Another sub-par hurricane season

[mnealtx 0]

>>?? If an error goes uncorrected, then yes, the data is in doubt. If it is corrected, then it is not in doubt.

But yet, you say that M&M's data correcting Mann (and the severity of Mann's hockey stick) is wrong and Mann is right. You cast doubt on all of M&M's work, yet say that a climatologist is more qualified in statistical calculations than a degreed statistician and support his data with no questions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that (M&M's dataset correcting Mann's hockey stick) the same data that sparked the recent correction for the temperature adjustments?

>>>Fligge-Solanki paper of 2000.

Yes, that's the one - it discusses sunspots AND solar activity, which has NOT been declining, at least not in data I've seen. That data has been confirmed by the Naval Research Library and (I believe) by NOAA.

Given the recent warming events on Mars and Triton, I'd say that solar irradiance has a much stronger effect than GW proponents say.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,990]

>But yet, you say that M&M's data correcting Mann (and the severity of
>Mann's hockey stick) is wrong and Mann is right.

Attached is Mann's graph with a dozen others laid over it for reference. His graph has been duplicated a dozen times using a dozen different sources. That's why I consider it generally accurate. It's been tested, and has passed. See below.

>yet say that a climatologist is more qualified in statistical calculations
>than a degreed statistician and support his data with no questions.

Nope, M&M had a valid statistical gripe with the way Mann collected his data. Let's apply their fix and see how it changes the outcome:

Hmm, no qualitative change at all! I wonder why all the deniers who tout M&M's work always seem to forget to mention that?

>which has NOT been declining, at least not in data I've seen. That data
>has been confirmed by the Naval Research Library and (I believe) by NOAA.

They wrote that paper in 2000 with data from 1999 (i.e. without the most recent cycle) - and even then their data showed that it had leveled out. (Check out the original paper; I can't cut and paste from PDF's here.) Since then we've gotten better data. See below for the last three solar sunspot cycles.

>Given the recent warming events on Mars and Triton, I'd say that solar
>irradiance has a much stronger effect than GW proponents say.

The "shrinking polar ice cap" was seen from 2000 to 2005 - during which time solar output DECREASED by .4 watts. (That's not really debatable; we're talking about the 11 year cycle here.) So that sort of proves the opposite of your claim.

Besides which, the poles of Jupiter are getting colder. Think that means that the sun is suddenly drastically decreasing its output? Or perhaps it's just weather on Jupiter we don't understand yet.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

No, there's no global warming. Just the first two landfalling hurricanes were cat 5's. (Never happened before) And it's 90 in October in Baltimore and the enitre southern half of CA is on fire. But I have it on good authority from GOP HQ that there is no global warming.

Don't forget the 40 days and 40 nights of rain in TX. Surprised that Pat Robertson didn't chime in on that one. I guess we'll have to wait until there's a Dem in the WH.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Sunspot activity peaked in 1950, during the Modern Maximum, and has been gradually declining since.

Sunspots are so unsightly. The decline can easily be explained by the advancement of cosmetic procedures. Look at Morgan Fairchild. Not a spot on her.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Look at Morgan Fairchild.

Whom I've slept with.

[mnealtx 0]

>>Nope, M&M had a valid statistical gripe with the way Mann collected his data. Let's apply their fix and see how it changes the outcome:

Hmm, no qualitative change at all! I wonder why all the deniers who tout M&M's work always seem to forget to mention that?

Oddly enough, I haven't seen ANYONE make the claim that M&M's correction of Mann's work is denying the fact that the planet is warming - except the GW proponents, that is. You *have* read the National Research Council's report on that (Mann's work), haven't you?

You yourself disparaged M&M's work and make the inference that they don't know what they're talking about ("Not suprising; mineral traders and economists often do not have the background to write solid scientific research. "). I'll respond that William Herschel was neither a telescope maker nor an astronomer, but I'll bet you've heard of him.

Was Mann's work flawed? Yes. He used input sources he should not have (the bristlecone pine information) and his algorithms are contructed in a way so that if there is ANY data supplied that supports a hockey stick shape, said data will dominate the graph and produce a hockey stick.

Which leads us back again to - GW proponents are quick to dismiss skeptics as claiming that there is no GW happening at all, and quick to dismiss the WHOLE of a skeptic's work if there are ANY faults with it - but are unwilling to do the same with 'one of their own'.

>>They wrote that paper in 2000 with data from 1999

The paper that was submitted to the American Physical Society (in 2003) included footnotes to information from up to 2003. If you have a link to the original paper, I'd appreciate it.

With all the above said, it seems to me that the skeptics (moderate ones, anyway) are willing to at least listen and debate. The majority of the GW proponents I've seen not only dismiss everything that doesn't fit their pre-conceived notion but try to dismiss the work as "not approved by the concensus" (which, of course, are ALL the same fairly small group of GW proponents).

It's bad science - they're massaging the data to fit their criteria.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,990]

>Oddly enough, I haven't seen ANYONE make the claim that M&M's
>correction of Mann's work is denying the fact that the planet is warming . . .

?? The term "hockey stick" refers to a relatively flat graph with a dramatic and significant rise towards the end. (Not just in this case; stockbrokers and actuaries use similar terms, so please don't go all NCClimber on me.) If you do not think there is any such rise at the end, you do not think the planet is warming rapidly and significantly.

That's why many deniers think discrediting the "hockey stick" is so important. No hockey stick, no significant warming to worry about.

>You yourself disparaged M&M's work and make the inference that
>they don't know what they're talking about . . .

Often they don't. They did indeed identify a flaw in Mann's data collection - but their analysis past that was poor indeed, and was rejected from peer reviewed journals due to its inaccuracy. Specifically, they claimed that the "hockey stick" shape of the reconstruction is an artifact of the centering convention used by MBH98 in their PCA of the tree ring data. False; the shape does not change when M+M's methodologies are applied.

>He used input sources he should not have (the bristlecone pine
>information) and his algorithms are contructed in a way so that if there is
>ANY data supplied that supports a hockey stick shape, said data will
>dominate the graph and produce a hockey stick.

Incorrect. EVEN WITH M+M's CORRECTIONS the graph looks the same. Their correction is summed up well in a recent WSJ editorial:

'I am prepared to acknowledge that Mr. McIntyre's discovery amounts to what a New York Times reporter calls a "statistically meaningless" rearrangement of data.'

(BTW it's a good editoral overall on denial and alarmism - http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010529)

>The paper that was submitted to the American Physical Society
>(in 2003) included footnotes to information from up to 2003. If you have
>a link to the original paper, I'd appreciate it.

This _may_ be the paper you are referring to:

http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/fligge/solfli_rev.pdf

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

?? The term "hockey stick" refers to a relatively flat graph with a dramatic and significant rise towards the end. (Not just in this case; stockbrokers and actuaries use similar terms, so please don't go all NCClimber on me.) If you do not think there is any such rise at the end, you do not think the planet is warming rapidly and significantly.

That's why many deniers think discrediting the "hockey stick" is so important. No hockey stick, no significant warming to worry about.

I would call those people the "lunatic fringe" of the AGW skeptics.

Quote

They did indeed identify a flaw in Mann's data collection - but their analysis past that was poor indeed, and was rejected from peer reviewed journals due to its inaccuracy.

Their conclusions about the algorithm "seeking" that sort of data and amplifying it have, if I recall correctly, been accepted as valid criticism and confirmed - but only by those outside of the consensus.

I'll see if I can find links to the confirmations - it may take a while though, as I didn't save them, but I recall there was testimony before Congress by actual statisticians supporting M&M's claims.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,990]

>>That's why many deniers think discrediting the "hockey stick" is
>>so important. No hockey stick, no significant warming to worry about.

>I would call those people the "lunatic fringe" of the AGW skeptics.

Well, there are lunatic fringes on both sides.

"O’Brien also claimed that the 'Hockey Stick' temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable."

[kallend 2,026]

"so please don't go all NCClimber on me."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 798]

as soon as you do, it'll be a PA -
your one warning