Yet another study confirms hockey stick

A new, massive worldwide study of proxy temperatures over the past 2000 years has confirmed that current global temperatures are unprecedented in that time.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127658&org=NSF&from=news

Here's a figure from the report. The upper half (a) shows the original Mann "hockey stick" data, together with confirming data from Ljungqvist, Moberg, and Hegerl. The bottom half (b) is the new data from the PAGES2K group, along with the most recent (30-year average) global temperature from HADCRUT4.

 

Though this study should help lay to rest the never ending debate....it will not. Those who do not care to see what is happening (either through fear, ignorance, or ideology), will continue to deny reality regardless of the data....this has been made very clear. I remember when they began this project (before it was named) having seen a few of the preliminaries and was a bit exited that a detailed evaluation had begun. I also however, did not expect it to change the dynamic in any meaningful way for anyone outside the "Community of Understanding".

In my opinion the science has been in for a few years, and cannot be disputed when understood...this is simply a bit of frosting on the cake.

 

Everytime I see an"anomaly" chart I remember what they are actually for and how they are used.

An anomaly chart is just that. A chart which shows the "odd" readings over a set time period or groups of data. In this respect it's not a recording of temperatures as we think of it. It's a recording of temperatures that they deem too high or too low to be within the normal parameters they expect to find for that time period. They take those anomalous readings and extrapolate an average and claim it's showing a warming trend or spike. When if we take into account the actual continual readings it may give a completely different scenario...

Be careful with "anomaly" charts and graphs,they are highly interpretive and reflect what the researchers choose..

 

Your understanding of the meaning of the terms seems very flawed.

Global Surface Temperature Anomalies
National Oceanic andirons Atmospheric Administration

Background Information - FAQ

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

What can the mean global temperature anomaly be used for?

This product is a global-scale climate diagnostic tool and provides a big picture overview of average global temperatures compared to a reference value.

Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

 

{{{{{{{{{{{{shrugs}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

You might be able to "fool" people into thinking the temperature has risen when it has not but it is bloody difficult to convince the ecology to shift higher up mountainsides, cause fish and animals to get smaller and make glaciers melt

 

Hockey is a great sport.

 

Okay...lets do a little thought experiment. Imagine a sealed dome with plants and animals living in the dome. The animals will be giving off CO2 and bringing in O2. The plants will be giving off O2 and taking in CO2. Lets work with this sealed dome until we establish a balance of about 21% O2 ...78% nitrogen and the rest of the gssese we have on earth. I think its about 25% CO2.

Once we have it in balance and working properly lets start taking out the green plants. And while we are at it lets increase the population of the animals.

Catch my drift?????

Then imagine a giant closed system about the size of the earth and do the same thing.

 

And our plant hardiness zones have moved north.

 

I got a better one... Why don't you tell me how we can harness the amazing heat doubling effects of CO2.. A simple air tight, glass container of CO2, a magnifying glass, a bit of sunlight and a heat pipe and we can use this miracle and power the world for free...

Why not try and address my post if you're going to quote it...

 

Okay... Uh I don't think any great migration to the slopes of mountains has occurred, and fish and animals getting smaller?? That's a new one but not surprising, seems everything has been attributed to global warming..

 

No it's not flawed, you're just sucked in by flowery speech.. Your quote..

"The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value."

What I said...

"An anomaly chart is just that. A chart which shows the "odd" readings over a set time period or groups of data. In this respect it's not a recording of temperatures as we think of it. It's a recording of temperatures that they deem too high or too low to be within the normal parameters they expect to find for that time period."

Sorry you can't see it, but they are saying the same just trying to say it in a way less damaging to them.. What do expect the NOAA the pet dogs of the IPCC to say they are misleading you???Well good luck with that..

 

No. Anomalies are differences from the mean, no more and no less. If the difference is zero, that's still an anomaly (of zero).

No. All available data is included in temperature anomaly data.

No. They start with the average, and use that to compute the anomaly for any given station or proxy. In fact, the whole reason they use anomalies instead of actual temperatures is to eliminate spurious spikes that can occur if you use raw temps.

No. That's mathematically impossible. There can be no spikes in anomaly data that are not also present in raw data.

No. There is nothing to "interpret" or to "choose" when computing an anomaly. It's a simple cut-and-dried mathematical operation.

 

Separating each line wasn't necessary...

What part of this "An anomaly chart is just that. A chart which shows the "odd" readings over a set time period or groups of data." confuses you?

You can argue the meaning of words all you want,it doesn't change the fact a chart or graph based on anomalies is misleading.. Why not just make on on the average temps over the time frame? because they can't manipulate it that way. They can use anomalous or "odd" temps out of the mean or "norm" of their time frame or data sets and make it seem anyway they want. And it won't be lying because they aren't using average temps just anomalous temps from that average or "norm"...

Notice I deliberately used both yours and my own terms in there? yeah it's a hint....

LOL, how can they have an anomaly chart and use ALL the available data on it? It wouldn't be an anomaly chart if they did that, it would be an average temps chart....

 

Just because you have not seen the research does not mean it is not there
http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...a=X&ei=vq54UYamJIaFiAfasoDoCQ&ved=0CC0QgQMwAA

 

Sorry but are you under some sort of impression that the greenhouse effect causes a breach in the laws of thermodynamics??

 

Why not check out the BEST study

http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

 

Thats not evidence of anything its a google search of scholarly documents, a loose term...

I can do the same thing with an even simpler term like the word "farts" in the same search box you linked to..

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=farts&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36&as_vis=1

Look at all those scholarly articles on farts... Amazing!...

 

No thanks, your link is to Berkley's AGW advocacy group led by Richard Muller a long time and well known alarmist and long-time defender of the hockey-stick graph .he also happens to be the president of Muller & Associates LLC. a group who specializes in advising groups and others on programs like the carbon credit scam... NICE CHOICE!!!!

LOL,why not just send me to the "inconvenient truth" video...

 

Yes it does, whats more this is not denied, they simply use a grey area between the macro and micro worlds to justify it. The fact is it cannot exist anywhere but in climate models and mathematics designed to show it. Does not, cannot, and never will be proven in the natural and real world...

 

- - - Updated - - -

No Muller in fact was a long time sceptic and was funded by Koch brothers - as for the link - not proven

 

NONSENSE, I got my link from your own link...

go to your link click about us, then click team. there you see Richard muller and his name links here.

http://berkeleyearth.org/richard-muller/

Now you don't agree with it talk to Berkeley earth,it was your link...

 

Simple...it won't work.

It would be much better to store water in the greenhouse and use the warm water for heat.

And the green houses must be built properly because in the northern regions above the equator heat is lost on the north side of the green house. Green houses always situate east to west for plant growth. Heat is lost on the north side. And without good insulation a lot of heat is lost at night.

Magnifying glasses would have to be powered to track the sun because the sun moves across the sky.

I ahve actually thought about this in the past...it won't work.

 

gslack...if you would have read my post you would have noticed that the percentages don't add up properly.

78%+21%+25%????

It was late after a hard days work and too many measurements....you shouda caught it.

 

It's not confusing at all. It's just plain false.

It's not misleading at all. Anomalies correctly show the change in global temperature, which is what we really want to know.

Wrong again. You don't use actual temperatures because stations drop out and in to the historical record at random times. If an especially cold station drops out, the raw average will then show an increase where there isn't one. If an especially cold station comes into the record, the raw average will show a decrease where there isn't one. But if you use anomalies instead, every station has the same average temperature (zero). Therefore stations coming into and out of the record do not cause any bias.

Even Anthony Watts recognizes the sense of this, and uses anomalies. Is he wrong?

Wrong again. That is mathematically impossible.

Precisely. They use all the data, determine the average for each station, then normalize each station's data to the same mean, which is zero.

 

I agree it won't work it was sarcastic...

It won't work for one very simple reason. The amount of heat produce by the sun rays interacting with the CO2 would be nothing.. Seriously, it just doesn't work, and energy radiated out from the CO2 would be so small we couldn't hope to actually use it.

The point in my ridiculous idea was to show that CO2 cannot warm the planet to any degree they claim. It just can't do it, and even IF it could, the fact is the surface of the planet would be warmer, which would negate any additional warming coming back from the cooler atmosphere..

I hope that clarifies my point..

- - - Updated - - -

I agree about left or right. I think both parties are empty suits. To me this isn't about party but about scientific truth versus pseudo-science designed to get legislation and taxes in place that will in effect be a tax on life itself..