Posted on 12/13/2009 8:07:23 AM PST by Titus-Maximus
Next time you’re in an argument with someone who is totally convinced that global warming is a) man made and b) unprecedented, why not show them this brief video from Watts Up With That? Game over! (Hat tip: Plato Says)
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
This video comes from the "watts up with that" story.
Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data
Which is excerpting from:
"..the Foresight Institute, J. Storrs Hall had some interesting graphs made from NOAA ice core data (Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.)
Where the blogger says:
Except that, the actual NOAA dataset definition clearly says:
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
and
World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: PLEASE CITE ORIGINAL REFERENCE WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
NAME OF DATA SET: GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data
LAST UPDATE: 3/2004 (Original Receipt by WDC Paleo)
CONTRIBUTOR: Richard Alley, Pennsylvania State University.
IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2004-013
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Alley, R.B.. 2004.
GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series #2004-013.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
ORIGINAL REFERENCE: Alley, R.B. 2000.
The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.
Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:
Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow. 1997. Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet
elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition.
Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26383-26396.
GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Greenland
PERIOD OF RECORD: 49 KYrBP - present
DESCRIPTION:
Temperature interpretation based on stable isotope analysis, and
ice accumulation data, from the GISP2 ice core, central Greenland.
Data are smoothed from original measurements published by
Cuffey and Clow (1997), as presented in Figure 1 of Alley (2000).
ABSTRACT:
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of
many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those
associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here.
Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1%
errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas 11,500 years before
present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation
rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty.
Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes
with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation.
Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations
using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios.
Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local,
regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much
of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with
Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes
have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these
paleoclimatic changes.
DATA:
1. Temperature in central Greenland
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
0.10713 -31.622
0.113149 -31.6026
.
.
.
Which is a huge amount of posting about going back to a very simple and obvious observation: the data here are indeed merely another proxy model for past temperature estimates, based on various assumptions and ice composition models, and are obviously "massaged" in multiple ways in order to get to a dataset which has Degrees C vs x-thousand years ago.
I mean, none of this detracts from the games played by Mann and the CRU from their end, but can we at least refrain from doing the same oversimplification that Monckton berates the Greenpeace Warmists for doing? What this blog post is, as striking and clear as it seems, is an "appeal to authority" to the "Foresight Institute" based on data, massaged and derived from one particular set of raw data in one geographic location, using several specific numerical filters and smoothing and scaling.
And this dataset stops "0.0951409" thousand years ago (beginning of the 20th century). And part of what the IPCC "tricks" involved extrpolating conclusions by grafting on current temperatures to these proxy temperatures----the same type thing we're doing here in the reverse!
The scaling from ice properties of trapped gas concentration etc etc is an entire developing discipline of earth science. We can obviously say that the Medieval Warm Period was not caused by factories, but we also shouldn't jump on the bandwagon of assigning tenths of a degree C to the difference between vineyards in England and the cold front in Iowa next week.
I'm a total AGW skeptic, heretic. But I see us rapidly tilting over to the gorezaloonies methods and madness if we're not careful here and place the same skepticism on reports that seem to support our instincts as well as those that oppose.
Now after reading a little more on paleothermometer methods, I'm wondering how the CO2 derived values would be automatically mathematically related to the derived values of the temperatures, if, in fact, both derived values are calculated from the same ice-core/tree-ring dataset assumptions.
That is why I think the video I posted is good use to fight GW.
Because whether you dealing with a very precise person who pulls out charts, graphs, whatever, to prove his case whether for or against GW; the video shows how ridiculous the conclusions derived from bad data are.
It also demonstrate show often the headline “Scientists have discovered”, “scientists say”, “science shows” has been misused to promote something that is not science at all.
As the Marxists themselves say, the most potent weapon is ridicule.
Actually, now, the connection between sunspots and climate has been made clear: Svensmark has given empirical support for the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation. More sunspots mean more solar magnetism, which in turn means less cosmic rays hitting earth, and thus less cloud formation. Cloud formation has a cooling effect. Fewer sunspots, more clouds, cooler climate.
Observations during the present minimum in sunspot activity have found an increase in noctilucent clouds correlating with the current (relative) lack of sunspots and the downtrend in temperatures since 1998.
Actually, despite my dubious take on *any* computer modeling of chaotic dyanmical systems, I’d like to see what a general circulation model that includes Svensmark’s effect, the correct negative feedback effects from oceans as per Lindzen, and the Pacific Decadal Cycle, and uses Miskolczi’s realistics boundary conditions for the solutions to the PDE’s governing the greenhouse effect (to name just the four most obvious omissions/errors from the AGW-supporting general circulation models) would predict about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
I suspect it would show they haven’t done much so far (Svensmark thinks 85% of the warming from the 1850 to 1998 is due to his effect alone), and that either catastrophic greenhouse warming is flat out impossible (Miskolczi’s model predicts this) or catastrophic global warming due to human activities would require a *massive increase* in greenhouse gas emissions from present levels outstripping what would be expected even if the whole world reached US/Japanese levels of development run entirely on fossil fuel and biomass energy.
I'm a total AGW skeptic, heretic. But I see us rapidly tilting over to the gorezaloonies methods and madness if we're not careful here and place the same skepticism on reports that seem to support our instincts as well as those that oppose.
You'll notice that Monckton says that he does believe in "Global Warming". He says he does not dispute that the climate is warming up. At least that's what he makes sure that his audience knows. He is not in disagreement with those who say there is Global Warming.
What he is disagreeing with is that it is "Anthropogenic Global Warming" -- or -- man-caused, that is.
So, he says the earth's climate is definitely warming up, but mankind is not the cause of it.
I thought that people should be aware of that point...
And of course you will note that I specifically refer to “AGW,” not “GW” in my post.
Excellent!
“AntiScience Global Wackanoodles”
What I would like to see is a comparison of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun with this decrease in temps since 1998 (when a cooling period is supposed to have begun).
It’s been studied that the Earth’s orbit moves closer to the Sun and farther from the Sun, in a pattern. If this is true, how much affect does this orbit pattern have on the warming and cooling periods of the Earth ..??
In a great DVD, “The Priviledged Planet”, it shows that the earth is in a very protected orbit, and that if our orbit was more-or-less 10 degrees from where we are now, we would either be frozen (like Mars) because we would be too far from the Sun, or burning up because we would be too close.
Anybody ..??
Ambiguously Generated Warnings
My local lib rag had a front-page article this morning that said the science of AGW is still strong despite the recent uproar concerning climate-gate. They still mostly quoted the fraudsters leaving the impression that virtually all scientists believe the fraud. Only near the end of the article did they quote Steven McIntyre one of the skeptics smeared in the e-mails. Even then they never quoted any remarks critical of AGW.
Which brings up another point to bring up "next time you're in an argument."
The Greenpeace Warmist here keeps telling Monckton that she reads all the papers, etc...(as does Monckton.) The question to ask is, "which Scientific Symposia or Societies are you subscribed to to read the literature?"
Fact is, very little of this stuff is available to the general public for free. Even the most informed folks would be getting third- or fourth-hand distillations.
Right, I saw that... I just thought that people should be aware of the fact that Monckton did not deny Global Warming and that he actually does agree with it. So, when others don’t make that distinction, or don’t understand it, they may get confused and/or not believe those who say they have evidence for Global Warming...
I believe in Global Warming and Global Cooling, as we’ve had both going on, on this earth, at various times. If it’s “Global Warming” right now, then I won’t be concerned that it’s warming up either, like Lord Monckton is not... :-)
LOL!
Ole` ole`
The enviro-fascists have some explaining to do. They will probably explain with guns.
Thanks!
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.