«

»

CERN study more worried about politics than the scientific findings?

The U.K> based The Register has this article dealing with the recently published CERN paper entitled “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”. Their findings basically destroy the existing climate models used by the watermelon alarmists. Yes, the same ones we discovered where junk after the East Anglia scandal exposed them as rigged, are now going to need, according to the as politically correct as possible language being used to avoid pissing off the big government money machine banking on getting more power and control from selling the AGW myth, to quote the CERN scientists, some “major tweaking”.

CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists “to present the results clearly but not interpret them”. Readers can judge whether CLOUD’s lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss’s warning.

“Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.”

So far their study validated that those of us that have been pointing out that solar activity – that’s practically where all of earth’s exposure to cosmic radiation comes from, for you rubes – was a massive driver of temperature and temperature/climate changes, completely undermining the decade old attempt by the watermelons to minimize solar impact in order to sustain that man-made narrative they plan to ride into more power, was correct. As it stands they determined that changes in this radiation from solar activity, even small ones, can have massive impact on the amount of cloud formation and hence drastically affect the amount of heat trapped or released. They even have to admit the role of water vapor, the most prolific greenhouse gas, in this newly revealed – that was sarcasm on my part – equation! Basically their study has yet again found/provided scientific evidence that solar activity affects water vapor content, it drives cloud formation, and that this cloud formation drastically impacts how much heat is trapped or released by the atmosphere, and hence remains the dominant and most important, if not outright exclusive, player in climate change and global temperatures. Not new to those of us that understood this relationship, but apparently something that if you want to be generous to the AGW cultists is seriously flawed in their models. The good research dealing with the impact of the cosmic radiation on the oceans, and the relationship between clouds and trapped heat, is out there and plentiful BTW, and I certainly feel no need to rehash it all here. Google it.

However, to me at least, the most telling revelation, and what I see is the most disastrous one for the AGW cultists, is the admission by Kirby of the “political sensitivity of these findings”. Why should these findings be politically sensitive? So “sensitive” that they have to be explained in a scientific paper that tries its best to do a kabuki dance not to offend those that have dismissed the role of solar radiation and cloud formation in the past. So, how does politics factor into the scientific equation, if this is all about science?

Should not the paper and the research be completely about facts and the rigorous application of the scientific method and totally about what the results and facts obtained through that scientific process tells us? Why would the political class suddenly not like these findings that drastically undermine their premise that man is to blame for climate change, unless they have a plan predicated on that remaining the scientific consensus? The cultists have been telling us now for a long time that the science was settled and on their side, and that anyone that said otherwise was a denier, usually one motivated by politics and greed to boot, so is that why these CERN scientists felt the need to be political? Could avoiding that “denier” tag be the political sensitivity Kirby speaks about?

For those of us, of course, that realized that the exclusive and laser-like focus on CO2 – to the exclusion of all else – that is behind this schism dividing the two camps arguing about what was/is causing climate change, it was very clear that those refuting anything but the CO2 model pushed by the AGW proponents wasn’t based on much real respect for science, and clear that politics had tainted that “settled science” from the beginning, these findings of this aren’t a surprise at all. I would even hazard that it is not a surprise to the clergy of the AGW cult either. However, I don’t expect them to do anything but double down on their settled science, and come out with guns blazing over these findings. Well, that is, once they finally get to reporting on it, which I suspect will not happen until someone comes up with something that they figure allows them to dismiss the findings of this CERN study in the first place.

Think they will fix their broken models to account for these new revelations – to give cloud formation fueled by solar radiation the proper weight in them – then share them with us, though? No, me neither. I do expect them to tell us, regardless of any findings that undermine their plan, that we need to let them keep going with their program to control CO2 emissions with one or another kind of wealth redistribution scheme. At least we know that if we get more Sulfides into the air it will cause more clouds and thus more cooling. Let the games begin!

30 comments

No ping yet

  1. richtaylor365 says:

    You bailed me out.

    I had already mentioned that article this morning in the “Lock Those Elbows” post, but it deserves a separate post. Now I can take my flak jacket off.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    Here we go again. I’ll just take on a few things, since I’m in a rush.

    Yes, the same ones we discovered where junk after the East Anglia scandal exposed them as rigged

    Bullshit. We discovered no such thing. The NSF, just this week, published their findings exonerating their work. Oh, but they’re part of the plot!!! That’s makes eight separate investigations that have all reached the same conclusion.

    I should also point out that complete lack of connection between solar activity and global temperature. We had record warm years in 2009 and 2010 at solar minimum.

    However, to me at least, the most telling revelation, and what I see is the most disastrous one for the AGW cultists, is the admission by Kirby of the “political sensitivity of these findings”. Why should these findings be politically sensitive?

    Because people like you, who have been sticking their fingers in their ears, will jump all over this to proclaim global warming to be a fraud. Just like you did (and continue to do) with climategate, with sea level rise, with ocean ice and with every other “scandal” you jump on because you aren’t looking for answers, you’re looking to support your religious refusal to believe the science. You’ll ignore a dozen papers supporting AGW to scream about the one that “disproves it” and almost certainly doesn’t.

    10-to-1 you guys have completely misinterpreted this — as you did with the withdraw ocean level rise study, as you did with the sea ice study, as you did with the Greeland study — ad infinitum.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  3. Rann says:

    Ugh

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    And indeed, skeptical science has already let the hot air out of this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html

    I’ll leave now since I tire of the pattern.

    1) Scientists publishes something about AGW.
    2) Right Wing blogs don’t bother to sort through source material and jump all over it saying this proves their conspiracy theories.
    3) Scientists show this is accounted for, or is know or is wrong.
    4) RW blogs ignore this and add it to their list of “proofs” that AGW is a conspiracy (see your earlier point about East Anglia).

    Lot’s of noise; no progress. Sigh.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Mook says:

    The NSF, just this week, published their findings exonerating their work. Oh, but they’re part of the plot!!!

    Define “exonerate”. Did NSF determine that Phil Jones really didn’t say “hide the decline” or advocate using “tricks” (his word) to adjust temperature data? No? The problem is that East Anglia used cherry-picked data, ignoring some data and using other measurements without explaining why they make all these decisions, instead using “tricks” and intimidation rather than science. It’s how they handle inconvenient facts such as a decline in global temperatures since 1998 although man-made CO2 increased during that time period. They can explain it all as part of the “normalizing process” which may be good enough to avoid fraud conviction (for now), but it’s not science..

    Second, the NSF has a $370 billion annual budget paid for by taxpayers to study global warming, so yes, they do have big bucks at stake on this matter and are not without bias as you suggest. From the NSF website

    NSF contributions to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) would increase in fiscal year 2011 by 16 percent to $370 million. The program coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society.

    In fiscal year 2011, NSF also will increase research funding to promote discoveries needed to inspire societal actions leading to environmental and economic sustainability.

    Oh my, NSF studies to “inspire societal actions” leading to environmental sustainability. How scientific of them. Cut the BS Hal, that the NSF is pure as the driven snow on this issue. They have huge money at stake riding on the AGW hysteria being continued. Doesn’t mean all their research is 100% wrong, but they do have a helluva bias, and likely a culture to not “rock the boat” on the AGW gravy train

    IPCC models don’t predict temperature trends very well at all, because they make too many assumptions with near-infiinite number of variables. Temperatures that IPCC predicted to continue trending upwards have not done so. Which should have been the end of it.

    Now it looks like CERN scientists have exposed another hole in the AGW case. It’s all predictable, as there is no way these “scientists” can predict or know what they’re claiming, particularly with regards to cause vs effect of CO2 gases with so many unknowns. They are trying to assert “settled science” using unscientific methods. And with the extraordinary claims the AGW crowd is making, that would call for extraordinary evidence.. Instead we get dysfunctional models and half-baked theories

    If the science and facts actually mattered, these charlatans wouldn’t be still sucking $$ on the taxpayer funded AGW research teat.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Hal_10000 says:

    Mook, you’re comparing 20 year old models to data. That’s like saying that since 1990′s cosmological models don’t explain the microwave background, the Big Bang is a myth. The problem is that the science has advanced dramatically in the last twenty years. I agree on the 1990′s models (and, in fact, on the current models) and that was why I was a skeptic as recently as five years ago. (He also has several problems in presentation, notably some biased 2011 numbers and assuming a linear trend).

    And remember that 20 years ago, all the skeptics were saying the temperature would drop or follow the solar cycle. The bad 1990 models do a better job of prediction than anything the skeptics have said. That’s the thing about science; you don’t throw away a theory until you have an alternative that better explains what we’re seeing.

    What this paper shows is that cosmic rays can potentially increase cloud cover, which was already suspected. But a long long list of studies have looked at cosmic rays to see if they drive climate and have found little effect. The temperature trends do not follow cosmic ray activity at all.

    As for “hide the decline” and “cherry-picking”, this just shows you haven’t been paying attention. The “hide the decline” is a standard published method dealing with data presentation, not analysis. It doesn’t fake anything and Jesus, do we have to go over this every time the subject comes up? That’s the thing that drives me nuts about these posts: we keep pawing over the same damned ground.

    And yes, the NSF did vindicate them: http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf As has every other investigation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Hal_10000 says:

    BTW – How long will it be before some dipshit blames Irene on global warming? I’m guessing about ten seconds after it makes landfall.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Xetrov says:

    Too late.

    And again.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Mook says:

    And remember that 20 years ago, all the skeptics were saying the temperature would drop or follow the solar cycle.

    Then why did their model overpredict temperatures rather than underpredict if they expected a temperature drop? Especially since there was an increase in man made CO2. Please explain, because that makes no sense.

    Are there ANY of the AGW models you can point to which have a demonstrated track record of predicting temperatures with a reasonable degree of accuracy? If not, then tell me why you’re buying into their predictions? Because I see an near-infininte number of variables involved that they couldn’t possibly consider. They’re overselling what their “science” can do

    And yes, the NSF did vindicate them

    Talk about pawing over the same ground, I acknowledged that NSF may have given some sort of blessing/approval to the East Anglia shenanigans, but the point is that NSF is NOT an unbiased player.. they have $370 million on the line supporting AGW research. They have a large financial interest in promoting AGW. Do you dispute this? Because you ridiculed the idea that they could be biased in your initial reply to Alex. .

    The “hide the decline” is a standard published method dealing with data presentation, not analysis

    Does that mean that it’s a method to sort out what to present and what not to present? Is there subjectivity involved in this method? You seem to have swallowed that explanation completely.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Seattle Outcast says:

    More like – left wing ignores reality, HAL drinks more kool-aid…,

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  11. Hal_10000 says:

    The models are the least reliable part of AGW science, which is why they draw the most attention. But I’m not sure what you’re on about. The temperature has risen. You’ll see these “pauses” in warming at various points if you use a short enough time scale. When you consider all the data, the slow upward trend is obvious. The deficiencies in old models are used to inform new ones (and the new have consistently revised the projected temperature increase down).

    The NSF point is a little bit off. NSF does not profit from AGW research; they simply administer grants for other people. Their expenses and personal are unchanged. If AGW were disproven tomorrow, they’ve love it because they could start funding other stuff. Their job is to identify fraud within the program and they take it very seriously. So do the universities, who can get millions yanked in funding if they fail to identify and report fraudulent research. These are the cops on the beat.

    Does that mean that it’s a method to sort out what to present and what not to present? Is there subjectivity involved in this method? You seem to have swallowed that explanation completely.

    Here is the explanation of “hide the decline”:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

    The gist is that the tree-ring proxy record diverges from the temperature record over the last twenty years, for reasons that are still not clear. But plotting all the data shows a clear rise in temp despite the tree ring data.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. AlexInCT says:

    I should also point out that complete lack of connection between solar activity and global temperature. We had record warm years in 2009 and 2010 at solar minimum.

    You do realize that the CERN study specifically pointed out that the biggest problem with the AGW models – other than being pure bullshit that always produces the same hockey stick like result, regardless of when or how you start using them, including using them to predict weather from 50 years ago I would have added – was precisely that none of these models takes into account that cosmic radiation from other stellar bodies also have a far larger impact than anyone understood?

    An active sun produces a lot of solar winds, and those winds deflect most other cosmic radiation away. When the sun is the most active, the radiation that it produces is the biggest contributor to cloud formation and hence responsible for the changes in climate that we experience. But the CERN scientists discovered that the held belief that when solar activity dropped that things should reverse, was horribly incorrect. That’s because they discovered that in addition to generating most of the radiation that caused cloud formation on earth, an active sun also produced a lot of wind that pushed off most of the impact of other cosmic radiation. But when solar activity dropped and we did not have all those solar winds pushing off that other cosmic radiation, the atmospheric penetration from that other cosmic radiation drastically increased. And when they realized that happened and observed that effect they found out that this other source of cosmic radiation drastically jacked up cloud formation, something that that was completely counter intuitive to the belief less solar activity should have resulted in less change.

    In either case, the energy with the most impact on cloud formation, and hence temperature/climate, is cosmic radiation, from the sun when it is active, or from other bodies when the sun is less active and not producing the high solar winds that drive off the other radiation, not CO2. And that’s what the CERN study pointed out. In fact this model kind of makes a lot of sense to me, because it can explain why we can see unexplained spikes even during high solar activity – a very high incidence of other cosmic radiation can increase the amount that is dissipated by very active solar winds and thus drive the effect up far more than radiation from the sun alone, while the lack of solar winds from a less active sun can result in big jumps in temperature if the cosmic radiation from other bodies also jumps up. No need to invent a man made excuse to explain the irregularities that the AGW cultists have glommed on to get wind into their sails, at all.

    The discoveries made by these scientists at CERN will have the same kind of impact on the whole discussion of climate change that Einstein coming along and better explaining the holes in Newtonian Mechanics with his Relativity work did. It fills in the gaps, and it fills it out without the need for any magic from man. And that’s why I think the people at CERN where so worried about the political angle of their study’s findings. Seriously, are you that invested in this that nothing will set you off and make you doubt these people even a bit?

    Take the politics out of this. Lets make some real climate models that take this new discovery into account and accurately model the solar effects as well as the cosmic ray effects, and I guarantee you that CO2 drops off the screen. Of course that would kill the wealth redistribution schemers plans, so I expect them to fight it real hard. Even if they have to be unscientific as hell about it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. hist_ed says:

    AAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!! FUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Hal_10000 says:

    Alex, if that were true, we’d expect temps to follow the solar cycle. They don’t. And if you bothered to read any of the science, you’d find that they have considered cosmic ray and solar contributions. These are not enough to explain what we’re seeing. They would leave specific signatures in the data that are simply not seen.

    And the hockey stick is not a result of models. It’s measurements. Models try to predict the future, not the past.

    I didn’t ignore the politicization. I pointed out that it’s you guys who try to politicize it by jumping on every paper as proof of a hoax.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Hal_10000 says:

    Yeah, I know. Couldn’t resist, though. I’ve been getting a earful on other blogs on why I don’t want to endorse policies that wouldn’t do much about AGW but would do a great job of wrecking the economy. That’s why I don’t post on the subject anymore. You can’t win.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    Alex, if that were true, we’d expect temps to follow the solar cycle. They don’t.

    Why would we expect that we understand the solar cycle at all when according to the CERN study, which just recently discovered the impact of cosmic rays and of solar wind on them, nobody understood or even knew about these mechanics? Are you seriously now saying that this stuff was already understood? That’s laughable.

    And if you bothered to read any of the science, you’d find that they have considered cosmic ray and solar contributions.

    Actually I have read a lot of it, and while most of what I saw was people dismissing the solar activity with slights of hand and other junk, there where some people that did it right and pointed out that the sun was a far, far greater player than the church of AGW pretended it was. Even more important Hal, none of that “science” (that’s in quotes because I find it to be anything but science) you say already dealth with this ever understood the relationship currently brought forth by the CERN study, let alone considered it and modeled it, so how the fook can you claim this was already dealt with? Are you saying that the priests of the church of AGW can also see into the future and discuss and critique things that a real scienctific process had not yet even found out happened? Shit, your faith is strong dude.

    These are not enough to explain what we’re seeing. They would leave specific signatures in the data that are simply not seen.

    Wish you where that skeptical about the whole CO2 theory that has holes in it that are far far greater than the distance from the sun to Pluto.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  17. Hal_10000 says:

    The solar cycle has been known since the 1840′s. If there were a connection between solar variation and temperature, we’d have seen it by now. There are entire space missions devoted to measuring every aspect of the Sun. They simply don’t support a connection.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. Mississippi Yankee says:

    C’mon CM, THIS is the appropriate place for climate comments.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    Sorry it’s the weekend, which is, you know, for kids.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. CM says:

    Ok, weekend is over. But I don’t see that there is anything to add. Hal sums it up nicely:

    you aren’t looking for answers, you’re looking to support your religious refusal to believe the science

    And:

    1) Scientists publishes something about AGW.
    2) Right Wing blogs don’t bother to sort through source material and jump all over it saying this proves their conspiracy theories.
    3) Scientists show this is accounted for, or is know or is wrong.
    4) RW blogs ignore this and add it to their list of “proofs” that AGW is a conspiracy (see your earlier point about East Anglia).

    Why oh why oh why do people go solely to political blogs/sites for climate news and discussion?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Sorry just couldn’t resist this thing of beauty….

    The problem is that East Anglia used cherry-picked data, ignoring some data and using other measurements without explaining why they make all these decisions, instead using “tricks” and intimidation rather than science. It’s how they handle inconvenient facts such as a decline in global temperatures since 1998 although man-made CO2 increased during that time period.

    My bolding. Do you see the problem there?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. Mook says:

    No. Please enlighten us as to what you believe the “problem” to be.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Mook says:

    Yet Hal relied on a political blog (skeptical science blog) to “refute” the CERN news. Oh, the irony.

    It’s also rich to read the sketicalscience blogger assert in the comments that the greenhouse effect is “well established” as if a theoretical greenhouse effect provides scientific proof of the cause vs. effect of CO2 on global climate, which has near-infinite variables, including many variables like solar effects which are not well established.

    That AGW models have a dogshit record of predicting temperatures, even when applying newer models to the past, tells you everything you need to know about AGW’s “settled science”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. CM says:

    Skeptical science is a political blog? How so? Because they explain the thousands upon thousands of scientific papers you reject?

    Here is the RealClimate piece on the study:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

    They conclude:

    In summary, this is a great example of doing science and making progress, even if it isn’t what they first thought they’d find.

    The greenhouse effect IS well established. Who is saying that the fact that the effect is well known is sufficient scientific proof of cause v effect?

    That AGW models have a dogshit record of predicting temperatures, even when applying newer models to the past, tells you everything you need to know about AGW’s “settled science”

    As explained in the other thread, if you cherry-pick you can generally ‘show’ what you like.
    And you’re now going around and around in ever-decreasing circles with your model confusion. As Hal said:

    And the hockey stick is not a result of models. It’s measurements. Models try to predict the future, not the past.

    You’ve also swallowed the ‘settled science’ meme too I see. Yawn. Is there a limit to your dishonesty?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. CM says:

    You’ve accused East Anglia (incorrectly) of using cherry-picked data, and then you’ve blatantly used cherry picked data in the very same paragraph.
    You really couldn’t see that?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. CM says:

    Can’t specifically say specific incidents are because of climate change (“Was Hurricane Irene caused by global warming?” is the wrong question). However climate science suggests that global warming will make hurricanes like Irene more destructive in three ways (all things being equal):

    1. Sea level rise makes storm surges more destructive.
    2.Owing to higher SSTs [sea surface temperatures] from human activities, the increased water vapor in the atmosphere leads to 5 to 10% more rainfall and increases the risk of flooding.
    3. Because water vapor and higher ocean temperatures help fuel the storm, it is likely to be more intense and bigger as well.

    As we face increased warming the 3 factors described above are going to have a greater and great impact over time.

    Warming also extends the range of warm SSTs, which can help sustain the strength of a hurricane as it steers on a northerly track. Hurricanes tend to be self-limiting, in that they churn up deeper (usually cooler) water, that can stop them from gaining strength and also weaken them. So since global warming also warms the deeper ocean, it further helps hurricanes stay stronger longer.

    We have to say “all things being equal” because, among other things, it is possible that global warming will increase wind shear, which can disrupt hurricanes.

    The question: is this weather disaster caused by climate change?
    Wrong question.

    Here’s the right question: is climate change making this storm worse than it would have been otherwise?
    Answer: Absolutely

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Mook says:

    But they did most definitely cherry-pick data subjectively determining what data to use and what to discard. Remember the “trick” of how to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since the 1960s.

    The fact that temps have declined for 10+ years in a row starting in 1998 even as manmade CO2 devil gas levels increased is, well, a relevant fact, even if it contradicts the snake oil fairy tales that the AGW community is trying to sell

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. hist_ed says:

    Remember the “trick” of how to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since the 1960s.

    Goddammit you made me post on global warming. I wasn’t going to do that except to scream in all caps incoherently. But this one is important.

    The temps went up from the 1960s to the 1990s. The most important proxie (tree ring data) did not. This is VERY important and no one seems to get why. Tree ring studies are the most important proxie in understanding medium term (last 2000-3000 years or so) temp history. And the are unreliable. We have reliable, systematic thermometer records going back a century or so. For about a third of that time, tree ring proxies did not match thermometer readings. So the most important way we estimate temperatures for all of human history is only reliable about 2/3 of the time. This destroys any credence anyone should give to claims that we are in the hottest time in human history (which is essential to the “holy shit we are in crisis” theme) . There is plenty of historical data that two times (Roman and Medieval) were hotter than now (coinciding with times of great human progress). Some tree ring proxie studies contradict this. But if tree ring proxies are accurate only 66% of the time, then who cares what they say?

    DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT I REALLY WASAN’T GOING TO WRITE ANYTHING MORE THAN:

    GLOBAL WAAAAARRRRRMMMMIIINGGGG!!!! SHIIIIIIIITTTTTT FUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCKKK!!!! AAAAAARRRRRRRGHGGGHHHHHH!!!!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. CM says:

    But they did most definitely cherry-pick data subjectively determining what data to use and what to discard. Remember the “trick” of how to “hide the decline” in global temperatures since the 1960s.

    Sorry but that’s just not true. You’ve complelely misunderstood what happened. For a start ‘the decline’ refers to the tree ring data that is known to diverge from the actual temperature increase. No a ‘decline’ in global temperatues, because it hasn’t declined. And that’s all in the literature, not hidden away anywhere.

    As Hal points out:

    Here is the explanation of “hide the decline”:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

    The gist is that the tree-ring proxy record diverges from the temperature record over the last twenty years, for reasons that are still not clear. But plotting all the data shows a clear rise in temp despite the tree ring data.

    The fact that temps have declined for 10+ years in a row starting in 1998 even as manmade CO2 devil gas levels increased is, well, a relevant fact, even if it contradicts the snake oil fairy tales that the AGW community is trying to sell

    The fact that you call it ‘devil’ gas suggests you’ve unable to consider the issue objectively and are being lead by the politics and not the science. Plus the fact that you’re AGAIN claiming something that all depends on cherry-picking your start date, even though your cherry-picking has been pointed out! I’m sure you know for a fact that 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino. You’re confusing ‘signal’ with ‘noise’. See here:

    See here for more:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

    The two Tamino links there also provide detailed statistical analyses.

    EDIT: Warming since 1995 is now statistically significant.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon – tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.

    When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it’s possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

    While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions. The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.