Ace of Spades HQ

March 18, 2011

Professor Explains "Trick" to "Hide The Decline"
— Ace

Very good video, even though you probably know all this. Via The Corner.

Among the important points never made strongly enough: the proxies show a temperature decline even though observed temperature has increased (supposedly). Ergo, we know, in the one period (about 1900 to the current day) where we have both proxies and systematic global temperature observations, the proxies fail to accurately predict current temperature. They're not even close, really. They really go off the rails in the past 30 years.

Ergo, since the one period where we can check these proxies against strictly measured readings, the proxies fail, and aren't anywhere near the actual readings.

Does this give the warmistas pause when they then rely on these proxies to yield accurate temperature data before 1900? And presume to give us a temperature read of the last 1000 years (or 10,000) years? Nope! Those numbers, they're very sure, are completely accurate, and so we know as an absolute fact temperature is now rising.

They're so sure of their new proxies that without any argument about it they read the universally-accepted Medieval Warm Period out of existence. See, that was purely a northern hemisphere phenomenon. We know this. Because we have these highly accurate proxies from the southern atmosphere.

Ah, yes. Those proxies that offer such an innaccurate prediction of current temperature you have to use a "trick" to "hide" them from the public.

Posted by: Ace at 11:42 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What about this trick to double the posts?

Posted by: George Orwell at March 18, 2011 11:44 AM (AZGON)

2
Conservatives will do anything to discredit science.

Posted by: Al Gork, World Class Enviro Weiner at March 18, 2011 11:45 AM (ZHsNw)

3 Seen it , I think .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 18, 2011 11:45 AM (npr0X)

4 I just read about this somewhere....

Posted by: Tami at March 18, 2011 11:46 AM (VuLos)

5 There's an even more outrageous problem with the hockeystick:

Mann's method is fundamentally a hockeystick finder.

If you plug the 1100+ raw tree cores in upside down and backwards you still get a freaking hockeystick.

Posted by: Al at March 18, 2011 11:47 AM (MzQOZ)

6 Need a blogger to "Hide the Double Post."

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 18, 2011 11:47 AM (swuwV)

7 I watched the long version too. Very nice lecture.

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 18, 2011 11:48 AM (jrNtB)

8 This must be the cool thread .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at March 18, 2011 11:48 AM (npr0X)

9 Double your pleasure, double your fun with doubleposts.

Posted by: Ronster at March 18, 2011 11:49 AM (rzuJR)

If you plug the 1100+ raw tree cores in upside down and backwards you still get a freaking hockeystick.

You have room for that?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 18, 2011 11:50 AM (B+qrE)

11 Is this the Viagra thread?

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 18, 2011 11:50 AM (swuwV)

12 Oh I thought it was hair thing.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 18, 2011 11:50 AM (gJNMj)

Hey Laura get a load of this!

Posted by: George W. Bush at March 18, 2011 11:50 AM (pr+up)

Did someone say hide the salami??

Posted by: Barney's Frank at March 18, 2011 11:54 AM (pr+up)

15 Mann's method is fundamentally a hockeystick finder. Yes. And this was known years ago. The only exception to all this is a double whammy against Â‘global warmingÂ’ by Christopher Booker writing in The Sunday Telegraph [Â‘Financial crisis: Lehman misses out on carbon credit scamÂ’, The Sunday Telegraph, September 21]... Â“There was no hint that the Â‘hockey stickÂ’ is among the most completely discredited artefacts in the history of science, not least thanks to the devastating critique by Steve McIntyre, which showed that the graphÂ’s creators had an algorithm in their programme which could produce a hockey-stick shape whatever data were fed into it." That was way back in 2008 and I think McIntyre's discovery preceded that by a couple of years.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 18, 2011 11:54 AM (AZGON)

16 And presume to give us a temperature read of the last 1000 years (or 10,000) years? Nope! Those numbers, they're very sure, are completely accurate, and so we know as an absolute fact temperature is now rising.

Global warming is one of the most perfect examples of doublethink in the world.

While climate models which inaccurately predict the past as well as the future are excused as being incomplete modelings of an infinitely complex system; they are simultaneously heralded as being above reproach, a product of scientific perfection, as justification for destroying our economy and way of life.

And they never feel conflicted about it. Never. Two conflicting realities to fit one conflicting ideology without one ounce of cognitive dissonance. Pure unadulterated doublethink.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 18, 2011 11:55 AM (0q2P7)

17 If you plug the 1100+ raw tree cores in upside down and backwards you still get a freaking hockeystick.

I like the one where the isotope of some element in sediment is used as a temperature proxy. Mann's method is so "effective" that he gets one relationship (higher concentration of the isotope = higher temperature, or something, I forget the exact details) from one set of data, and the exact opposite relationship from another set.

Instead of saying "hmm, maybe something's wrong with using this as a temperature proxy", the shameless fucking climate hacks of course just use both.

Science!

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 18, 2011 11:59 AM (Lzqzh)

18 While climate models which inaccurately predict the past as well as the future are excused as being incomplete modelings of an infinitely complex system; they are simultaneously heralded as being above reproach, It puts them in a very unscientific category, frankly. The problem with these models is that they are unfalsifiable. You can never prove them wrong, because they just adjust a few numbers and a few factors to meet any new data, in order to make sure the future projection produces Global Heat Death Eleventy.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 18, 2011 12:00 PM (AZGON)

19 The science is settled. Don't you understand what the word 'settled' means, troglodytes?

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 18, 2011 12:01 PM (uFokq)

20 Hah, just heard the AP reports the Obastard administration has underestimated future deficits by... two trillion dollars.

Posted by: George Orwell at March 18, 2011 12:01 PM (AZGON)

21 The one at the airport is always 3 to 5 degrees higher then actuality and is absolutely useless. I'd bet my left teat that temperature is the 'official' temp that AlGore and crew use. Anthony Watts has a whole project showing that a significant number of temperature stations in the US are sited in places that will give a higher temperature than is warranted -- frequently in parking lots, on tarmac, next to heating vents, things like that.

Posted by: joncelli brought to you by Chick-Fil-A at March 18, 2011 12:02 PM (RD7QR)

22 Instead of saying "hmm, maybe something's wrong with using this as a temperature proxy", the shameless fucking climate hacks of course just use both.

Science! Money!

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 18, 2011 03:59 PM (Lzqzh)

FIFY

Posted by: Tami at March 18, 2011 12:03 PM (VuLos)

23 That's why we're in an all-fired rush to get to Libya a month late: to Hide The Decline.

Posted by: t-bird at March 18, 2011 12:06 PM (FcR7P)

Anthony Watts has a whole project showing that a significant number of temperature stations in the US are sited in places that will give a higher temperature than is warranted -- frequently in parking lots, on tarmac, next to heating vents, things like that.

That's not just in the U.S. What we are seeing worldwide with "rising temepratures" is the location of sensors in urban heat islands.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 18, 2011 12:08 PM (B+qrE)

25 joncelli: "Anthony Watts has a whole project showing that a significant number of temperature stations in the US are sited in places that will give a higher temperature than is warranted..."

Yeah, but didn't Mann et al. use data from that one station in Siberia? Surely that rigorous deference to scientific method averages everything out.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 18, 2011 12:09 PM (swuwV)

26 What do you call a scientific method that is incapable of accurately approximating real observable phenomena?

Posted by: buzzion at March 18, 2011 12:17 PM (oVQFe)

27 I'm still amused that the Greenland Ice Core data shows that 2008 was the 9050th, or so, hottest year in the last 10K.

Posted by: toby928™ at March 18, 2011 12:21 PM (GTbGH)

28 Mann's method is fundamentally a hockeystick finder.

If you plug the 1100+ raw tree cores in upside down and backwards you still get a freaking hockeystick.

This was my favorite non-reported discovery out of the whole thing. You can literally plug in any file on your computer as the temperature data and Mann's formula will spit out a hockey stick graph. Ace double-posts, Barky campaign speeches, Slublog Photoshops, whatever file you put in will yield hockey sticks.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 18, 2011 12:21 PM (p05LM)

29 @15,

But a lot of people - including many non-climate scientists - haven't paid quite enough attention to the fundamental methods involved to realize just how much bunk it is.

The professor in the video is quite bothered by "hide the decline", and isn't going to trust the authors further. But he (pretty obviously) hasn't reexamined his faith in the earlier portions of the stick itself - because that pre-dated this particular fiasco... and if it's not precisely your field you tend to trust the scientists to not be pulling a whopper.

Mann's 1998 paper is the crucial paper in demonstrating that CO2 isn't just correlated with temperature - but that it is causal as well.

The reasoning has nothing to do with the 'blade' portion of the stick - but the fact that the shaft is so damn flat. (Relatively). All of the other 'potential confounding issues' other than CO2 aren't flat. So freaking infuriating.

Posted by: Al at March 18, 2011 12:22 PM (MzQOZ)

30 ...hence the snark-phrase "Mann-made global warming", by the way.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 18, 2011 12:23 PM (p05LM)

31 buzzion@28,

What is "consensus"?

Posted by: East Anglia Jeopardy Contestant at March 18, 2011 12:25 PM (swuwV)

32 Ooo I like that answer. I also would have accepted, Bullshit, garbage, deliberate obfuscation of facts.

Posted by: buzzion at March 18, 2011 12:36 PM (oVQFe)

>> Mexico? Never once. They did this year.

No shit they did. Here in central Texas we had low teens for a couple of weeks. Got so damned cold I almost broke my dick.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 18, 2011 12:43 PM (WvXvd)

34

empirical evidence v. whole cloth

...Same sort of fabrication tricks, omitting real evidence of damage and forging fake records to calculate fraudulent safety status in Japan:

The destruction caused by last weekÂ’s 9.0 earthquake and tsunami comes less than four years after a 6.8 quake shut the worldÂ’s biggest atomic plant, also run by Tokyo Electric Power Co. In 2002 and 2007, revelations the utility had faked repair records forced the resignation of the companyÂ’s chairman and president, and a three-week shutdown of all 17 of its reactors. Japan has 54 operating nuclear reactors, having nil domestic oil or gas reserves.

"Expanding the horizons of your imagination," or some such drivel from Obama's together/thrive Tucson rally.

Posted by: maverick muse at March 18, 2011 12:59 PM (H+LJc)

35
28, 33

It takes an international community to come to a consensus.

/hope you caught Mark Steyn blasting the Hillary phrase, "international community"...

Posted by: maverick muse at March 18, 2011 01:01 PM (H+LJc)

36 well, this guy is a believer, but at least he's honest. Maybe he'll have to convert himself after rebooting the data...especially if he compares CO2 with temperature and sees that it's a lagging indicator of temperature.

Posted by: joeindc44 at March 18, 2011 02:19 PM (QxSug)

not only are some of those temp stations in redonkulous places, I believe in 2006-07 there was the great weather station slaughter, ALOT of stations were dropped. Most likely those out away from heat islands and such

Posted by: Red Shirt at March 18, 2011 02:26 PM (FIDMq)

38 Ha. You've only now become aware that the whole global warming thing is a lie? As Orwell said above, McIntyre exposed all this and more several years ago. However, even with Climategate the little lying green bastards somehow still manage to get lots of favourable press. Lets face it. Environmentalism has become the western world's socially acceptable doomsday cult.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at March 18, 2011 02:53 PM (RQtDB)

39 It's not even global warming or cooling. The other planets have observable temp changes on the same schedule. As Breitbart joked: "man caused warming on Venus?" That leaves the sun or some kind of cosmic radiation, neither of which is taxable, although I'm sure they'll try.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 18, 2011 04:21 PM (h35AH)

40 Was at the aquarium with the kids today. They had a 1,00 year mean northern hemisphere temperature graph. No Medieval Warming Period. Lots of hockey stick. Data sourced to the IPCC.

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at March 18, 2011 05:42 PM (x81hH)

nice to meet you!!!!!!!!!!thank you!

Posted by: google手气不错是什么 at March 18, 2011 05:54 PM (NmiRt)

42 ust mess around with the hockey stink and thats how these lying green hucksters get what they want after all lying and fabricating worked for RACHEAL CARSON and AL GORE

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 21, 2011 07:59 AM (vA9ld)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

87kb generated in CPU 0.0481, elapsed 0.3689 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3327 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.