Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

Looks like the real reason for the arctic ice sheet melting has been found.

 

 

A lot of hot air at the north pole.

 

 

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/225/farting_elves

 

 

[Greybeard]

Another set of graphs for the sceptics, based on ice core samples from Greenland.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

 

The sequence ends at 1900 but it does quite plainly put the MWP back on the map and makes an interesting suggestion about the northern hemisphere temperatures in the bronze and iron age periods in our history.

[Wildcat]

How can they know that the data from before the unreliable period was at all reliable, or is it just that if they do it that way they get the nice hockey stick graph they were looking for.

 

How do you explain their cherry picking of tree ring data in the first place, with some studies being based on (IIRC) as little as 16 samples because the rest were discarded for not showing what they wanted.

 

They were using dendrochronology, a well established proxy and what they were doing was far from unusual.

 

We now know their results were accurate because further studies more recently based on earth and ice cores and corals have come to the same conclusions.

 

Re: the second point I think you have their research confused with someone elses they gave a list of sources of data and it was fairly comprehensive.

[Wildcat]

They won't cancel out in the long run unless they've been there for a century, or whatever time period we examine.

 

No matter where they are they won't show warming unless there is warming.

 

Do you really think that there is a conspiracy that extends as far as getting contractors to place measurement stations in favourable places?

[Wildcat]

Another set of graphs for the sceptics, based on ice core samples from Greenland.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

 

The sequence ends at 1900 but it does quite plainly put the MWP back on the map and makes an interesting suggestion about the northern hemisphere temperatures in the bronze and iron age periods in our history.

 

The data conforms with predicitions made by the models that include human warming. The reason you don't see much variance in temperature is because like with a glass of water with ice cubes in heat gain is not shown by direct changes in temperature, but by a melting of the ice sheet. Greenland is a spectacularly bad place to be looking for evidence of temperature change.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/strawmen-on-greenland/

 

If there was ever a case of cherry picking data to get a predetermined conclusion then the example you have given would score pretty highly.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Wildcat

[Grandad.Malky]

If there was ever a case of cherry picking data to get a predetermined conclusion then the example you have given would score pretty highly.

 

Isn’t that what statistics are all about, whether it’s the pro or anti camp you can be sure they have cherry picked their data?

[Cyclone]

Isn’t that what statistics are all about, whether it’s the pro or anti camp you can be sure they have cherry picked their data?

 

No it isn't, not if you're a scientist who's actually trying to understand a process, as opposed to trying to prove your pet theory without worrying about reality.

There should be no pro and anti camp amongst scientists, they are supposed to be lead by the evidence, not choose the evidence to confirm their pre judgements.

[Wildcat]

Isn’t that what statistics are all about, whether it’s the pro or anti camp you can be sure they have cherry picked their data?

 

Data will of course be selected for the purpose of what is being investigated.

 

In the case of global warming you would expect the data to be selected such that it is representative of the planet as a whole. If you are interested in the specific effects on a region then yes you will only look at data for that region. The problem with the conclusions made in the article Greybeard quotes is that it is only evidence of a regional temperature system that they can't extend across the planet as a whole, especially not when there are very good reasons to believe, not least the direct evidence of other temperature records, but also the other reasons given in the article I quoted that it would be unrepresentative.

 

The article jumps to a conclusion based on one ice core, based on an imagined conflict with the models given of recent human influenced climate change when there is no conflict.

 

To say the case made in the article is misleading or cherry picking is pretty polite for what they are doing. It is another example, of the deliberate and obvious misinformation spread about climate change.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Wildcat

[BasilRathbon]

No it isn't, not if you're a scientist who's actually trying to understand a process, as opposed to trying to prove your pet theory without worrying about reality.

There should be no pro and anti camp amongst scientists, they are supposed to be lead by the evidence, not choose the evidence to confirm their pre judgements.

 

Hate to be the one to break it to you but scientists do not work altruistically for the good of mankind, they work for whoever's funding their research. It's a safe bet therefore that their conclusions will only be published if it matches their paymasters' intentions.

[JIbbo]

The predictions as displayed on p2.

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html

 

Intrestingly that diagram ONLY goes up to 1998 ish.

 

the temperatures have been level / cooled since.