Posted on 09/06/2008 6:02:30 AM PDT by xcamel
I've made histograms of reported proxy correlations for 1850-1995, as reported in r1209.xls (which contains results for all proxies, unlike SI SD1.xls which withholds results below a benchmark.) The breaks are in 0.1 intervals. On the left is the histogram before screening; on the right, a histogram of the 484 proxies after screening.
(Excerpt) Read more at climateaudit.org ...
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
“...This particular operation looks more and more like ex-post cherry picking from red noise (along the lines of discussions long ago by both David Stockwell and myself.) This is a low-tech way of generating hockey sticks, not quite as glamorous as Mannian principal components, but it “works” almost as well.
It’s pretty discouraging that Gerry North and Gaby Hegerl were unequal to the very slight challenge of identifying this problem in review. ...”
That’s gonna leave a mark!
In after camel .... 8<(
(How the heck am I supposed to be able to ping you first when you posted the darn thing yourself?)
Maybe because I posted it?
To conclude that mans' input into the universe is THE DOMINANT FACTOR in Global Warming is an absurdity.
If it were the case, the warming would be totally stagnant or constantly increasing but it is not.
Cleaner air, new sources of energy...of course....But at the end of the day...we're simply not going to change the weather by anything we do.
Footnote...Like windmills are new!!!
The first proposal in our area, in a "snob" area (like the Kennedy's)said NO...it's ugly. These folks would have made lousy pioneers.
I think most of the data is real, but the results are fake because the inconvenient data was tossed.
I ask the GW devotees to answer this:
How can 320 out of 1,000,000 air molecules have more effect on heating than that big ball of hell we orbit.
Dumb looks, silence....
As it turns out the sun's effect is more subtle than simply getting cooler or warmer.The sun is a variable star, but it's variation in thermal output doesn't seem to be the dominate effect, (because it's so small percentage wise), on earth's climate. Variations in the magnetic field seem to have more effect. Sunspots are a "proxy" for that field.
The 1645-1715 period is know as the Maunder Minimum. In terms of the earth's climate, the same period was known as the "Little Ice Age". (Actually the little ice age started a little later, and ended quite a bit later, it was still somewhat evident during the American Revolution.)
Not to be too alarmist, but..
Today's image of the sun. The sun is blank--no sunspots.
However we are at one of the normal minimums in the sunspot cycle...but it's getting a little long in the tooth as those things go.
We are also somewhat, just a few thousand years, overdue for a Big Ice Age.
The more recent data (time runs from right to left in this graph) is "fuzzier" because there are more data points for the more recent periods, not because the temperature is varying more.
Thank you for a very well thought out explanation.
I am constantly amazed by the depth of knowledge and expertise FReepers possess on most any topic.
Free Republic is a learning experience. Have a great weekend!
:-)
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.
