Comments on: Data Splices

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:25:35 +0000

I know that Ice core sampling is one of the means of determining temperature estimates and I can understand how this is accomplished but I do have my doubts about determining the atmospheric composition, in particular the CO2 levels. My doubt revolves around the fact that CO2 is absorbed by water (increased acidity in the antarctic ocean surface) so, is it possible that some of the CO2 is absorbed into the snow and or Ice during the formation of these bubbles for which the atmospheric composition has been determined. If so is it estimated by the climatologists as to the absorption rate as this rate can be increased or decreased with the increase or decrease in surface temperature at the time the snow fell. I’m just saying?

By: Junior Samples

Junior Samples — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:30:56 +0000

I find it unfortunate that both the climate skeptic blogs and the global warming blogs are full of comments from cheerleaders. Is there any real debate going on between these two camps?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:54:12 +0000

j ferguson-That’s a good question. And the answer is…Well, many proxies seem to just end before the most recent decades! And the ones that don’t? They show…”divergence”.

By: j ferguson

j ferguson — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:45:22 +0000

The thing about splicing that perplexes me is that if the proxies are effective reporters for any period, why not all periods in which they can be found and measured? Do the proxies show hockey stick blades?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:37:18 +0000

That’s one hairy hockey stick. Needs a shave. Hm…You know, Gavin and Michael aren’t exactly the most clean shaven guys. Maybe they thought that hurricane Goatee would look cool? They let it get out of control though, and Gandalf and Santa will be jealous.

By: Another Pete S.

Another Pete S. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:59:59 +0000

Attention is paid to what makes headlines. One that reads, “Climate Scientists Find No Reason to Panic!” might work once, but continued non-news doesn’t sell. CRISIS!! is all that matters to the media, right, wrong, or manufactured.

We don’t hear about the absolute fraud that Mann is. We have to dig for such information. The media and political class will do what is necessary to keep the dead body breathing.

But the Internet is something they don’t yet control, and the truth is getting out there. Also, the climate isn’t moving in the direction that Mann, Hansen, and the Goracle have predicted.

On the other hand, the magnetic activity of the sun seems to be a significant factor in climate. I’m anxious to see further results from Svensmark. The research by he and his colleagues could finally pull the plug on the corpse of Anthropogenic climate change.

By: Mark McKinnon

Mark McKinnon — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:26:04 +0000

The infamous Mann et al Hockey Stick controversy has eerie parallels to “How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps”. Follow the link to an amazing, hilarious and somewhat disturbing article.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/null

By: Lionell Griffith

Lionell Griffith — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:21:00 +0000

Billy,

Each proxy is local, confounded, noisy, and approximate. At best, its an indicator of a mushy average loosely tied to time and not a specific, hard, pinned in exact time, value. This is true no matter what proxy is used for any parameter you wish to consider.

The statement “more frequently during the last decade than at any point in at least 1,000 years” cannot validly be made without specific, hard, pinned in exact time data. We have, at best, high quality data for little more than 10% of that period. Most of the rest is hit or miss anecdotal and mushy proxy data.

The most one can validly say is the mushy average from proxy appears to be or not be inside the variability of the current specific, hard, pinned in exact time data. Since the proxy result for storm frequency currently appears to be well inside the variability of current data, it would be exceedingly risky to act upon the presumption that it is not.

The tell is “no data has been found that….” Was the data looked for? Did they look in the right place? Did they look in the right way? Did they pay attention when they were looking? Did they use all the data in full context? Will they give you the details of time, place, method, raw data, and intermediate results? In almost all cases for the AGW (aka climate change) argument the answer to ALL these questions is from a qualified maybe to an absolutely not. Add to that the logical fallacies of Argument by Consensus, Argument from Authority, Argument from Ignorance, Begging the Question, Argument Ad Hominem, and the argument collapses into a very ugly pile of garbage. It is irrelevant to the AGWer that his argument is right, wrong, valid, or invalid. What is important is that you believe it is both right and valid and will follow him into the abyss.

My suggestion is to look harder, think independently, and make your own choices in the matter. You are fully capable of knowing what is best for you. It simply takes enough time, effort, thought, logic, and discipline. There are no shortcuts.

By: hunter

hunter — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:45:26 +0000

Billy,
Your point is very valid. But it is the torture and abuse of innocent proxies by the likes of Mann that is the real issue.
The sediment proxies, until Mann’s creative genius was applied, clearly showed that storm frequency and strength during this era is not unusual, and is likely low.
Mann, a creative genius like Michelangelo, looks a pile of data, and visuallizes the hockey stick hidden in it. Michelangelo did this to marble. He would remove marble to find the work of art hidden within it.
Mann, on the other hand, carves away all data that is not a hockey stick, and publishes the result. Michelangelo created sublime art. Mann fabricates untruths.
Mann abuses a process that makes for great art, but lousy science.

By: Billy

Billy — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:13:27 +0000

I asked this question over at Air Vent too: what kind of research is put into verifying proxies are accurate in the first place before they are used as the basis for some paleoclimate reconstruction? It seems you’d want to spend a LOT of time doing this otherwise everything else is bunk, right?

Instead, it almost seems like somebody just kind of says, hmmm, I bet sediment layers would be a good proxy for past storm activity let’s use that and off they go. I mean really. Tree rings, mussel shells and sediment layers? Bah! I’m not saying these records don’t contain interesting information or that they shouldn’t be studied. But the faith paleoclimatologists seem to have in the accuracy of the proxies always astonishes me.

I mean look at that media quote again: “Atlantic hurricanes have developed more frequently during the last decade than at any point in at least 1,000 years”. I admit, I’m no scientist but common sense tells me that you cannot make that bold of a claim using sediment layers. You just can’t. I feel the same way about tree rings and temperature.