The tree ring data diverges from the actual measured with a thermometer temperature after 1960 or so. Between the the start of temperature measurement (around 1850) and the '60s the tree ring data matches the measured temperature.
Of course you're right - maybe there is a divergence between the tree ring data and the real temperatures before 1850, but the older tree ring data seems to match other proxies.
I feel the proper way to have dealt with it would have been to include the data and then data that contradicts it.
In fact, that is what was done. You think a scientist would miss the chance of writing a paper? Briffa et al, Nature, 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Hum the conspirators publicly revealed their dodgy data over 10 years before the valiant hackers smuggled it out of their evil lair.
Oh, and of course the big carrot is the Nobels... but seriously, after them picking Gore and Obama, I have little faith in them for anything anymore.
So you don't know that the Nobel peace prize is awarded a commission appointed by the Norwegian parliament but the Nobel prizes for science are awarded by committees appointed by the Royal Swedish Academy of science?
I.E. the peace prize is awarded by politicians and the science prizes are awarded by scientists.
Or have you just decided that since all the Americans who win the peace prize seem to be Democrats you'll boycott anything with Nobel in the name?
No more Dynamite for me, it's good old Republican C4 or nothing!
This is total shit. It's got nothing to do with "proving a negative". You are making a claim: "Global temperatures are stable". Prove that.
Or have you moved on to stage 2? - "Global temperatures are rising due to natural causes". Prove that then.
Or are you on stage 3? - "Global temperatures are rising due to man, but it will have beneficial effects". Prove that then.
Or are you on stage 4? - "Global temperatures are rising due to man, and will cause global catastrophe but all proposed solutions will fail". Prove that then.
Plenty of scientists are making refutations of AGW every day,
[ citation needed ]
and after the East Anglia debacle, we all know what happens to dissenters.
You mean that despite everyone knowing their so called refutation is crap they get it printed in the IPCC report. You do know that's what happened, don't you? Or like most deniers are you still trapped in the echo chamber?
Phil Jones: I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.
There was a big stink when the hole in the Ozone Layer over Antarctica was huge, but nobody said a word when it shrunk back up and nearly disappeard. I'll bet most people think it's just getting bigger.
A big problem with climate change science is there is a lot of money to be made by denying global warming is a man made fact. Smaller facts like the average temperature of Siberia was 160 degrees F 60 million years ago are taken into consideration by the climatologists, but deniers claim they are over looked. In the past this planet has been hotter then it is now and cooler then it is now, but has never seen as rapid an increase in temperature with no cause other than an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Now I'm not a PhD, hell I didn't even finish college, but common sense, gut instinct and 41 years in the school of life tells me something smells bad about the whole AGW agenda.
Well that's it then, might as well give up. The infallible oracle of "gut instinct" has spoken.
Slashdot readers marked that "Insightful". This place gets to be a bigger joke with every day that passes.
If you want the "raw" numbers don't ask the CRU, ask the people who gave the numbers to the CRU. The CRU may have destroyed their copies of some of the data, but since they aren't the source of the data who cares?
[I] believe global warming is probably a systemic change maybe/maybe not tipped by human activity, and that in any case it's extremely unlikely that it's driven by CO2, or limitable in any meaningful way without genocidal levels of population reduction.
"it's extremely unlikely that it's driven by CO2" Why? got some kind of evidence for that extraordinary claim?
"it's extremely unlikely that it's [...] limitable in any meaningful way", or to put it another way you just like believing things that are convenient for you.
Heck, a single aircraft carrier in the region, launching planes to fly patrols which would respond to distress calls, would go a long way to securing the region.
Wah? What you going to do, bomb the ship the pirates have captured? This is a job for marines in helicopters and small boats, not flyboys.
Slashdot Mirror
This will be boring, but...
So what is your evidence for the little Ice Age? For it's global scale?
Ice fairs on the Thames?
Plotting to silence dissenters?
You mean the dissenting papers that were published in the chapter of the IPCC report edited by the so called plotters.
Don't believe all you read on the anti-AGW quote mining sites.
Come outside and say that, fuckface.
Interesting. Looks like valadj is going to do some adjustment of the values.
Pity it isn't used in the snippet you posted.
Maybe you don't know how to read IDL?
Except that its not clear that this was a global event, or even that it actually happened!
(Nice to have a change from the MWP though).
The tree ring data diverges from the actual measured with a thermometer temperature after 1960 or so. Between the the start of temperature measurement (around 1850) and the '60s the tree ring data matches the measured temperature.
Of course you're right - maybe there is a divergence between the tree ring data and the real temperatures before 1850, but the older tree ring data seems to match other proxies.
In fact, that is what was done. You think a scientist would miss the chance of writing a paper? Briffa et al, Nature, 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Hum the conspirators publicly revealed their dodgy data over 10 years before the valiant hackers smuggled it out of their evil lair.
Thank you AC, you have just made my day.
Lucas Kovar, a man who now knows what science is about.
So you don't know that the Nobel peace prize is awarded a commission appointed by the Norwegian parliament but the Nobel prizes for science are awarded by committees appointed by the Royal Swedish Academy of science?
I.E. the peace prize is awarded by politicians and the science prizes are awarded by scientists.
Or have you just decided that since all the Americans who win the peace prize seem to be Democrats you'll boycott anything with Nobel in the name?
No more Dynamite for me, it's good old Republican C4 or nothing!
You are a dishonest liar.
If you know all these "points" you know why they are all irrelevant.
Troll.
This is total shit. It's got nothing to do with "proving a negative". You are making a claim: "Global temperatures are stable". Prove that.
Or have you moved on to stage 2? - "Global temperatures are rising due to natural causes". Prove that then.
Or are you on stage 3? - "Global temperatures are rising due to man, but it will have beneficial effects". Prove that then.
Or are you on stage 4? - "Global temperatures are rising due to man, and will cause global catastrophe but all proposed solutions will fail". Prove that then.
So, which is it?
It's painfully obvious that nobody in the management of the automotive industry knows anything about cars.
[ citation needed ]
You mean that despite everyone knowing their so called refutation is crap they get it printed in the IPCC report. You do know that's what happened, don't you? Or like most deniers are you still trapped in the echo chamber?
But they were included, and later debunked.
Surely. Yup, let's jump to conclusions before doing the science. Or even a fucking google search for example.
Possibly with reason? "Image of the largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded (September 2006)" and "It is estimated that by 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole will have reduced by 1 million km out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer is not expected to occur until the year 2050 or later."
A big problem with climate change science is there is a lot of money to be made by denying global warming is a man made fact. Smaller facts like the average temperature of Siberia was 160 degrees F 60 million years ago are taken into consideration by the climatologists, but deniers claim they are over looked. In the past this planet has been hotter then it is now and cooler then it is now, but has never seen as rapid an increase in temperature with no cause other than an increase in the greenhouse effect.
Fixed that for ya.
HTH. HAND.
There was this guy...
For fucks sake, what are you talking about? You sound like some drunk in the pub.
Well that's it then, might as well give up. The infallible oracle of "gut instinct" has spoken.
Slashdot readers marked that "Insightful". This place gets to be a bigger joke with every day that passes.
If you want the "raw" numbers don't ask the CRU, ask the people who gave the numbers to the CRU. The CRU may have destroyed their copies of some of the data, but since they aren't the source of the data who cares?
ITYM "moot". HTH. HAND.
So, your theory is that GW is caused by body heat. (Which really makes it AGW, doesn't it?)
Ran any numbers on that?
No, you're just an idiot.
"it's extremely unlikely that it's driven by CO2" Why? got some kind of evidence for that extraordinary claim?
"it's extremely unlikely that it's [...] limitable in any meaningful way", or to put it another way you just like believing things that are convenient for you.
That's UEA to you, sonny. (UEA CHE/CMP 1977 - 1980).
No, it's not the Illuminati, ESR thinks it's the KGB.
They do. Maybe you'd better check your news sources.
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Frenchman dies in Somalia rescue 11 Apr 2009 ... 13 Nov 2009
French frigate seizes Somali pirates | World | Reuters 15 Apr 2009
French military fends off Somalia pirate attack - CNN.com 13 Oct 2009
French Navy Captures 12 Pirates Off Somalia - International News
Wah? What you going to do, bomb the ship the pirates have captured? This is a job for marines in helicopters and small boats, not flyboys.
So France doesn't have a modern navy?