Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (9427)	2/3/2017 12:52:05 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 364833

>> Michael Mann et al did the first study, in '98. Well, you kind of forget that McIntyre & McKitrick took Mann's FORTRAN source code for the model he used and gave it random noise for the data input (rather than actual measurements) and their's, too, produced a "hockey stick" -- and they found that the "hockey stick" formation would be produced with ANY input data given this model in which a particular common set of parameters were included in the input data. You forgot that. You also forgot to mention that long runs of missing tree-ring data in the dataset were arbitrarily replaced by numbers plucked out of thin air which made the samples, in a word, useless. You forgot that. And you forgot to mention that IPCC 4/5 were essentially corrupt findings as set out by Singer in the following piece: 4. IPCC-AR4 (2007) and AR5 (2013) Both reports use essentially the same faulty argument in their attempt to support their conclusion of human-caused global warming. Their first step is to construct a model that tries to match the reported 20th-century surface warming. This is not very difficult; it is essentially a 'curve-fitting' exercise: By selecting the right level of climate sensitivity and the right amount of aerosol forcing, they can match the reported temperature rise of the final decades of the 20th century, but not the initial decades -- as becomes evident from a detailed graph in their Attribution chapter. This lack of agreement is due to the fact that their models ignore major forcings -- both from variations of solar activity and from changes in ocean circulation. They then use the following trick. They re-plot their model graph, but without an increase in greenhouse gases; this absence of forcing now generates a gap between the reported warming and unforced model. Then they turn around and argue that this gap must be due to an increase in greenhouse gases. It appears to me that this argument may be circular. Even if the reported late-20th-century surface warming really exists (it is absent from the satellite and radiosonde records), the IPCC argument is not convincing. It is ironic, however, that IPCC claims increasing certainty (at 90% in AR4 and at least 95% in AR5) for an attribution to human causes, which appears to be contrived. Additionally, while AR4 calculates a Climate Sensitivity (for a doubling of CO2) of 2.0 - 4.5 degC, AR5 expands the uncertainty interval to 1.5 - 4.5 degC. So much for the claim of increased certainty in the IPCC-AR5 Summary. Yet, while claiming increased certainty about manmade global warming, both reports essentially ignore the absence of any surface warming trend since about 1998. Of course, they also ignore absence of any significant warming in the troposphere, ocean record, and proxy data during the crucial preceding (1979-1997) interval. americanthinker.com Oh, and you forget any mention of the entire Climategate affair or other proof of absolute fraud on the part of the climate change proponents who all have their hands out for taxpayer dollars. Every. One. Of. Them.