Climate Catastrophe

[DimPrawn]

Climate cycles...

^

This exactly this. Sadly it will probably be our great grandchildren that will be laughing their @rses off at the "Global Warming Catastrophe" era and myopic obsession with plant food, and how thick the 20th Century "scientists" were to believe such junk science.

[pjclarke]

Climate cycles...

Is there a reason you don't give the source of your graphs? Here 'tis: 2,000 Years of Global Temperatures « Roy Spencer, PhD

It’s a short post on Roy Spencer's blog, though Spencer doesn't know the difference between global and Northern Hemisphere. He's citing Craig Loehle's 2008 reconstruction which uses data from just 12 locations to produce a temperature reconstruction. There are numerous problems with the paper, which was never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Here's Loehle plotted alongside other, peer-reviewed reconstructions and modern instrumental temperatures.

[BlasterBates]

This is Loehle's reproduction that you mentioned.



You've spliced graphs together to cleverly hide the decline. "Mike's trick".

That was a bit of scandal, that ended up in quite a number of scientists changing their mind.

[pjclarke]

[/IMG]

You've spliced graphs together to cleverly hide the decline.

You're totally and utterly confused. The 'decline' was the divergence in certain tree ring proxies in recent years, Loehle explicitly did not use tree rings, claiming them to be unreliable. He DID use proxies with resolutions of several decades making them inappropriate for the task, plus in his first attempt, he did not understand the convention that BP (before present) means before 1950, which means his most recent data point is in 1935, not 1980 as he originally claimed, missing out the modern warming. Sub-undergraduate science in other words.

Here's his curve, brought up to date to 2000 using data as supplied by Loehle himself.



And here's the source of the chart Kung-fu Climate

And here's some more discussion https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/

[BlasterBates]

You're totally and utterly confused. The 'decline' was the divergence in certain tree ring proxies in recent years, Loehle explicitly did not use tree rings, claiming them to be unreliable. He DID use proxies with resolutions of several decades making them inappropriate for the task, plus in his first attempt, he did not understand the convention that BP (before present) means before 1950, which means his most recent data point is in 1935, not 1980 as he originally claimed, missing out the modern warming. Sub-undergraduate science in other words.

Here's his curve, brought up to date to 2000 using data as supplied by Loehle himself.



And here's the source of the chart Kung-fu Climate

And here's some more discussion https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/

Thx for that, and clearly showing a climate cycle of around 1000 years and with the current temperatures within 0.2 of the temps thousand years ago.

Not seeing any contradiction to the graph I posted.

Glad we agree...

Lets conclude the debate on that note, and it has been very inteeresting.

[pjclarke]

Thx for that, and clearly showing a climate cycle of around 1000 years and with the current temperatures within 0.2 of the temps thousand years ago.

Not seeing any contradiction to the graph I posted.

Glad we agree...

Lets conclude the debate on that note, and it has been very inteeresting.

Well, its the same graph so of course it does not contradict itself, the instrumental temperatures shown are a 29 year smooth so miss out the last few decades of warming and Loehle's analysis is very, very flawed .... apart from that, yes 100% agreement.

Using data that has significantly worse resolution than that in reconstructions of recent centuries is asking for trouble. The age models tend to have errors in the 100’s of years, and the density of points rarely allows one to reach the modern instrumental period.

For instance, South-Eastern Atlantic ocean sediment data from Farmer et al (2005) (Loehle data series #17) nominally goes up to the present 0 calendar years. This is really 1950 due to the convention that years “Before Present’ (BP) almost invariably begin then (some recent papers use BP(2000) to indicate a different convention, but that is always specifically pointed out). However, the earliest real date for that core is 1053 BP, with a 2-sigma range of 1303 to 946 BP – almost 400 years! That makes this data completely unsuitable for reconstructions of the last 2000 years –

- See more at: RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

[BlasterBates]

Well, its the same graph so of course it does not contradict itself, the instrumental temperatures shown are a 29 year smooth so miss out the last few decades of warming and Loehle's analysis is very, very flawed .... apart from that, yes 100% agreement.



- See more at: RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

and what this shows is that there are two conflicting views on climate.

On the one hand you have the scientists that believe the climate has always varied in cycles and the others that believe the climate is a flat line.

hmm kind of reminds me of the flat earth vs globe debate.

[BrilloPad]

That was a bit of scandal, that ended up in quite a number of modern day priests changing their mind.

FTFY

Did they decide to follow the money?

[pjclarke]

and what this shows is that there are two conflicting views on climate.

What it shows is that the Loehle reconstruction is so flawed as to be worthless. It was put together by a consultant to the timber industry, uses just 12 sites, some with very sparse data, plus the other problems identified in the linked article and was never submitted to a serious journal. By contrast the Past Global Changes (PAGES 2K) project had 78 researchers from 24 countries, who over 7 years produced a study published by Nature Geoscience based on 511 climate archives from around the world.

Here's their result



From Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick | ThinkProgress

[DodgyAgent]

What it shows is that the Loehle reconstruction is so flawed as to be worthless. It was put together by a consultant to the timber industry, uses just 12 sites, some with very sparse data, plus the other problems identified in the linked article and was never submitted to a serious journal. By contrast the Past Global Changes (PAGES 2K) project had 78 researchers from 24 countries, who over 7 years produced a study published by Nature Geoscience based on 511 climate archives from around the world.

Here's their result



From Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick | ThinkProgress

Every single defence you make is "ad hominem"