How accurate are the proxies?

Third world guy wrote:
How accurate are the proxies? Can you trust them?

Third world guy wrote:
Michael Mann's hockey stick is known to be forced to comply with IPCC policies, but others seem more realistic.

Third world guy wrote:
The results of the ice cores of Lake Vostok say the opposite of what the IPCC wants. Is that why they haven't considered it in their reports?

keepit wrote:
I think they take the temp at various points and compare the individual temps to previous temps at the same points.
If a great majority of the individual temps go up then they conclude the earth temp is going up.
I buy it.

keepit wrote:
I think they take the temp at various points and compare the individual temps to previous temps at the same points.
If a great majority of the individual temps go up then they conclude the earth temp is going up.
I buy it.

Third world guy wrote:
How accurate are the proxies?

tmiddles wrote:

Third world guy wrote:I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.

Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure...

IBdaMann wrote:... there can be no science involved in speculation about the past....

Proxies used in the past can still be used today to keep things apples to apples for comparison:
PROXIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

That image came from a climate change skeptics blog: jpenhall:"IPCC...assume...a total fallacy"

tmiddles wrote:

Third world guy wrote:I am sure that experts know which graph I am referring to.

Into the Night wrote:...it's not possible to measure...

IBdaMann wrote:... there can be no science involved in speculation about the past....

Proxies used in the past can still be used today to keep things apples to apples for comparison:
PROXIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

That image came from a climate change skeptics blog: jpenhall:"IPCC...assume...a total fallacy"

What's conspicuously missing from most things thrown around are the margin of error ranges.

tmiddles wrote:
So take tree lines. If you trust carbon dating of dead wood you can age a tree fall. If the tree was growing at an altitude that is currently too cold for that tree to grow today, you could conclude that it was warmer on the date that tree fell.

tmiddles wrote:
With ice cores remember that we don't just have 100,000 years ago, we also have 5 years ago to compare with a thermometer that was on site.

tmiddles wrote:
Also proxies are just part of the big pictures. It's when all the indicators line up that you can be more confident what the climate was in the past.

HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't have ice from 5 years ago, it melted in 2014,

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't have ice from 5 years ago, it melted in 2014,

Hmmm I guess I was wrong. Here's an interesting link as it has the data but starts 2000+ years back
volstock ice core

To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Into the Night wrote:
No. No tree indicates temperature. No ice indicates temperature. You are leaping to conclusions again. That's a fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No. No tree indicates temperature. No ice indicates temperature. You are leaping to conclusions again. That's a fallacy.

Yes they do. It's called evidence and it's all we will ever have.

tmiddles wrote:
Even a thermometer can lie to you.

tmiddles wrote:
You could try giving an example of the "right way" to do anything.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
You could try giving an example of the "right way" to do anything.

Already did. RQAA.

HarveyH55 wrote:
So, since you learned the truth about ice cores, and how the IPCC misused the research and data. Made claims not supported by the studies. Why do you believe tree rings are still valid?

tmiddles wrote:Yes they do. It's called evidence and it's all we will ever have.

IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because proxies are the only thing that will be available, until time travel, doesn't magically make them acceptable data. .

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.

This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because proxies are the only thing that will be available, until time travel, doesn't magically make them acceptable data. .

Yes actually it does. We have a lot of data and all of it is technically a proxy is some way. Your error is in assuming there is a default truth and a default path. There isn't. If we were sailors and I had my theory on how to set course and you thought I was wrong what do you do? You have to make a decision. I'm not talking about just global warming but the entire history of scientific discovery and achievement.

Science in my opinion does a poor job of honestly representing the level of certainty we have about things. But science works. We all live in the world built with it.

It makes sense to start with the experts and critique from there.



"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them

HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, ...
Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.

This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

tmiddles wrote: We have a lot of data and all of it is technically a proxy is some way.

tmiddles wrote: You have to make a decision.

tmiddles wrote:Science in my opinion does a poor job of honestly representing the level of certainty we have about things.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.

This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

It's only according to me according to you. You assigned to me an absurd position.

tmiddles wrote:OK what's one example of research or experimentation where we know something. Anything at all.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
any question that we can't know.

This made no sense. According to you we can't know anything.

It's only according to me according to you. You assigned to me an absurd position.

OK what's one example of research or experimentation where we know something. Anything at all.

You've never qualified anything in 5 years so make some history.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, ...
Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement.

Replacement for what? There is no way to directly and completely measure the temperature of anything. There is no 100% option. What you describe as being inadequate is all of scientific work including real time, it's happen now, measurements.

I completely agree it's an outright lie when anyone claims it's 100% certain.

I already presented the work of Dr Pat Frank but no one's interested in discussing it so far (too busy debating sanity to give attention to quality skepticism).


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them

IBdaMann wrote:
...what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things

tmiddles wrote: You have yet to give an example of anything that qualifies.

My question: what repeatable experiment can you and I perform that doesn't involve living things in which we can isolate the thermal energy flowing from colder to warmer and confirm that you are absolutely correct so that we can resume the discussion so I can get to the part of the discussion into which I want to delve and answer your question above as well?

HarveyH55 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Proxies aren't worth much, there is level of confidence, ...
Proxies an approximation, a substitute, not a replacement.

Replacement for what? There is no way to directly and completely measure the temperature of anything. There is no 100% option. What you describe as being inadequate is all of scientific work including real time, it's happen now, measurements.

I completely agree it's an outright lie when anyone claims it's 100% certain.

I already presented the work of Dr Pat Frank but no one's interested in discussing it so far (too busy debating sanity to give attention to quality skepticism).


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them

I explained it to you very clear, go back and re-read two three times, you obviously missed most of what I wrote. Ask Google to clarify any thing that is beyond your capacity to understand. I don't know any simpler way to explain proxies.

How reliable do you think the actual measured temperature data is anyway? The started reading and recording on a regular basis in 1880. Over the years, they added more stations, updated the equipment, likely more than once, and now they are digital. Do you think, that simply changing the number of stations, the precision of the thermometers, might effect the data? Suppose the bulk of those stations added over the years, where in warm/hot climates around the world. Wouldn't sort of show a rise, on the average, just because more hot records were being added? The warming is only 1C, since the industrial revolution started, so it doesn't take much to make that change.

tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You should really take a closer look at the proxies and analogs the IPCC depends on, to sell their product. It's tough, the search engines I've tried, other than Google, seem just as biased. It takes a lot of digging to find what you are actually looking for, out of all the climate-believer based sites. I don't rely on the denier site for information either, they can be useful in providing the keywords need to get past the search bias.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...seismic tomography data as proxy for hydrogen in the lower mantle, for instance. Sing with me after the sheep on Animal Farm: "Tree rings baaaad, earthquakes gooood!"
~

Reliability of correlation is what makes for trust in a proxy. Tree ring widths can be correlated with weather data at the tree's location for recent years. Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer, narrow rings indicate a drought or a short growing season. If you get narrow rings in Illinois and Europe both, it's likely the cold, as hemisphere-wide droughts have never occurred in the historical record.

I think that's how they figured out the Younger Dryas chill, by carbon-dating those narrow rings. Or lack of trees altogether during the period in question, as one of your posts on this thread avers.

Buried stumps in Illinois
US Forest Service
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/9508

HarveyH55 wrote:
You should really take a closer look at the proxies and analogs the IPCC depends on, to sell their product. It's tough, the search engines I've tried, other than Google, seem just as biased. It takes a lot of digging to find what you are actually looking for, out of all the climate-believer based sites. I don't rely on the denier site for information either, they can be useful in providing the keywords need to get past the search bias.

I've had to do the same thing, Harvey. Google definitely steers results on hot-button queries such as immigration and puts "fact check" sidebars on the search page or labels on YouTube that cite (gasp) Wikipedia as the authority to believe. Honestly, state of affairs in the Facebook gets me down. It wasn't like that back in the print days. Finding information was very slow then; often you had to go through a lit review catalog to find books and request these via interlibrary loan. But you got it from the horse's mouth.

With climate change, I suspect it's the heavy footprint of the climate lobbies, more than search bias itself. Duck Duck Go and Tor mime Google on that schtick. But the Vostok story is fascinating. I recall a little about when the Soviets went down there in 1957, because it was in the old Scientific Americans my dad left lying around the house, and everyone was still pumped up about results coming from the IGY.

As you stated, they began drilling around 1970 and after numerous failures obtained nice, deep cores. In 1993, as Russia, they bored through half million years' worth of ice to a lake below and sampled water that may have been out of touch with surface conditions much longer. (Ice flows to the edges of glaciers as new snow falls and puts pressure on it, limiting its maximum age.)

The cores are an excellent record of atmospheric composition and oxygen isotope ratios, and "rings" that result from annual snowfall cycles give dates for these. One issue is the air record trails the isotopes by 4000 to 6000 years since air bubbles don't get sealed off until there's a few hundred feet of ice above them.

Question is resolution. The great ice age cycle of the past is settled science, as is its rough temperature trends. But how does CO2 in a glacial-interglacial oscillation lasting 100ky relate to modern fluctuations over a mere century? CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2 (even after the trailing I noted above is allowed for). Changes in Earth's orbital parameters and tilt of axis caused the ice ages, which may have started when the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking a westbound equatorial current that used to link the Atlantic and Pacific.

The most we know is that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, helped retard the advance of an ice age as the orbit and tilt got less favorable. We're certain that CO2 causes the industrial times we live in to be somewhat warmer than they'd otherwise be. Yet this morphs into "tipping points" and scenes worthy of St. John the Revelator from the bible, all due in our grandkids' lifespan.

I dunno. The last interglacial came on a lot faster than the ice age before it did, but it took a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.

VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...

VernerHornung wrote:Reliability of correlation is what makes for trust in a proxy.

VernerHornung wrote: Tree ring widths can be correlated with weather data at the tree's location for recent years.

VernerHornung wrote:Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer,

VernerHornung wrote:narrow rings indicate a drought or a short growing season.

VernerHornung wrote:As you stated, they began drilling around 1970 and after numerous failures obtained nice, deep cores. In 1993, as Russia, they bored through half million years' worth of ice

VernerHornung wrote:The cores are an excellent record of atmospheric composition and oxygen isotope ratios,

VernerHornung wrote: The great ice age cycle of the past is settled science, as is its rough temperature trends.

VernerHornung wrote: But how does CO2 in a glacial-interglacial oscillation lasting 100ky relate to modern fluctuations over a mere century?

VernerHornung wrote: CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;"

VernerHornung wrote: ... the warming came first, and then the CO2 (even after the trailing I noted above is allowed for). Changes in Earth's orbital parameters and tilt of axis caused the ice ages, which may have started when the Isthmus of Panama formed, blocking a westbound equatorial current that used to link the Atlantic and Pacific.

VernerHornung wrote: The most we know is that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, helped retard the advance of an ice age as the orbit and tilt got less favorable.

VernerHornung wrote: We're certain that CO2 causes the industrial times we live in to be somewhat warmer than they'd otherwise be.

VernerHornung wrote: Yet this morphs into "tipping points" and scenes worthy of St. John the Revelator from the bible, all due in our grandkids' lifespan.

IBdaMann wrote:
So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.

IBdaMann wrote:
Only the establishment of causation can lend credence to a measure and thus validity to data.

IBdaMann wrote:
The idea that every year is represented as a layer in the ice is incredibly unlikely. What is likely is that there were warm periods of ice-melt in which "years" were melted away..

IBdaMann wrote:
... or it could have been a twenty million-year span. Did you catch that? We don't know.

IBdaMann wrote:
It's fitting that you recognize the religious nature of your doomsday prophecies.

IBdaMann wrote:...read the question?

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see - * * *

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...

VernerHornung wrote:
CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2

VernerHornung wrote:a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.

Into the Night wrote:
A thermometer is an instrument

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...

So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.

VernerHornung wrote:
As indicated by your citing Qingyang Hu

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer,

In a thermometer, the causation is established and that is why a thermometer is a measure and not a proxy.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:the religious nature...

...I'm not treating climate change as a doomsday....

tmiddles wrote: A proxy is an indirect measure.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...read the question?

Oh the riddles and games of IBD.

IBdaMann wrote:
Let's see - * * *

Great give an example. Any topic. Just one (you won't because your game is to disqualify everything). And "doesn't involve living things" is a very funny thing to present as a universal standard in science : )
I will not be doing your work for you.
I've presented:
1 - 12 references that includes 5 text books debunking you
2 - An easily repeatable example that debunks you (from a text book)
3 - Direct contradiction of your wild claim by Max Planck and Pierre Provost
You ignored and dismissed them all. Because you're debunked.

Your claim:

IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object

Is absurd, has nothing to support it at all and the burden is yours to do the impossible defending it. You can't even cobble together an answer about what happens to the radiance of the room your in when it reaches you. hint:it's absorbed, no it's not doing back flips

tmiddles wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
To remake the point tree rings can certainly be compared to thermometer readings.

Yeah. Mercury thermometers measure expansion of mercury in their bulbs, and thermocouples measure a Seebeck effect current at a junction. IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...

Try getting ITN or IBD to admit that the temperature of anything is known! If you can it'll be the first time in the 5 years. It's important to embrace that figuring things out, being a good detective, means working with clues. Even a direct measurement taken with the best instrument is just a clue.

VernerHornung wrote:
CO2 in the past was a "lagging economic indicator;" the warming came first, and then the CO2

Yikes, I thought up till I read that it was the other way around. But I guess that wouldn't make sense since the CO2 presumably came from increased growth?

VernerHornung wrote:a millennium or so nonetheless. That's a pretty slow topple from the tipping point.

Just not going to work with the news cycle.

Into the Night wrote:
A thermometer is an instrument

Hey ITN can you cite any temperature recordings you consider useable? Come on I dare ya

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann doesn't mind proxies at all, as long as they're his proxies...

So now you are following tmiddles lead and assigning bogus positions to others. How disappointing.

OK so this is technically true because you have no proxies, you accept nothing at all.

VernerHornung wrote:
As indicated by your citing Qingyang Hu

Watch, he'll weasel out. He vouches nothing other than disqualification of knowledge.

IBdaMann wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:Though not nearly as consistent as a thermometer,

In a thermometer, the causation is established and that is why a thermometer is a measure and not a proxy.

A proxy is an indirect measure. So a change in the volume of mercury when you're not trying to measure volume or the temperature of mercury is a direct measurement? How can you directly measure the temperature of an entire mass?

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:the religious nature...

...I'm not treating climate change as a doomsday....

I think ITN/IBD don't even notice real skeptism on this board.

tmiddles wrote:
...photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object is absurd, has nothing to support it at all...

tmiddles wrote:
Yikes, I thought up till I read that it was the other way around. But I guess that wouldn't make sense since the CO2 presumably came from increased growth?

tmiddles wrote:
Just not going to work with the news cycle.