Thanks to Skeptical Science and ScienceFrontier for making this video possible. We can now see the error of our ways.
Consider this a bonus Friday Funny. h/t to Josh.
Thanks to Skeptical Science and ScienceFrontier for making this video possible. We can now see the error of our ways.
Consider this a bonus Friday Funny. h/t to Josh.
Funny video!! (even though still just partially true)
——-
@ur momisugly Felix says:
December 6, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Comparing global mean temperature to data from just one location is not valid. If you want to refute SkS refute this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1928
——-
Oh, great chart Felix! Thanks!
Only problem is that chart tends to prove my current view of what the GAT represents… it is all in the upward adjustments… your straight up segment of man-made upward adjustments of, yes, ≈0.75°C/cy. I’ll just keep your link because it so adds credence to my chart that simply removes those upward adjustments that is the same as your upward segment!
see: http://i44.tinypic.com/29axhua.png
(the 0.75°C/cy slope roughly derives from: http://i43.tinypic.com/s3m3wk.png http://i39.tinypic.com/1zfrn1l.png http://i40.tinypic.com/2uy2bg4.png)
I literally laughed until I cried! This is beautiful. Let’s make it go viral folks! The truth in two minutes.
Jai said:
“this is the same error that the author used when making this “humor” video.”
Tsk tsk. Such a critic. Makes me wonder what you’d file the 10:10 video under. I bet you split your sides watching that one, eh buddy? 😉
Extremely funny parody.
But this is exactly what Pete Sinclair’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week videos are like. Right down to the almost unbearable condescending voice-over. I’m sure he has an “escalator” one.
“[it is humor, get over yourself – mod]”
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself! Have fun!
(my personal opinion is that someone was trying to be funny but needs a lot of practice still. I am waiting for something better.)
Hysterical!!!!!
Very nicely done.
The bad news is, 4-5 years ago, it would have went right over my head.
Now, I know what it means.
Nobody is watching/questioning our elected/unelected leaders, and they will ride this wave till the taxpayers catch on to the hoax.
Wonderful!
Hilarious!
Gavin Schmidt adjusted his GISTEMP machinations to show the same trend as RSS.
All Hansen inventions gone.
NASA trying to retain credibility?
Felix-
No one has to debunk the Marcott et al paper. Marcott did that himself.
” Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
Pielke Jr does a great job explaining it all for you:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html
Dirk…he did? When did this happen???
Just checking on fail to post problem.
Test with notify turned on.
And do not, I repeat not – I said NO! DON’T LOOK AT … the last 17 years.
Global WarmingitsHereitsNowitsHappening. Now go away.
The Warmistas are the deniers.
They deny natural climate change.
This is satire right?
Fabulous. My sentiments exactly
One more test.
[There is a ‘Test’ page. Please use that. — mod.]
tmonroe: Fair point. But it only applies to the first graph.
dbstealey: Non sequitur.
NikFromNYC: One has to analyze data to see the trend. And yes that involves math.
Wayne: See response to tmonroe.
Aphan: We already have robust data for the 20th century. But I will check out Pielke’s post. Thanks. …. OK. I read Pielke. He does not refute that the paper found that we have had a long cooling trend and that recent average temperatures from other sources show a sharp increase. He points out that this paper does not produce robust 20th century data. In science one is allowed to read more than one paper at a time, but the press release should have been clear that the 20th century data was not from this paper.
At least we are debating real science instead the invalid comparison in the video.
@ur momisugly Felix – “We already have robust data for the 20th century.”
Robust data does not need to be manipulated. Once manipulated, it is no longer robust.
DirkH says:
December 6, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Gavin Schmidt adjusted his GISTEMP machinations to show the same trend as RSS.
All Hansen inventions gone. NASA trying to retain credibility?
—————–
I speculated that this was the case a month or so ago on another board when all the old GISS temp records were suddenly adjusted up by 0.01C (versus the previous pattern of the old records being adjusted down by 0.01C every month when Hansen was in charge). Man, did I get pilloried by the pro-warmers on the board about how I was questioning the integrity of a holy man.
But I get an email every few weeks showing how GISSTemp has been changed. There is a pattern that an objective person cannot ignore. The past-cooler, the recent-warmer. This happens every month (and actually more than 1 time per month) and when one thinks about this occurring on and off for 20 years, every month or so, it adds up to a big overall adjustment increasing the warming trend (and getting rid of the warm 1930-1940 period for example).
Now that Hansen is gone, however, it is going the other way. Patterns are hard to ignore.
Aphan says:
December 6, 2013 at 4:32 pm
“Dirk…he did? When did this happen???”
Don’t know since when. But go to http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ and check for yourself.
Dirk-
woodfortrees.org-“This website is a self-funded personal project by Paul Clark” How do you connect Gavin Schmidt to the woodfortrees site? Just curious as Real Climate (Gavin’s site) doesn’t appear to show obvious changes…
Felix-
I’d be THRILLED to see the author of the video make another comparison using global data instead of regional if THAT is your sore point. The results will be exactly the same.
Felix, it may not be scientifically valid to claim a single point represents the world, but it appears to be a common practice in paleo studies. Moreover, it is not quite so obviously a bad practice when the compared multi-proxy, multi-location method simulates equivalent results to the single point. Which data is validating which?
As for refuting the SkS article we have a fairly close/similar representation of trend lines over the ~8,000 years before the 20th century. Without the 20th century we can ignore the Marcott endpoints. Why? Because Marcott said so: “Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. ”
Since you said you read Pielke’s article how did you miss this: “What that means is that this paper actually has nothing to do with a “hockey stick” as it does not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures in a manner that is “statistically robust.” The new “hockey stick” is no such thing as Marcott et al. has no blade. (To be absolutely clear, I am not making a point about temperatures of the 20th century, but what can be concluded from the paper about temperatures of the 20th century.)”