Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: New paper makes a hockey sticky wicket of Mann et al 98/99/08 (RE:Global Warming Hoax )
Watts Up With That? ^ | August 14, 2010 | Anthony Watts

Posted on 08/15/2010 11:10:08 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last
This to me seems to be a statement to FOCUS on:

The real proxies are less predictive than our ”fake” data.


1 posted on 08/15/2010 11:10:13 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Hee hee! And Mann will prolly still stand behind his stupid hockey stick! Lol!


2 posted on 08/15/2010 11:18:16 AM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

And I may be mistaken, but they are still ignoring the heat island affect and changing environment around many of our surface temperature reading stations. Or how many in colder climates have gone off line.


3 posted on 08/15/2010 11:22:11 AM PDT by RobRoy (The US Today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; SunkenCiv; Paul Pierett; neverdem; I got the rope; ...
Major pingaling!
4 posted on 08/15/2010 11:25:38 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
WHAT?!

Man-made global warming is a HOAX?!

Bu, bu, but it's HOT today!

Oh,.... it's summer and liberals lie..nevermind!

5 posted on 08/15/2010 11:28:34 AM PDT by PROCON (Independence Day + 42, Let's see how long it lasts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
And there is this thread...in regard to the models:

Re: predictions of Global Warming....The models are wrong (but only by 400%)

6 posted on 08/15/2010 11:31:48 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; markomalley; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; Nipfan; rdl6989; Tunehead54; Clive; ...
Excellent ! Thanx Ernest_at_the_Beach !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

7 posted on 08/15/2010 11:38:40 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("Release the Second Chakra !!!!!!!" ... Al Gore, 10/24/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I was looking at the temperature predictors in my yard, Oak, Birch, Elm, and Maple. The leaves are turning on the Birch and Elm, getting lighter on the rest. Going to be a cold one.


8 posted on 08/15/2010 11:45:51 AM PDT by Little Bill (`-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Remember the “Hide the Decline”...Youtube production from the Group...”Minnesotans for Global Warming”

Going thru the comments...found this:

*****************************************

Aldi says:

August 14, 2010 at 6:43 pm

“Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample.”

Hide the decline? The recorded data has been *massaged*, most climate scientists are riding the gravy train(engaged in fraud).

******************************************************

Now comparing the first graph ....of Mann...notice that the LEFT hand side is somewhat level.....

Now look at the second Graph...and the LEFT hand side starts at a much higher level...and declines to the right before the uptick....

9 posted on 08/15/2010 11:53:16 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
When fake data is better than the real stuff there's a strong suggestion there that the REAL is, itself, FAKE!

The statisticians probably worked long and hard on that one ~ two minutes anyway ~ and snorted.

10 posted on 08/15/2010 11:56:54 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the Comments at WUWT:

****************************************

Jason says:

August 14, 2010 at 6:48 pm

Nick said:

“But they give a backcast anyway?”

They give a backcast which shows that the temperature a thousand years ago could have been much warmer or much cooler than the present day. This is perfectly consistent with their deep reservations about the predictive ability of the proxy data.

Its worth noting that their Bayesian reconstruction calculates an 80% probability that the most recent decade is the warmest in the past 1000 years. That is not exactly a complete repudiation of the hockey stick. Then again, they didn’t even try to address the data quality issues in Mann ’08. Thir reconstruction includes the tree rings and Tiljander.

I would be interested to see what happens when that data is removed.


11 posted on 08/15/2010 12:09:38 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
From the comments:

*****************************************************

Matt Hardy says:

August 14, 2010 at 6:55 pm

“Furthermore, it implies that up to half of the already short instrumental record is corrupted by anthropogenic factors, thus undermining paleoclimatology as a statistical enterprise.”

OUCH!

12 posted on 08/15/2010 12:11:37 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
More from the comments:

*******************************************************************

Wind Rider says:

August 14, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Best line of the excerpts, it bears repeating.

Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.

i.e. they’ve done it wrong, and then oversold it.

Bravo.

13 posted on 08/15/2010 12:14:14 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Uh oh! “ a bayesian backcast method.”????
I’m clueless! Can someone explain?


14 posted on 08/15/2010 12:15:41 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The consensus of scientists who make money on global warming all agree that global warming is real. The debate is over. Move along now. There is nothing to see.


15 posted on 08/15/2010 12:17:51 PM PDT by kennedy (I am a Kennedy. Where do I go to claim my Senate seat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Hide the Decline YouTube video

Hide the Decline II - The Sequel

16 posted on 08/15/2010 12:24:23 PM PDT by CedarDave (Ten-year anniversary - proudly Freeping since Aug 17, 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

That one was really slick ~ someone will have to ‘splain that one to Dr. Mann ~ s l o w l y !


17 posted on 08/15/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Recalling the "tree rings" when the researchers went back to the "uplands" to gather more recent samples they found that the local climate had so deteriorated that ALL the trees had died and been washed to the bottom of "the hill" (actually a mountain several thousand feet in elevation).

This forced them to select new samples from trees living at the bottom of "the hill" (a totally different micro climate).

Mann and company presented these tree rings as coming from the same place ~

The "historic chain of custody technique" applied to the Bayesian "backcast" reconstruction demonstrates the tree ring samples were NOT from the same place.

18 posted on 08/15/2010 12:44:56 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
I was trying to understand that...found some references that might indicated a direction....First backcasting as oppisite to forecasting....and then...from Wikipedia...:

Bayesian inference

****************************EXCERPT*****************************

Bayesian inference is statistical inference in which evidence or observations are used to update or to newly infer the probability that a hypothesis may be true. The name "Bayesian" comes from the use of Bayes' theorem in the updating process. Bayes' theorem was introduced by Reverend Thomas Bayes.[1]

19 posted on 08/15/2010 12:47:42 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Thanks,...another revelation.


20 posted on 08/15/2010 12:53:43 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson