No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by Muaddib
LOL, that's what I have been doing ever since you started presenting Mann's data and quoting from the "Fake"Climate wbsite.... I know you, Mann and associates call it "Real Climate website"...but there is nothing real about the lies Mann, you and associates keep trying to spread.

Briffa and some other researchers who put together the extrapolated "wiki" graph, "cooked" the data together when they decided to band with Mann to try to decieve the world again...

You might find it funny, but you've just made an unsupported accusation again.

Is this all you've got?

You are accusing Osborn & Briffa of cooking data.

As for Mann, their MBH1998 data has been widely accepted by major US scientific organisations, and we are not just worried about Mann, we have 10 proxies that essentially show the same thing. So, essentially you think that saying 'the MBH1998 was wrong, therefore everything else is wrong' is sufficient, this is just crap. Even when PC-centred analysis (as suggested by Wegman) or RegEm is correctly used on the proxy data, the result is essentially the same.

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998) method, principally relating to the independent verification of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes of variability present in a network of western North American tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis. The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

So, are you going to falsely accuse Wahl & Amman? Von Storch, Burger, and McIntyre all used incorrect methods in their analysis.

So, what does an analysis of all proxy reconstrutions to date suggest:

The TAR pointed to the ‘exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to the past 1,000 years’. Subsequent evidence has strengthened this conclusion. It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also likely that this 50-year period was the warmest Northern Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this warmth was more widespread than during any other 50-year period in the last 1.3 kyr. These conclusions are most robust for summer in extratropical land areas, and for more recent periods because of poor early data coverage.

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...

With or without Mann's work we can make the same conclusion, and that is the disingenuous diversion. We have a pile of empirical evidence supporting the inference, different data, improved methods, but for some reason you seem stuck in 1998, it's 2007 you know...

[edit on 26-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

You might find it funny, but you've just made an unsupported accusation again.

Is this all you've got?

I already showed dozens of research work from all over the world which disproves your claims as well as Mann's and associates...

BTW, yes i find it hilarious we have been discussing this, I have given several dozen research all which prove the RWP, the MWP, and the LIA were all global events, since these events have been recorded in all continents..., and still you try to spread Mann's 1998 lie that those events were not Global, and were not warmer than present even though the research i have given shows the contrary.

Originally posted by melatonin
You are accusing Osborn & Briffa of cooking data.

Osborn and Briffa have had other graphs made before, as in 1998, which shows a totally different result to the 2001 data.

Originally posted by melatonin
As for Mann, their MBH1998 data has been widely accepted by major US scientific organisations, and we are not just worried about Mann, we have 10 proxies that essentially show the same thing.

BS, not even the IPCC is using the MBH98 data anymore....although Mann and associates are once again trying to give credence to MBH98 even though that data has been discredited....

Originally posted by melatonin
So, essentially you think that saying 'the MBH1998 was wrong, therefore everything else is wrong' is sufficient, this is just crap. Even when PC-centred analysis (as suggested by Wegman) or RegEm is correctly used on the proxy data, the result is essentially the same.

Both show pretty much the ssame result using the same data, you said if two methods show the same results you would doubt those method, hence I called your bluff since MBH98 and RegEm have given pretty much the same result according to Mann et al 2005....

Originally posted by melatonin
So, are you going to falsely accuse Wahl & Amman? Von Storch, Burger, and McIntyre all used incorrect methods in their analysis.

Burger himself has been one of the scientists questioning Mann's data, and Mann responded with Ad Hominem attacks when Burger never used such tactic...and McIntyre?.... Please, McIntyre has shown Mann's data is flawed.....

You don't even need any of the above scientists to know that MBH98 "was not only flawed, but Mann continued trying to assert it was right even though dozens of other research from around the world shows the contrary to the claims of Mann and associates...

Originally posted by melatonin
So, what does an analysis of all proxy reconstrutions to date suggest:

That you can rig the data from such proxies to give the restuls that you want to get... Of course in any computer model if you imply that an increase in CO2 levels means there is an increase in temperature that's exactly what you will see...

But such proxy data is ignoring the dozens of natural factors which have been occurring at the same time these changes have been happening.

Those natural factors have been more than enough in the past to bring Climate Change in even less than a decade, and CO2 level changes have always been an effect and not a cause of Climate Change. That's the only reason CO2 levels have always lagged temperature changes... not to mention the fact that experiments show that even a doubling of CO2 levels would not increase temperatures much...

Originally posted by melatonin
With or without Mann's work we can make the same conclusion, and that is the disingenuous diversion. We have a pile of empirical evidence supporting the inference, different data, improved methods, but for some reason you seem stuck in 1998, it's 2007 you know...

You have a pile of proxy data that if separated most do not even show similar trends, and much of that data is ignoring events which have been proven to be global. Yet such proxy data used by Mann and associates does not show those events, RWP, MWP, LIA.

Mann did not start researching into climate until he decided to get his PhD in Geophysics, he was just a physics major before he decided to change career paths, and the dissertation for his PhD, MBH98, was flawed/rigged, which for some unknown reason the IPCC used Mann's data in their report without verifying the data for years.

Of course Mann decided to continue giving credence to his MBH98 data, since he got his PhD with that data. If he would accept what so many other scientists have accepted, that his MBH98 data is wrong, he would be admitting he got his PhD because of a lie...

[edit on 26-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Osborn and Briffa have had other graphs made before, as in 1998, which shows a totally different result to the 2001 data.

That was because it was an extension of the original study with additional data.

So are still accusing them of dishonesty?

BS, not even the IPCC is using the MBH98 data anymore....although Mann and associates are once again trying to give credence to MBH98 even though that data has been discredited....

That's not why they no longer use that study. For the same reasons that Briffa et al 1998 was superceded by the later study, the same has happened for Mann's 1998 study.

Both show pretty much the ssame result using the same data, you said if two methods show the same results you would doubt those method, hence I called your bluff since MBH98 and RegEm have given pretty much the same result according to Mann et al 2005....

That's because they used the same data. I was referring to the numerous reconstructions from different groups using different sets of multiple proxies with different statistical approaches, if they all produced the same exact result (and I mean exact, not just the same inference), I would question it's integrity. But they don't, they are all different but we can draw an inference from them - that current warming is likely greater than anything for at least 1000 years.

Burger himself has been one of the scientists questioning Mann's data, and Mann responded with Ad Hominem attacks when Burger never used such tactic...and McIntyre?.... Please, McIntyre has shown Mann's data is flawed.....

No, what McIntrye did was to bastardise Mann's data. He removed around 70% of the proxies and fluffed the statistical methodology, so did Burger, and so did Von Storch. If you want to replicate and criticise a study, you need to at least make sure you follow the important aspects of the method of analysis - this is what Wahl & Amman show.

Now I won't claim they were rigging data etc, it was probably an honest mistake, they do happen. However, Von Storch has tried to hide the correction to the Science article that contains this methodological mistake in some obscure journal.

When the data is correctly assessed, whether you use PCA-uncentred, PCA-centred, RegEm - the overall outcome is similar. The NAS report has accepted MBH1998 as a fair crack at one of the first high resolution recontructions.

That you can rig the data from such proxies to give the restuls that you want to get... Of course in any computer model if you imply that an increase in CO2 levels means there is an increase in temperature that's exactly what you will see...

Not when you analyse it correctly.

not to mention the fact that experiments show that even a doubling of CO2 levels would not increase temperatures much...

Yeah, only 2-4.5'C on global predictions. Are you trying to be misleading again? I hope not, especially when you are falsely questioning the integrity of a prominent researcher.

You have a pile of proxy data that if separated most do not even show similar trends, and much of that data is ignoring events which have been proven to be global. Yet such proxy data used by Mann and associates does not show those events, RWP, MWP, LIA.

So what do you want them to do, cook the data to satisfy you?

And it may have been significant on a global scale, but the LIA and MWP periods of climate were not as globally significant as current warming.

Their proxies show exactly what they show. They speak for themselves.

Mann did not start researching into climate until he decided to get his PhD in Geophysics, he was just a physics major before he decided to change career paths, and the dissertation for his PhD, MBH98, was flawed/rigged, which for some unknown reason the IPCC used Mann's data in their report without verifying the data for years.

Of course Mann decided to continue giving credence to his MBH98 data, since he got his PhD with that data. If he would accept what so many other scientists have accepted, that his MBH98 data is wrong, he would be admitting he got his PhD because of a lie...

You can repeat the mantra over and over, but it doesn't make it true. The NAS have no major issues with the work, and neither do independent researchers such as Wahl & Amman and many others. The data is not rigged, it just doesn't show what you and others want it to show.

The main criticism of MBH1998 was that more appropriate statistics could have been used. They are being used now, and the conclusions are no different, heh. The reconstructions still don't show what you want them to.

This is my point, you and others continually carp on about MBH1998, yet we are almost 10 years on and we have almost a dozen newer reconstructions which essentially show the same thing as MBH1998.

Get with the times.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by melatonin]

Melatonin, you can scream, yell and swear all you want. But neither Mann, associates or you are going to change the fact that the current warming is neither "exceptional", nor has it been the warmest for the past 2,000 years, nor 1,000 years.

Your claims are backed only by computer guesstimates, proxies, which are based on the assumption that climatologists understand everything that happens to Earth's atmosphere, and that they understand all the natural factors which have changed the climate on Earth ever since the Earth existed, but that's not true. We still have a lot we don't understand and have to learn.

The fact of the matter is that your proxies are flawed, plain and simple. The geological record which has left an imprint for us to see some of the changes in the past, is a lot more reliable than your computer programs, and the geological record tells us that so far, the current warming is not the hottest it has been for the past 2,000 years, nor for the past 1,000 years.


[edit on 30-5-2007 by Muaddib]

My quote from another thread:

In an article in Fox News today the Admisistrator of NASA, Michael Griffon said in regards to global warming "I am not sure it is fair to say that it (global warming) is a problem we must wrestle with"! Do you suppose that since the head of NASA thinks this is true that we may be able to ignore the problem (along with Al Gore)??

Here is the article from Fox News , hot off the press so to speak! Doesn't it just make you mad, Melatonin, when Admisistrators say things like this?!

He can be pretty much ignored, just another political lackey. I think Jim Hansen sums it up nicely:

“It’s an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement,” Hansen told ABC News. “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

Hansen believes Griffin’s comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

“It’s unbelievable,” said Hansen. “I thought he had been misquoted. It’s so unbelievable.”

www.abcnews.go.com...

By melatomn:

He can be pretty much ignored, just another political lackey

The administrator of NASA can be ignored.... how convenient. Could it be there is considerable disagreement in the scientific community?

Originally posted by plumranch
The administrator of NASA can be ignored.... how convenient. Could it be there is considerable disagreement in the scientific community?

I wouldn't exactly say he is part of the 'scientific community', more a political lackey. He has a few technical articles (e.g. Strategic Defense Initiative), none in any way remotely related to anything relevant to climate science. So why should his personal opinion hold any weight on this issue?

On Wednesday, Mr. Griffin’s agency put out a news release about a paper written by nearly 50 NASA and Columbia University scientists and published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. The paper shows how “human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points.”

Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said Mr. Griffin’s remarks showed he was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 31-5-2007 by melatonin]

By melatonin

I wouldn't exactly say he is part of the 'scientific community', more a political lackey. He has a few technical articles (e.g. Strategic Defense Initiative), none in any way remotely related to anything relevant to climate science. So why should his personal opinion hold any weight on this issue?

Mr. Griffin's personal opinion should hold considerably more weight than say another political lackey named Al Gore ("I invented the internet!") who has zero scientific qualifications IMO, but who is constantly referenced re GW!

Originally posted by plumranch
Mr. Griffin's personal opinion should hold considerably more weight than say another political lackey named Al Gore ("I invented the internet!") who has zero scientific qualifications IMO, but who is constantly referenced re GW!

At least Gore is predominately regurgitating the actual findings in the scientific literature - given that his recent film is not 100% perfect, but generally a fair reflection of scientific opinion.

Right... only melatonin would claim that those scientists, or science staff who disagree with him, Mann and associates "they are government lackeys" or "their opinions don't count"...

Regenmacher is exactly the same way, they both even go to the extremes of claiming that other scientists such as the Russians, or scientists like Dr. Akasofu don't know anything about the climate... This is the main reason I still think melatonin and Regenmacher are one and the same.... To them both it does not matter if those scientists have as much or even more credentials than the scientists they want to believe...

Yo will always get some people who are like that... but at the end "there is no scientific concensus on what are the causes of Global Warming/Climate Change, despite melatonin and some others claming the contrary.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Right... only melatonin would claim that those scientists, or science staff who disagree with him, Mann and associates "they are government lackeys" or "their opinions don't count"...

He is a political appointment. He has no scientific credibility on this issue, and I will ignore him in this regard.

I know you won't, as the validity of his argument is not important to you.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

He is a political appointment. He has no scientific credibility on this issue, and I will ignore him in this regard.

I know you won't, as the validity of his argument is not important to you.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by melatonin]

As you disregard Dr. Akasofu, and as you disregard anyone and everyone who disagrees with you...but you do agree with Al Gore, and you don't disregard him, who is no scientist....

[edit on 1-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
As you disregard Dr. Akasofu, and as you disregard anyone and everyone who disagrees with you...but you do agree with Al Gore, or disregard him, who is no scientist....

Not really, you see, with Dr Akasofu I listened to his statements on the swindle swindle, and decided there and then, that this guy was talking crap. For someone of his standing, I would expect better. Probably best he sticks to Aurora, because he seems to make a fool of himself out of his area of expertise.

I can only imagine the conversation on this thread.
Its an elephant in the room discussion.

How many here have any science degree that disagrees with the results???
probably none....therefore its mainly conjecture and personal opinion as to the disbelievers.

How many here with a science degree think the earth is warming>

Everyone.

Does it really matter why?

Gas, oil are bad medicine either way.

Water Cars are the future
Solar and Wave energy is the future.
all else is toxic and foolish.



Discussion about the cause is also futile.
We need to change either way, and its getting hotter either way.

You can now go back to your elephant discussion...for those with more foresight I will see you over in the science section on water cars and the energy conspiracy.

Most are controlled...to the max...in your thoughts, your habits and your discussions.

sad really.

I broke free a long time ago.
no car, no gas, as little electicity as possible.
I hope to see a future for my children but I doubt it.





[edit on 1-6-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by junglelord
I can only imagine the conversation on this thread.
Its an elephant in the room discussion.

I guess we should just stop discussing and just accept your word then?

Originally posted by junglelord
How many here have any science degree that disagrees with the results???
probably none....therefore its mainly conjecture and personal opinion as to the disbelievers.

Avenger has a degree in chemistry, I have an engineering degree in computers and electronics. They are "science degrees"... My science degree is not in "Earth sciences" such as geophysics, but it is a science degree...

I have been studying Climate Change as a hobby for quite a few years now. I am not an expert, but know enough to "know" that there is no real "scientific concensus" in this topic. There are many scientists who study Climate Change, such as Dr. Akasofu, who say that the current Climate Change has been happening because of "natural factors" and not because of anthropogenic CO2.

Melatonin here himself has accepted the statements of another engineer as "truth", just because that other engineer agrees with melatonin's claims...

Originally posted by junglelord
How many here with a science degree think the earth is warming>

And pray tell us, who is saying there is no Climate Change in the form of warming currently going on?...

I can safely state that obviously you don't have any degrees, much less in science, because if you did, you would know the difference between a "general degree in science", and a degree in an Earth science, or Geoscience.

Even degrees in Earth sciences don't immediately make anyone an expert in Climate Change. Quite a few of the Earth sciences branches have nothing to do with "Climate Change", and having such a degree doesn't make anyone have more knowledge in Climate Change.

Originally posted by junglelord
Does it really matter why?

Gas, oil are bad medicine either way.

Really?... derivatives of oil and byproducts are keeping billions of people alive today.

Do you have any idea how many plastic "pace makers" and other medical equipment which is made of plastic is keeping people alive?...

CO2 itself is not "a pollutant", it is actually needed for life to exist on Earth, and life has existed on Earth with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than at present.

Originally posted by junglelord
Water Cars are the future
Solar and Wave energy is the future.
all else is toxic and foolish.

See, that's where you are wrong... "water cars' emit water vapor, which is a worse GHG than CO2. Water vapor retains more than twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, and it exists in larger quantities than CO2. During warming events, which we are currently undergoing one, GHG levels increase, including water vapor, CO2 (yes CO2 does in crease naturally) and other GHGs.

Originally posted by junglelord
Discussion about the cause is also futile.
We need to change either way, and its getting hotter either way.

It is not futile when there are people like melatonin who want to "have taxes" to try to mitigate Climate Change, but Climate change cannot be "mitigated nor stopped by mankind.

Originally posted by junglelord
You can now go back to your elephant discussion...for those with more foresight I will see you over in the science section on water cars and the energy conspiracy.

I have seen some of your so called "science" threads, and there is not much "science" in most of the claims you make.

Originally posted by junglelord
Most are controlled...to the max...in your thoughts, your habits and your discussions.

sad really.

Knowledge doesn't control you...

Originally posted by junglelord
I broke free a long time ago.
no car, no gas, as little electicity as possible.
I hope to see a future for my children but I doubt it.

Good for you, although i still see you are using a computer, which was built with oil byproducts such as plastic...and you are still using electricity, half of which is being produced by coal.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
See, that's where you are wrong... "water cars' emit water vapor, which is a worse GHG than CO2. Water vapor retains more than twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, and it exists in larger quantities than CO2. During warming events, which we are currently undergoing one, GHG levels increase, including water vapor, CO2 (yes CO2 does in crease naturally) and other GHGs.

Seeing you couldn't keep me out of this post, I thought I'd just correct you here.

Yes, water vapour acts as a GHG, but it is a feedback rather than a forcing. It's residence time in the atmosphere is of the order of weeks. CO2s is of the order of decades (about 100 years I think).

So, which is worse? The GHG that readily accumulates in the atmosphere or that which is relatively quickly taken up into the current equilibrium?

I think I'd rather see water vapour producing cars myself. All in all, they would have a much weaker effect on climate.

and tell us melatonin...what happens at night to much of the heat trapped by those GHGs?...

I will tell you myself, much of that heat is lost at night, unless the night is very cloudy which will make it much, much warmer. Imagine that a cloudy atmosphere causing more heat than clear skies at night even with all the CO2 which some claim is what produces all the warming...

It doesn't matter that CO2 stays longer in the atmosphere, since at night all GHGs lose a great portion of the heat they trapped during the day, and then start trapping heat in the morning as the sun comes up...

Water vapor has a lifetime of about 1 week to 15 days, but it is constantly recycled, and the levels of water vapor increase more than CO2 during warming cycles, such as the one we are currently undergoing.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Water vapor has a lifetime of about 1 week to 15 days, but it is constantly recycled, and the levels of water vapor increase more than CO2 during warming cycles, such as the one we are currently undergoing.

Umm, OK...

...so cars that produce water vapour would be better as the water vapour produced doesn't hang around long but just enters the current equilibrium after a short period. Whereas the CO2 will induce warming which will results in a water vapour positive feedback and this will occur for a very long time.

It also happens to be colder at night, especially when it is a clear sky.

Give me a water vapour producing car anytime.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by melatonin]

Since when adding more water vapor to the atmosphere would put the water vapor levels to "current equilibrium"?...

During warming events water vapor levels increase which cause more warming, which increases more the natural release of GHGs....you know "climate feedback"...

The higher the levels of water wapor, whether anthropogenic or natural, the warmer it will become, the warmer it becomes the more the release of GHGs "naturally" that occurs...

Since water vapor is a worse GHG than CO2 a "water car" would only exchange one GHG for another, and in fact it will release a worse GHG than CO2...

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]