For those who don't know about the "hockey stick" that BigDave is trying to put out as scientific fact please see the article below. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ "I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue. But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken. Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place. In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.) The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not. "
No, you simply cited a source which has incorrect data. Your source is therefore not valid. Satellite data is by its nature less accurate than ground data, which I have presented repeatedly. But here, you can compare each dataset: <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png"> </img> See how well they correlate once the satellite data was corrected? What did I change the topic to? Germany, France and UK have already met their Kyoto targets. (Sixteen countries have, by the way.) What's better about those countries?
Okay, that made me chuckle. You cannot accuse me of cherry picking because I have presented graphs of 100 years, 1000 years, 2000 years, and over 10,000 years. None of the graphs showed the warming trend that you claim was pre-existent. Coincidentally, they all show warming today. Now you want 100,000 years? Why not a million?
you are cherry picking and also posting graphs by a fraud. Here is a nice chart for you. Why don't we look at it? Whats it tell you, Dave? Notice the 100Kyr cycle Dave. Why can't you acknowledge it exists?
Here, I'll let you pick the source: NASA CRU IPCC NOAA You pick one and I'll get you charts. They all disagree with your argument. Wait... so you would like to discard your claim of 10,000 years of warming trend, and go for 100,000 years? Umm... okay. Plus you'd like to discard your conversation about temperature and discuss benthic carbonate -- which is what your graph is of? Let's look at 100,000 years and assume that you're right that this is a 100,000 temperature cycle. If true then it becomes critically more important that we reduce CO2 to avoid compounding this warming as we know, for certain, that CO2 absorbs IR.
I'd agree. They have nothing to do with the science cuz they don't know much about it. Thus, they are easily led around by their nose rings by climatologists looking for funding, and pseudo-left politicans willing to give it. Come to think of it, dumbass here seems to be saying that scientific conclusions don't have the political bias of the scientists giving the conclusions. Jesus,we've got yet another stunner for the stupidest post of the month. ET ought to start their own Stundies....
Yes, your boy michael mann is a fraud and you posted charts by him so get over it. It has already been pointed out. I believe I stated that the cycle is 100,000 years and the current trend extends over 10,000 years. There is a difference between cycle and trend, you do know that right? Actually, if I am right it means that we stand to see significant cooling over the next several thousand years. If the cycle continues we can expect to see global temps fall anywhere between 6 to 8 degrees C. I, however, do not have the arrogance to propose that humankind is responible for any temp change, and I, by no means, think we can control it. Its natural and its what the Earth does.
I can't speak for "the left" (or the "right" for that matter) but I saw this poll and you might find it interesting -- only six percent of scientists identify themselves as Republicans: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
So pick a different source, it doesn't matter. There isn't a peer reviewed global average temperature chart that agrees with your position. The only one you had was the pre-correction satellite numbers, which have since been corrected. There was no warming trend over the past 10,000 years even though you cherry picked an ice age as your start point. Yes, it's warmer than it was in an ice age, but that requires us to ignore that a trend requires an ongoing temperature increase which hasn't existed. In fact, the temperature hasn't increased this rapidly in the last 10,000 years even though you cherry picked an ice age. Well it's a relief that you're predicting that after the massive flooding of the next few centuries that we'll only have to wait "several thousand years" for the planet to fix itself.
yes, this guy is insane .... why do you argue the science, when this forum is dedicated to 'Politics and Religion' Answer: YOU ARE A CRACKPOT Answer this: WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF ALL THIS 'CLIMATE CONTROL' NONSENSE. before answering, understand that man has been attempting to 'control the climate' since man understood what the climate was