question about climate change and the Bible

[Seraph]

Measuring tree rings in one location for example, is not a good indicator of global temperatures since it only reflects the climate in that specific area. However, taking tree ring samples from different parts of the globe and combining it with ice core data from around the globe and sattelite measurements begins to paint a better picture of global temperature trends.

The writers in those links seems to hold an opinion conflicting with at least 90% of the scientific community being that they are good indicators of recent temperatures. It seems to me to be original research on their part, which I don't really trust.

[DannyM]

Seraph,

Measuring tree rings in one location for example, is not a good indicator of global temperatures since it only reflects the climate in that specific area. However, taking tree ring samples from different parts of the globe and combining it with ice core data from around the globe and sattelite measurements begins to paint a better picture of global temperature trends.

Yes, I understand the above theory, but it doesn't address the point.

"The relationship between proxies and temperatures is largely considered too weak to detect a rapid rise in temperatures over 'short epochs' and to accurately reconstruct over a 1000 year period"

The link you gave me just shows a comparative graph looking remarkably like the hockey stick. You posted the link in response to my above quote. Here's a large chunk of the link in two paragraphs

"This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (ImageInstrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).

For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years. However, since this plot is a fair representation of the range of reconstructions appearing in the published scientific literature, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming."

Where's a connection to my quote? This is just a neutral and irrelevant link. I know it's Wikipedia but I gave it a go nonetheless.

The writers in those links seems to hold an opinion conflicting with at least 90% of the scientific community being that they are good indicators of recent temperatures. It seems to me to be original research on their part, which I don't really trust.

Oh now hold on. You gave me a completely irrelevant link, relating not a jot to our conversation. I give you Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, the Canadian analyst who smashed Mann's original Hockey Stick, and you're not impressed? Now that just won't hold water. McIntyre's got peer-reviewed literature coming out of his ears. And appealing to "90%" of the "scientific community" is not only spurious - it just doesn't hold any meaning.

Danny

[jlay]

The graph shows the temperatures predicted by many of these methods, and the all show the same thing.

That is actually shaky and bit of begging the question.

The methods you speak of are very iffy, in regards to determining actual air temps, as Danny has pointed out. Do drastic changes in temp correspond to man made activities. Ice Age? Little Ice Age?

[Seraph]

I give you Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, the Canadian analyst who smashed Mann's original Hockey Stick, and you're not impressed?

I think you're giving McIntyre more credit than he deserves. I've looked into it more and he does disagree with the Hockey Stick model, but he is by no means widely regarded as the one who "smashed it". In addition, Mann's graph and study are but only one of many that have been conducted over time, as the wikipedia link shows. I have rarely heard it said by anyone other than a select few global warming deniers that proxies are not a reliable way of determining temperatures of times in the last 1000 years, so I think it is an unsupported claim.

It doesn't seem right to me to showcase that Mann's Hockey Stick Controversy supposedly showing dishonest data as being proof that man made global warming is a hoax. There is a wealth of other evidence, such as severe reduction of ice caps across the planet and rising of sea levels. The concept of the runaway greenhouse effect has been directly observed in other cases as well, so even if it turned out that there is no reliable evidence for the rise of temperatures (which there is), mankind's effect on the planet can still easily be predicted.

Honestly, I think that the case against global warming is largely top-to-bottom research, where a conclusion is assumed and then data is cherry-picked to support it while ignoring the vast amount of evidence.

Here's an article from one scientist who doesn't seem to feel that the temperature data from the past 200 years is shakey:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rming.html

[jlay]

There is a wealth of other evidence, such as severe reduction of ice caps across the planet and rising of sea levels.

So, should we start posting links to articles about increases in polar ice?

[Seraph]

If that were actually happening then I suppose we could.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8596
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSea ... urrent.png
http://geology.com/nasa/antarctic-ice-s ... ting.shtml

Of course, it's not.

[DannyM]

Seraph, you're choosing simulated predictions over raw data. When I can get to a desk I'll sort out the numbers for you. Your "cherry-picking" comment is so wide of the mark, and aimed at the wrong target; I'd look a little closer to home if I were you. Plus, you've completely swerved the 'surrogate' issue. Anyway, I'll be at a desk tomorrow at some point.

[Seraph]

Danny

I fail to see how its been established that proxy data is considered too weak to make a graph of temperature in the past 1000 years. It's actually a pretty strong indicator. The links you provided to Climate Audit don't prove a thing and as far as I can tell they don't even mention the claim that you're making. The writier is merely complaining that the data has not been archived and that he isn't able to gain access to it. Thats where I stand on the surrogate data issue.

I've provided at least as much raw data as you have so I hardly think that I am cherry picking. I'm not preferring simulated predictions (valid as they are) to raw data (which I have), but even simulated data alone is a good indicator of where we stand in terms of climate and the future.

[DannyM]

Seraph,

I think you're giving McIntyre more credit than he deserves. I've looked into it more and he does disagree with the Hockey Stick model, but he is by no means widely regarded as the one who "smashed it".

Here's the skinny on McIntyre's role:

"Let's pause and mention that the data above is not "raw" data. Dr. Mann actually used about 70-80 data sets, and in each set he applied a mathematical analysis known as a principle component analysis ( PCA ) which seeks to extract principal, or significant component information from a widely varying set of raw data.

Along comes Steve McIntyre, a Canadian analyst, who spends two years of his own personal time reverse-engineering Dr. Mann's PCA program. McIntyre subjects Mann's PCA program to a "Monte Carlo" analysis - which inserts random data sets into the function - and discovered that no matter what data he fed it, the result was always the same. The arm of the "hockey stick" ( paleo-record ) always came out straight. In Dr. Mann's case, the rising temperature of the Medieval Warm Period and the expected trough of the Little Ice Age had been completely erased. The hockey stick was broken. Fini. Kaput. We may never know whether Mann's work was deliberately contrived to fit some personal environmental agenda, or just a colossal mathematical blunder."

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I'm not really sure how far you've looked into this.

In addition, Mann's graph and study are but only one of many that have been conducted over time, as the wikipedia link shows.

The Wikipedia link was just a neutral and unrevealing comparative graph. I don't know what you want me to look at...

I have rarely heard it said by anyone other than a select few global warming deniers that proxies are not a reliable way of determining temperatures of times in the last 1000 years, so I think it is an unsupported claim.

Really? I only ever heard that proxies are weak and insignificant anyway in the overall climate picture. Mentioning "global warming deniers" is also a sleight of hand. The warming in very recent times has been established. The trouble is that this warming is no higher than it was in the late 30s. Anyway I'll come back to that. Back to poxies now. Here's a quote from Mann:

"Most [multiproxy] reconstructions only extend through about 1980 because the vast majority of tree-ring, coral, and ice core records currently available in the public domain do not extend into the most recent decades. While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites)."

“Multiproxy” reconstructions of world temperature for use data ending in 1980. Any climate scientist will tell you that proxies or 'surrogate' measures are too unreliable and not that important in contributing to the overall picture.

It doesn't seem right to me to showcase that Mann's Hockey Stick Controversy supposedly showing dishonest data as being proof that man made global warming is a hoax. There is a wealth of other evidence, such as severe reduction of ice caps across the planet and rising of sea levels.

Where? If C02 is so dominant then how do you account for the little ice age? Only about 8% of all CO2 absorbs heat from the earth.

The concept of the runaway greenhouse effect has been directly observed in other cases as well, so even if it turned out that there is no reliable evidence for the rise of temperatures (which there is), mankind's effect on the planet can still easily be predicted.

What does this actually mean, Seraph?

Honestly, I think that the case against global warming is largely top-to-bottom research, where a conclusion is assumed and then data is cherry-picked to support it while ignoring the vast amount of evidence.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Anyone really interested take a look at this link. You'll see different graphs, and you'll also see it explained precisely who is cherry-picking data and how they do it.

[DannyM]

That Mann quote is here:

http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/Bri ... to_date%21

I fail to see how its been established that proxy data is considered too weak to make a graph of temperature in the past 1000 years. It's actually a pretty strong indicator. The links you provided to Climate Audit don't prove a thing and as far as I can tell they don't even mention the claim that you're making. The writier is merely complaining that the data has not been archived and that he isn't able to gain access to it. Thats where I stand on the surrogate data issue.

That's fine if you think that. I'm not sure you linked in to the papers cited but those very papers acknowledge that the relationship between proxies and temp. rises is too weak. And I've still not had anything from you backing your claim. I originally caught a link thrown up by yourself which I think you were presenting as some kind of proof for your position. I quoted the very head where it was discussing surrogate measures. I've linked you to Climate Audit where the whole "proxy" methods are put into complete perspective. The bottom of my original three links is I think where you'll see the linked paper in discussion of those prxies. Now I don't know if you're presenting proxies as some kind of proof for something, but I just wanted to balance it up somewhat.

I've provided at least as much raw data as you have so I hardly think that I am cherry picking. I'm not preferring simulated predictions (valid as they are) to raw data (which I have), but even simulated data alone is a good indicator of where we stand in terms of climate and the future.

I have to ask: where have you given me raw data?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/w ... ts-go-bad/

For a good idea of how some people work in this area:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/w ... ts-go-bad/

[Seraph]

Where did any of the links I provided admit that the link between proxy measures and temperature is too weak? They are called "surrogate" and "proxy" because they act as indicators of a time period's characteristics rather than measuring the characteristics directly, but those names themselves are not an acknowledgement that they are unreliable as you seem to imply. As far as I can tell, that seems to be the only piece of evidence being used that they are too weak. And it is incorrect.

Also, the "Little Ice Age" occured before humanity reached the industrial age and it ended once they did (also the time period when CO2 levels increased dramatically) so I don't see how that hurts my arguement rather than support it.

[DannyM]

Seraph, I didn't say you linked any such thing. You haven't really linked to anything of any relevance that I can see. What was the "industrial" situation like at the time of the MWP. This discussion is going nowhere as you are not responding to hardly anything I've written. Until you do there's little point in continuing.

[Seraph]

The MWP was probably caused by a change in solar activity and on a global level was cooler than the modern warm period. Even though Mann's Hockey Stick Graph left out the Medieval Warm Period, it should't really matter. Nobody said the only cause of climate change is CO2. But high levels of CO2 do affect climate change by increasing temperature to a point much higher than it would be if left purely to solar cycles.

Plus, there have been multiple studies after the Hockey Stick fiasco which still provided evidence that the last decade has been the hottest. These studies include the MWP and the Little Ice Age, but still show a maximum in the last decade.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... e-mcintyre



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_ ... arison.png

^ These links that I've posted earlier are relevant because they include data that dates after Mann's famous "Hockey Stick". They use more up to date methods. They include the MWP but demonstrate that it wasn't as great of an increase as the past decade. The fact that it is comaparative data enhances this, because they all show the same thing. Too much of this debate has hinged upon the reliability of a single study (Mann's Hockey Stick) that may have been flawed. But there have been many others.

The ClimateAudit links didn't put things into perspective because they are editorials, not peer reviewed studies. I didn't see in the links any evidence or reasons to think that the proxys are too weak to accuratley reflect temperatures. They are opinions.

[DannyM]

Hi Seraph. You're not reading the links if you're still saying this. Listen, I'm gone 'til monday. Talk to you then.

[DannyM]

Hi seraph,

The MWP was probably caused by a change in solar activity and on a global level was cooler than the modern warm period.

What? Everyone knows that temperatures were higher 1000 years ago, cooler 300 years ago, with more recent warming lower than that of the MWP. Where on earth are you getting your information from? We started warming long before cars and powerstations were invented. There’s little correlation with CO2 levels.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/j ... rm-period/

"It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide."

No dubious use of tree rings to be found here.

Even though Mann's Hockey Stick Graph left out the Medieval Warm Period, it should't really matter. Nobody said the only cause of climate change is CO2. But high levels of CO2 do affect climate change by increasing temperature to a point much higher than it would be if left purely to solar cycles.

Can you show me this meachanism? Which came first, CO2 or the temperature?

Plus, there have been multiple studies after the Hockey Stick fiasco which still provided evidence that the last decade has been the hottest. These studies include the MWP and the Little Ice Age, but still show a maximum in the last decade.

Yes, and these studies are still regularly debunked by right and proper science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/j ... rm-period/

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/0 ... key-stick/

See links for further debunking of suspect data...

"In 2009 McIntyre did it again with Briffa’s Hockey Stick. After asking and waiting three years for the data, it took just three days to expose it too as baseless. For nine years Briffa had concealed that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree virtually transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no Hockey Stick."

^ These links that I've posted earlier are relevant because they include data that dates after Mann's famous "Hockey Stick". They use more up to date methods. They include the MWP but demonstrate that it wasn't as great of an increase as the past decade. The fact that it is comaparative data enhances this, because they all show the same thing. Too much of this debate has hinged upon the reliability of a single study (Mann's Hockey Stick) that may have been flawed. But there have been many others.

See above for perspective on your links. Anyone can go to both sets of links and see how these "more up to date" methods. That comparative graph is a classic example of the cherry-picking you said you don't like. Do you think that there have been no more than 10 sets od data produced on this issue? You've chosen a graph which fits entirely with your view. I've thrown up several links now which compare and contrast both sides of the argument and left it entirely up to the reader to judge for himself.

The ClimateAudit links didn't put things into perspective because they are editorials, not peer reviewed studies. I didn't see in the links any evidence or reasons to think that the proxys are too weak to accuratley reflect temperatures. They are opinions.

Okay, well I've gone into the Climate Audit links and accessed the papers for you:

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010 ... k-proxies/

We might label this "the massaging of proxy data"...

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010 ... e-proxies/

Danny