Man Based Global Warming....

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 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...

 

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

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.
​

 

Today AGW headlines!

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

http://features.csmonitor.com/innov...ge-could-be-irreversible-for-1000-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?

 

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

 

You base (copy) your argument based only on tree data. Mann's recent paper includes 16 different proxies including but not limited to:

1) Glacier retreat
2) Coral reef growth
3) Bore Holes
4) Marine Sediment
5) speleothem (cave deposits)
6) lacustrine (lake beds)
7) Ice core
8) Historical documents

And they all happen to agree. The earth is warmer now than it has been in the past 2000 years. You are arguing all those studies carried out by different people are wrong.

 

I am completely for protecting the earth. I am not for using "scare" tactics to accomplish any end. Look where Bush has taken us using scare tactics. There may be a boomerang coming for science and the environmental movement. Go back and look at Hansen's original testimony:

We use a three-dimensional climate model, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) model II with 8° by 10° horizontal resolution, to simulate the global climate effects of time-dependent variations of atmospheric trace gases and aerosols. Horizontal heat transport by the ocean is fixed at values estimated for today's climate, and the uptake of heat perturbations by the ocean beneath the mixed layer is approximated by vertical diffusion. We make a 100-year control run and perform experiments for three scenarios of atmospheric composition. These experiments begin in 1958 and include measured or estimated changes in atmospheric CO2, CH4, H2O, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and stratospheric aerosols for the period from 1958 to the present. Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000. Pricipal results from the experiments are as follows: (1) Global warming to the level attained at the peak of the current interglacial and the previous interglacial occurs in all three scenarios; however, there are dramatic differences in the levels of future warming, depending on trace gas growth. (2) The greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable in the 1990s; the global warming within the next several years is predicted to reach and maintain a level at least three standard deviations above the climatology of the 1950s. (3) Regions where an unambiguous warming appears earliest are low-latitude oceans, China and interior areas in Asia, and ocean areas near Antarctica and the north pole; aspects of the spatial and temporal distribution of predicted warming are clearly model-dependent, implying the possibility of model discrimination by the 1990s and thus improved predictions, if appropriate observations are acquired. (4) The temperature changes are sufficiently large to have major impacts on people and other parts of the biosphere, as shown by computed changes in the frequency of extreme events and comparison with previous climate trends. (5) The model results suggest that some near-term regional climate variations, despite the fixed ocean heat transport which suppresses many possible regional climate fluctuation; for example, during the late 1980s and the 1990s there is a tendency for greater than average warming in the southeastern United States and much of Europe. Principal uncertainties in the predictions involve the equilibrium sensitivity of the model to climate forcing, the assumptions regarding heat uptake and transport by the ocean, and the omission of other less-certain climate forcings.

CO2 has grown exponentially, which according to hansen should have resulted in scenario A. this graph is through 2005, where do you think the last 3 years will graph out? Also where would the graph be if man did not exist? The assumption is always a straight baseline which is never the case.

 

Those are Hansen's predictions from 1988. 1988. As Hansen himself says of it in 2005:

Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a
​

​

course closest to scenario B. The real world even had one large

volcanic eruption in the 1990s, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, whereas​

scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.
...

Indeed, moderate overestimate of global warming is likely because​

the sensitivity of the model used (12), 4.2°C for doubled CO

​

​

​

2, is larger than our current estimate for actual climate sensitivity, which is 3.1°C for doubledCO2, based mainly on paleoclimate data (17).​

​

So our science has improved since 1988.

The fact remains that the predictions generally correspond quite well, and are off because our understanding of CO2 doubling was not as good then as now. Think of how meager computer processing power was in 1988.​

But this is the real method of science. You make predictions. Evaluate how you did, and hone your experiments. ​

But as usual, when scientists evaluate their methods to improve them, it is somehow hailed as "See, the science is wrong" by the public. Heck, it worked for big tobacco, it works for climate change deniers. Meanwhile, the scientists proceed with their studies and improve their methods.​

The last five years look just like another blip down, for such blips have happened often in the past, for example, in the graph below at 2000 and 1992. But that doesn't stop the trend from being up.

 

Gore says earth may be 11 degrees warmer.

 

Here's a flash of Mann's non-dedro proxies. In how many to you does it look like the modern period significantly exceeds prior periods in warmth?



Of the ones that do, the Finnish lake speak the loudest. But these are acknowledged by the author of the samples to be contaminated.

 

I don't know where you got that or if they are actually on Mann's paper, or how relevant they are to the discussion. But a lot of them do go up precipitously after the 1800s.

 

You deniers remind me of the OJ Simpson jury of 1995. Ignoring that there is DNA evidence in the Bronco and focused on the fact that a detective once use the "N" word.

Malorn, I don't understand how, after repeated watching of An Inconvienent Truth you can become more and more skeptical. I think Al Gore does a good job overall.

If you really hate being scared that's ok. I hate it too. Doesn't mean we should NOT be scared.

EDIT: WHOOPS - originally I had "should be scared" but what I meant was "should NOT"

 

We should have a poll. Invite everyone on PC to read this thread and ask them if it changes their view either way, and whether they agree with this side or that.

 

It's not among the figures in Mann's paper. It's some fun with numbers being had by Steven McIntrye. Frankly, if McIntyre has something he can prove, let him publish it in a peer-reviewed journal (rather than a blog or right-wing think tank).

 

I was convinced for awhile. The more I watch Gore, the less I believe in AGW. Have you watched his slide show today? another polar bear perched on a sliver of ice, more flooding, agw hurricanes, antarctica is coolling even though all of the stations say otherwise. Today Dr Hansen's boss has come out and said that he is a skeptic and that Hansen, was out of control and distorting figures.
The evidence says the earth has warmed over the last 100 years and cooled over the last 10 years and yet gore, hansen etal are trying to lead us to believe the end of civilization is near.

If CO2 is the driver that gore and co continue to preach that it is how could the warming stopped over the last 10 years?