• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic Sea Ice is declining when it should be growing.

Deuce said:
Exceeds forum post size limit. Go ****ing read it. You wont, because you don't actually care what it says about natural forcings.

Also, the PDF format leads to copy/pastes like this:
Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:
Sure I do but I doubt it credits natural forcings for climate change.
They were on a different mission.
Kinda woulda defeated the reason for the crappy proxy choices that had never been chosen before.
You can still post a link.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Well, we've both thrown out numbers with nothing to actually base them on. Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

So Deuce, would it be accurate to say you never had any intention to post a link to the text in MBH98 that discussed natural forcings influence on their findings?
Should I not be waiting for that?

Speaking of numbers, here's something else that I've been wondering about.
We all know about "Mike's Nature Trick", the benign interpretation of the "trick" being that he appended temperature readings on to his reconstructed data.
We know he did that and we can agree it's because temperature readings are certainly more accurate than reconstructions using crappy proxies.
To avoid the criticism though, you'd have thought MBH would have shown the proxy reconstructions along with temperature readings for the entire hockey blade to show how closely they track.
I think I saw somewhere that someone else did that and found that the proxies didn't really track the temp readings in that the temp readings were higher or lower than the proxy reconstructions.

Not surprising, right?

So...the question is, wouldn't you have to conclude that proxies used during, for example, the MWP & LIA periods (which we agree occurred) would also have poorly tracked actual temperature swings?
IOW, if there were measurement instruments then they would have likely shown higher & lower temperature variations than the proxies, not unlike what they did during the hockey blade years.

Anyway, I'm still interested in seeing that link. Will you post it?
 
bubbabgone said:
So Deuce, would it be accurate to say you never had any intention to post a link to the text in MBH98 that discussed natural forcings influence on their findings?
Should I not be waiting for that?
Click to expand...
I posted a link to MBH98, and I told you what page to look on. I pasted some text, you saw how that turns out. Exactly what else do you want? Do you want me to manually edit out every line break? You're too lazy to click a link and scroll down, but want me to spend 20 minutes fixing text errors for you.

Speaking of numbers, here's something else that I've been wondering about.
We all know about "Mike's Nature Trick", the benign interpretation of the "trick" being that he appended temperature readings on to his reconstructed data.
We know he did that and we can agree it's because temperature readings are certainly more accurate than reconstructions using crappy proxies.
To avoid the criticism though, you'd have thought MBH would have shown the proxy reconstructions along with temperature readings for the entire hockey blade to show how closely they track.
I think I saw somewhere that someone else did that and found that the proxies didn't really track the temp readings in that the temp readings were higher or lower than the proxy reconstructions.
Click to expand...
It was actually just one subset of data during a specific time period, but yes. One set of trees diverged after 1980, IIRC.
So...the question is, wouldn't you have to conclude that proxies used during, for example, the MWP & LIA periods (which we agree occurred) would also have poorly tracked actual temperature swings?
Click to expand...
That would be jumping to conclusions. The tree ring proxies track just fine prior to 1980, both with instrumental records and other proxies. And most of the tree rings track just fine after 1980 as well, it's just the high northern latitudes where the divergence problem happens.

IOW, if there were measurement instruments then they would have likely shown higher & lower temperature variations than the proxies, not unlike what they did during the hockey blade years.
Click to expand...
Speculation.


Anyway, I'm still interested in seeing that link. Will you post it?
Click to expand...
MBH98? I already posted it. Here it is again.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
Page 6 of the PDF. (marked 784)

You want this again too?
The
corr
elation
statistics
indicate
hig
hly
significant
detection
of
solar
irradianc
e
forcing
in
the
NH
series
during
the
‘Maunder
Minimum
’
of
solar
activ
it
y
fr
om
the
mid-seventeenth
to
early
eig
hteenth
c
entur
y
which
c
orresponds
to
an
especially
c
old
period.
In
turn,
the
steady
increase
in
solar
irradiance
from
the
early
nineteenth
c
entur
y
thr
oug
h
to
the
mid-twentieth
c
entur
y

c
oincides
w
ith
the
general
warming
ov
er
the
period,
showing
peak
corr
elation
during
the
mid-nineteenth
centur
y
.
The
regr
ession
against
solar
irradiance
indicates
a
sensitiv
it
y
to
changes
in
the
‘sola
r
c
onstant’
of
,
0.1
K
W
−
1
m
−
2
,
which
is
consistent
w
ith
r
ecent
model-
based
studies
42
.
Green
house
for
cing
,
on
the
other
hand,
show
s
no
sign
of
significance
until
a
large
positive
c
orrelation
sharply
emerges
as
the
mo
v
ing
w
indow
slides
into
the
twentieth
c
entur
y
.
The
par
tial
c
orrelation
w
ith
CO
2
indeed
dominates
ov
er
that
of
solar
irradiance
for
the
most
rec
ent
200-year
inter
val,
as
increa
ses
in
temperature
and
CO
2
simultaneously
acc
elerate
thr
oug
h
to
the
end
of
1995,
while
solar
irradiance
levels
off
after
the
mid-twentieth
centur
y
.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
I posted a link to MBH98, and I told you what page to look on. I pasted some text, you saw how that turns out. Exactly what else do you want? Do you want me to manually edit out every line break? You're too lazy to click a link and scroll down, but want me to spend 20 minutes fixing text errors for you.
Click to expand...

I thought I responded to this already but I see I didn't.
You're right and I apologize for missing that link you posted very early on.
I looked at it and my expectations were rewarded.
They mentioned solar influences in earlier periods so they could dismiss them during the hockey blade era and blame the blade on the dominance of CO2.
Somewhat clever and certainly motivated, those alarmists.


It was actually just one subset of data during a specific time period, but yes. One set of trees diverged after 1980, IIRC.

That would be jumping to conclusions. The tree ring proxies track just fine prior to 1980, both with instrumental records and other proxies. And most of the tree rings track just fine after 1980 as well, it's just the high northern latitudes where the divergence problem happens.


Speculation.
Click to expand...

Tree rings proxies do not track with temperature readings. (Especially the ones MBH used.) They can't. They simply are not capable of doing that given their inherent limitations.
And those differences between proxy reconstructions and temperature measurements is far more than speculation but it is a benign explanation for the disappearance of the MWP & LIA.
Another explanation is not very pretty but given what we've seen was done and by whom since then and revealed by others since 98 and 99, the ugly explanation sure looks like the reasonable explanation.
The fact remains, MBH proxies missed warm and cool periods.



MBH98? I already posted it. Here it is again.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
Page 6 of the PDF. (marked 784)

You want this again too?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
.....
 
Deuce said:
MBH98? I already posted it. Here it is again.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
Page 6 of the PDF. (marked 784)

You want this again too?
Click to expand...

You love being useless, don't you?

Here is the Nature link, and the supplimental information:

Access : Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries : Nature

data-best

This is interesting at the last page of the article:


It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick)
that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary
Information published with this Article contained several errors.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom