Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

As shown by both Stickwell et. al. and Burger et. al. and the FOIAed e-mails from thr Griges et. al. rejection any statistical reconstruction using proxies will tend towards producing hockey sticks because we aed calibrating on one period at the end if the series and the indicator is onky doing one thing during the calibration period. While the various tricks used to enhance the hockey stick do have a significant effect fundamentally all statistical reconstructions are flawed. There simply isnt enough temperature data over a ling enough period for statistical reconstructions to ever be reliable.

I know you dobt understand any of yhis but its actually pretty simple.

 

You do not even understand what "accurate" means, in the context of your post. And on top of that, your characterization of how well Mann's work has held up, is incorrect.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014...global_warming_hockey_stick_doubles_down.html

 

Unless deniers want to claim the temperature was warmer in the past, like the Medieval Warm Period, then suddenly proxy data and direct instrument data mesh perfectly.

 

Since some proxy records show it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period, then are you saying you agree with that?

Actually, Mann's hide the decline is where he grafted instrument temperature data earlier to hide where the proxy data and instrument data deviated substantially.

 

Ahem the proxies that shiw a strong midieval warm period are not statistical proxies they are scientific proxies Ice cores for example have a solid scientific foundation. The ratio of light and heavy oxygen to temperature is scientifically verified.

Statistical proxies are things like tree rings. Where we dont know how temperature effects the growth of the tree core so we pass it through a statistical meat grinder that is nothing more than a correlative model.

In what world do you think you can hang with me in these arguments? Im better than you. That should be obvious by now.

 

The link I used on post #2 is to a graph which has been taken off line. Here is a related graph with an active link. I'd appreciate it if a moderator would insert the active link in post #2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011.jpg

 

Referring to (un)Skeptical Science is like believing everything you hear on MSNBC or FOX.

 

A perfect example of a deniers complete lack of understanding!!!

I am clearly saying deniers are HYPOCRITES!!!

 

Seriously you dont know the first thing you are talking about. If you cant understand the difference between a scientific proxy like oxygen isotope ratios and statistical proxies like width of a tree ring than you are hopeless.

- - - Updated - - -

Reanalysis is not a data. Its model output. We do not have accurate data for ocean heat content prior to 2003.

 

It should give you a clue to be critical those like Mann who cherry pick proxy data then torture it to show a hockey stick. Proxies have their place in science but have been used to scare people like you.

 

So we're equals!