied temperature variation based on tree ring width on 2 sides of the same tree:



That's pretty much open to whatever interpretation one might desire.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

As noted, only 2 of the 16 proxies support the trend. And those 2 proxies are highly suspect (one contaminated, and one contaminated and inverted). Remove the suspect proxies and the trend goes "poof". So basically, what you have, is 14 proxies that don't show sh!t.

This goes well beyond McIntyre's critique of Mann's previous, shoddy work.

Says who? Looks to me they all support the observation that it's warmer now than in the past 2000 years.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

Says who? Looks to me they all support the observation that it's warmer now than in the past 2000 years.

Well it is a bit tough in the chart to see where the lines really are for all 16 reconstructed proxies. But I'm sure this analysis - when formalized in the literature - will shoot down Mann's latest hockey stick just like the last one was shot down McIntyre. Certainly there's some meat here for Mann to chew on:


1. The longer term proxies in M2008 are totally dominated by the Tiljander and the 19 southwestern US "stripbark" pine proxies. It is those proxies, and those proxies alone, that create the Hockeystick shape found in the signal.
2. Both those groups of proxies have been discussed in the literature, and have been found wanting. Sixteen of the 19 pine series are from Greybill. They are not valid proxies.
3. Once these two groups (Tiljander and pinus) are removed, the new signal is dominated by another group of related tree-ring records, this time from Argentina.
4. These groupings, and their dominance of the results, indicate a systematic problem with the initial selection of proxies. The problem is that a number of closely related records from one geographical area can easily overwhelm and dominate the common signal. This makes it clear that closely related groups of proxies should be averaged before inclusion, to prevent the domination of the common signal.
5. Correlation distribution analysis is a useful tool for determining whether a group of proxies contain a signal in common, and which proxies contain the signal
6. At some point, after Steve figures out Mann's method, the proponents of Manns work are sure to claim that the hockeystick signal is really there, regardless of the method used … yes, it really is there, but only in the Tiljander and bristlecones. Garbage in, garbage out …
7. Even when/if we can finally come to agreement on the existence some historical common signal in the proxies, we will be faced with a new question … what does that signal represent? Temperature? Moisture? Some combination of both? Neither? Here there is no clear answer of any kind.


And if you still want to believe in Mann's reconstructions, you might want to read up on the problem of "divergence" in temperature reconstructions:

A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM IN DENDROCLIMATOLOGY
Climatic Change
DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9488-8
Craig Loehle, PhD
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Abstract: Tree rings provide a primary data source for reconstructing past climates, particularly over the past 1000 years. However, divergence has been observed in twentieth century reconstructions. Divergence occurs when trees show a positive response to warming in the calibration period but a lesser or even negative response in recent decades. The mathematical implications of divergence for reconstructing climate are explored in this study. Divergence results either because of some unique environmental factor in recent decades, because trees reach an asymptotic maximum growth rate at some temperature, or because higher temperatures reduce tree growth. If trees show a nonlinear growth response, the result is to potentially truncate any historical temperatures higher than those in the calibration period, as well as to reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to actual. This produces the divergence effect. This creates a cold bias in the reconstructed record and makes it impossible to make any statements about how warm recent decades are compared to historical periods. Some suggestions are made to overcome these problems.

[malorn]

Today AGW headlines!

Climate change could be ‘irreversible’ for 1,000 years? Gulp!

http://features.csmonitor.com/innova...00-years-gulp/

the key words.....could, 1000 years.

could: maybe if all of the climate models that so far have not predicted any climate with any degree of accuracy are finally correct.

1000 years: we picked out a nice BIG round number.

So man might be or might not have already affected the climate for the next 1000 years. This is science?

[Alric]

Originally Posted by malorn

Today AGW headlines!

Climate change could be ‘irreversible’ for 1,000 years? Gulp!

Climate change could be ‘irreversible’ for 1,000 years? Gulp! | csmonitor.com

the key words.....could, 1000 years.

could: maybe if all of the climate models that so far have not predicted any climate with any degree of accuracy are finally correct.

1000 years: we picked out a nice BIG round number.

So man might be or might not have already affected the climate for the next 1000 years. This is science?

Yeah. Criticize the word "could" and object to the 1000 years timeline out of personal incredulity. Keep the lucid arguments coming....