EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:14 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20493
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
I disagree that the data doesn't line up with each other.


Then you cannot read a graph or you do not care to misrepresent what is stated in them.

Quote:
The MWP is showing up at around 1000 AD on one of your charts, wheras on another it has shown up from 1050 AD-1300 AD. Assuming that there is room for error with these proxies (which there always is) then they don't disagree with each other as much as you claim they do.


They are the SAME proxy taken from the SAME location byt the SAME people. If that allows for such a variation how can either be considered to be evidence of anything?

Image

This shows an anomaly of ~1 degree at year 1000 with a higher peak prior. The increase from 0 started at about year 750 and returns at about year 1100 with another series of increases until about year 1600.

Image

This shows a MWP supposedly from year 1000 to year 1300 with the highest peak at 1300. Unlike the previous graph with the highest peak near 1500.

The NH temperature reconstructions speak of the MWP from 950 to 1050 AD (you referenced one yourself) Neither of these seem to agree with that timeframe, however.


To be completely and utterly clear on this situation, science relies upon reproducibility for any hypothesis to be shown to have merit. In this case we have two proxy reconstructions which supposedly support the concept of the MWP showing an effect in South Africa. Both reconstructions share the two lead authors, which would indicate at least a very similar methodology in dealing with the conversion of the proxy to a temperature. It is probable the same methodology was used given the two authors made no correction or adjustment reference to the previous paper they published. The two papers were published in close temporal proximity and used a proxy source from the same location, but separated from each other by a a few yards. Not only do the reconstruction graphs not show a similar warming trend seen in the MWP, the supposed proof is not located during the same time period on the two graphs. The two graphs do not even support each other in the pattern or magnitude of temperature reconstruction, much less those of the NH. The source of the graphs is very questionable given this knowledge.

Yet, we are told this is evidence of a global MWP which was warmer than the present. As long as science is not required for the evidence, this could be considered possible.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group