The Hockey stick is an observation, but it is also a prediction of what others will find, either using the same method and data, different method and data, or any combination thereof.
LOL Mann's Paleoclimatology work hasn't been about predicting anything, only about reconstructing the temperatures as far back as possible (see link), so now you are just torturing the English language. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf Arthur
And here we go again. "A reconstruction of the past is not a prediction" "Yes it is." "No it isn't." "Prediction means future." "Yes, I know what the word means." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Look. A reconstruction of yesterdays weather is a prediction. It's a prediction, because we're predicting what would be directly measured if we could time travel back to that location at a specific time, or precisely. Similarly, Mann's reconstructions are in and of themselves a prediction, because they predict what would be measured if we could travel backwards in time and take the measurements in situ, or if we could reconstruct the exact conditions and take the measurements in situ. I understand that you are unaccustomed to thinking of a reconstruction as a prediction, because predictions deal with the future, where reconstructions deal with the past. My argument simply takes that a step further by making the statement that a reconstruction makes predictions about the values of variables at a specific location at a specific time, and is therefore a prediction.
No Trippy, had you used it that way, I could have lived with your torture of the English Language, but that's NOT the manner in which you used it: Now since Muller's work only goes back 150 years and is dealing with the Instrumental record it has nothing to do with Mann's Paleoclimatological reconstruction of the Temperature Trend back over 1,000 years where he documented a long term COOLING trend. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't see anyone posting that assertion on this thread, and additionally I don't find a consensus of scientists asserting that either, although some do. My summary of what I have read is: The earth's climate is growing warmer. This has happened many times in the past, before our species had the technology to affect the weather. Moreover, it happened many times in the past before our species even existed. Nonetheless, one of the major factors in a warming trend is greenhouse gases. It can be persuasively argued that the key technology that sparked the Industrial Revolution was the large-scale conversion of chemical energy in fossil fuel into kinetic energy. This conversion technology is now so widespread that its waste products are a significant contribution to greenhouse gases. Whether our contribution is the major factor in global warming is unknown and may never be known. Nonetheless, whether or it is the major factor, it is very probably a significant factor. Therefore, even though the current warming trend may not be our fault, we may still have the ability to mitigate it (not reverse it) by reducing emissions. Indeed. Filling the atmosphere with particles reduces the amount of solar energy that reaches the planet's surface. That's a really big Duh! * * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * * Yes, but that definition says nothing about which specific aspect of the future is being predicted. As other members have pointed out to you, it is a perfectly correct usage of the word to say, "Based on what we now know about the dynamics of climate change, I predict that when we go back and analyze the data on the earth's climate cycles we will find [note that the verb is in the future tense] that phenomenon XYZ was a causative factor." The resident full-time professional writer and editor rules that you are wrong. I would never allow that analysis to pass a review and appear in the final version of a document. If I were the editor of the paper in question, I would have edited the sentence, "I predict that phenomenon XYZ was a causative factor" by adding the phrase ". . . . we will find that . . . ." But I would not call it "torturing the English language." Compared to the errors I see every day I would rate that one as 2 on a scale of 10. Unless this writer makes a habit of muddling his syntax by leaving out phrases whose absence only you and I would notice, I probably wouldn't even mention it to him. My own manager would accuse me of nitpicking. Just as he does when I change "Less than twenty trouble calls were submitted to the Help Desk for the software we designed last year" to "Fewer than twenty..." It's not easy being perfect, so I feel your pain. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Go back and read the post where he used the term and see that that is NOT how he used it. http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2847697&postcount=9 Note it has nothing to do with your explanation. Nor does it have anything to do with Mann's research, which was not based on any predictions of what would be found. The TORTURE I refer to is Trippy's attempt to justify his use after the fact.
His attempt was successful, although his explanation was a little muddled. Mine is better. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please read the paragraph I added subsequent to your response.
I think you need to go back and recheck your sources. Furthermore, the past decade (T = 0:45oC) is nearly two (decadal) standard errors warmer than the next warmest decade prior to the 20th century (1166-1175: T=0.11), and 1998 (T = 0:78oC) more than two standard errors warmer than the next warmest year (1249 with an anomaly T = 0:27oC; 1253 and 1366 with T 0:25oC are the only other two years approaching typical modern warmth), supporting the conclusion that both the past decade and past year are likely the warmest for the Northern Hemisphere this millennium. The recent warming is especially striking if viewed as defying a long-term cooling trend associated with astronomical forcing.Mann, Bradley & Hughes, 1999
No Trippy, I don't. Mann's stating WHAT the current Instrumental record is, is not PREDICTING what trend it will be. One of the parts of Mann's work was to calibrate tree rings to the current temperature as established by the instrumental record, so yes what the recent temperatures were was important to his work. But nothing in his work, or that statement you quoted, has anything to do with making Predictions about future Warming Trends. Arthur
Again, I agree that is a valid use of the word predict. One can predict what one will find when one does a study of the past. But Mann, in his papers, makes no such predictions about any warming trends, and that is why Trippy's use of "predict" in specific relation to Mann's work, in post 9, is wrong. If you think he is right, then just post the paragraph from one of Mann's papers where he predicts anything.
This: Is your strawman hypothesis. Nothing in this: Or this: Save for your interpretation of the word prediction, has anything to say about the future behaviour of the climate. Equally, this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Source Confirms this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Which confirms the work done in their 1998 paper, which in turn confirms the work in the 1999 paper. The statement that I quoted: Furthermore, the past decade (T = 0:45oC) is nearly two (decadal) standard errors warmer than the next warmest decade prior to the 20th century (1166-1175: T=0.11), and 1998 (T = 0:78oC) more than two standard errors warmer than the next warmest year (1249 with an anomaly T = 0:27oC; 1253 and 1366 with T 0:25oC are the only other two years approaching typical modern warmth), supporting the conclusion that both the past decade and past year are likely the warmest for the Northern Hemisphere this millennium. The recent warming is especially striking if viewed as defying a long-term cooling trend associated with astronomical forcing. Is a prediction that no warmer decade will be found by any proxy, or any method used to reconstruct the climate over the past thousand years. A statement which this graph: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! source Confirms as having been true within the data for the last 100 years, and, when combined with the other information, suggests that the prediction is most probably true.
Even with all that rediculous chaff to disguise the issue you still couldn't come up with a single statement where Mann made any prediction of any warming trends. I'm done here Trippy. It amazes me though to what ends you will go just to avoid admitting a mistake, even one as TRIVIAL as this one. Arthur
I'm sorry you can't come up with a single statement that proves beyond your interpretation of my use of the word predict (there's the hint, I'm telling you that if you genuinely infered what you seem to have infered from my statements, you're wrong). What ends? Trying to explain in ever more intricate detail why I said what I said? The only person trying to bury a mistake in chaff is you. You infered the wrong from my statement - based on a difference in opinion on the use of the word predict (among other things), and have refused to accept my correction of "Well, no, that's not what I said, you're mistaken, and here's why."
The science does appear to show an increase in global temperature. But all the fear based implications of this are all speculation and not based on any conclusive science. The global warming is based on historical data which can be confirmed. But the implications are based on assumptions that can not br proven and data that is not even available yet. The fear factor is being used to cloud the mind with emotion to help this difference slide past the gullible. The wat the trick works is because global warming is true, all speculation and extrspolation has to be true, with fear clouding the mind enough to make this appear to be true. For example, polar bears have more than doubled their population since the 1950's, which according to the data, was during part of the global warming cycle. But the fear extrapolation says global warming will now cause them to decrease. The hard data says one thing but the fear speculation, which does not have data yet, speculated the opposite using fear. How about looking at ten year ago speculation for today, to I see what came true based on those assumptions.
As are the ignorance based assumptions that "everything's fine." And the profit factor is being used to try to sweep it all under the rug, lest some very rich people lose out on some of their profits. This is a poor way to make decisions. Polar bears are declining in population - even though stricter and stricter limits have been placed on their hunting. Oil companies would prefer you did not know this, of course, since it has the potential to cut into their profits.
It is easier to make a rational decision when there is no emotions than when under the spell of fear. Fear is the strongest emotion thereby using the most conscious bandwidth, leaving the least bandwidth for rational thought.
And we only have your supposition that "fear" is being used. Still waiting for you to support your claim.
