Simple climate change refutation challenge

[Alric]

I understood from a prior post by Alric that he had retracted the claim.

No I haven't. I added all the caveats that need to be added in normal conversation when there is a lack of perspective. I decided you have to come to terms with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Pipirr]

I think not. The spagetti you proudly present actually has only two lines that go above the general temperature of the Medieval Warm Period. Further, this is spagetti without error bounds. But leaving that aside, two lines are a bit higher, and numerous are lower. So where is your hockey stick in this inkblot, exactly?

The Mann et al reconstruction. Read the caption for the actual figure that I suggested, 6.10. And there it is.

The point, as you are very well aware, is that despite your assertions to the contrary, the Mann et al. reconstruction is still being used, by such mainstream science organisations as the IPCC.

It ain't dead.

 

[mhaze]

Right around there most of the lines go up and coalesce:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/HStick.png

You need to read the caption to see the medieval warm period is characterized by heterogeneity in the graph, not an absolute higher average.

I thought you had some numerical correlations you were going to show.

Coalesce? Is that why the lines are spread out at the right hand side? Now we need to read the fine print, things are not "visually apparent?" Yet a "hockey stick" is nothing but a visual appearance, is it.

Numerical correlations, ha. Yours first. The burden of proof is on the one making wild and likely indefensible claims.

 

[jsfisher]

No I haven't. I added all the caveats that need to be added in normal conversation when there is a lack of perspective.

Fair enough.

I decided you have to come to terms with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I have not challenged that notion.

 

[neltana]

The conversation is certainly moving fast and furiously. I would like to say a word about "correlation," though. Yesterday, mhaze pointed out that the time series had a weak correlation coefficient in the range of .22 to .44. This caused some controversy, culminating in TrueSkeptic saying "Would you consider this graph, showing long-term temps against CO2 displays strong correlation? Would you demand a numerical value?"

I reconstructed a similar graph from the Vostok data at can tell you that the correlation coefficient I came up with was .214. While I'm sure there are some flaws in how I put things together (I was going pretty fast), I think it was pretty close to what TrueSkeptic posted.

I think there is some confusion over what it means to calculate a correlation coefficient. If you have a "first A happens, then B happens" situation, your correlation may be low, even if A causes B. The correlation coefficient looks at the distances of x and y from their respective means at the same point in time. If there is a delay from the time A happens to the time B happens, this can lower your value.

For instance, imagine I have an alcoholic uncle who is always broke. Periodically, I give him money and he then drinks at a steady rate until the money is gone. If you plot the amount of money and his drunkness on a graph, you will see a peak in his cash, followed by a peak in his drunkness. I made such a graph and calculated a correlation coefficient of .108, a very weak association!

I would love to post links to my pretty pictures, but, being a new user, I can't.

But to summarize, a correlation coefficient around .22 between CO2 concentrations and temperature just tells us that these two variables tend to increase or decrease together, although the association is weak (explaining about 5% of the variation).

Hope this helps clear things up.

 

[Alric]

This correlation business is only brought up by the contrarians. In truth even if you get a number for a correlation there is nothing to compare it with. They argue other parameters correlate better but I have not seen the work or the data itself.

There is no acceptable value for a correlation to be true or false. All you can do is make comparisons and see which correlate better or worse.

For instance, imagine I have an alcoholic uncle who is always broke. Periodically, I give him money and he then drinks at a steady rate until the money is gone. If you plot the amount of money and his drunkness on a graph, you will see a peak in his cash, followed by a peak in his drunkness. I made such a graph and calculated a correlation coefficient of .108, a very weak association!

That is an excellent example. Thank you.

 

[mhaze]

The Mann et al reconstruction. Read the caption for the actual figure that I suggested, 6.10. And there it is.

The point, as you are very well aware, is that despite your assertions to the contrary, the Mann et al. reconstruction is still being used, by such mainstream science organisations as the IPCC.

It ain't dead.

How many lines go above the MWP level in 6.10, Pipirr ?

 

[Alric]

How many lines go above the MWP level in 6.10, Pipirr ?

The important one the recent instrumental record. Here they are for anyone's examination.

 

[David Rodale]

The important one the recent instrumental record. Here they are for anyone's examination.

/quote]

Do you think recent instrumental (surface) records are accurate? Evidence?

 

[mhaze]

The Mann et al reconstruction. Read the caption for the actual figure that I suggested, 6.10. And there it is.

The point, as you are very well aware, is that despite your assertions to the contrary, the Mann et al. reconstruction is still being used, by such mainstream science organisations as the IPCC.

It ain't dead.

Since we were talking about "global" temperatures and change, I naturally thought you were talking about 6.4. No, you had shifted the goal posts to "Northern Hemisphere only" and did in fact mean 6.10. So what do you want to assert here, Pipirr?

The argument was presented that MWP could be disregarded as regional only; now you would like to shift the goalposts from global to Northern Hemisphere only. Well, then would you like to rephrase your critique as "Mainstream science considers there to be evidence for a hockey stick of temperature exists in Northern Hemisphere reconstructions" or like Alric, stubbornly persist in an indefensible position?

Not that either position is particularly defendable, just asking for clarification since the subject was global.

 

[Alric]

The important one the recent instrumental record. Here they are for anyone's examination.

/quote]

Do you think recent instrumental (surface) records are accurate? Evidence?

They are taken with a thermometer...

 

[Alric]

That there was/is a hokey stick in the NH, or what? Clue me in; curious minds would like to know.

Don't be disingenuous. This is just one study other studies show the same as it has been shown before.

 

[mhaze]

Don't be disingenuous. This is just one study other studies show the same as it has been shown before.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Your latest graph is completely unacceptable. The source article is not cited and you have made no indication of what the various colors of spagetti are (although I suspect this is just more of the same pap that's stuck on the other graphs we have seen).

What have you presented? No one knows...

 

[Alric]

Your latest graph is completely unacceptable. The source article is not cited and you have made no indication of what the various colors of spagetti are (although I suspect this is just more of the same pap that's stuck on the other graphs we have seen).

What have you presented? No one knows...

This graph and references were shown before but here you go again. References at the bottom of the page.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Are you going to back anything of what you have said or are you going to rely on minutiae for your argument?

 

[mhaze]

This graph and references were shown before but here you go again. References at the bottom of the page.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Are you going to back anything of what you have said or are you going to rely on minutiae for your argument?

Thanks for providing some basis for examination of the credibility of your graph, which apparently you thought should be accepted without question. Not a bad idea since providing the background does raise quite a few flags.

No, you did not provide the graph and references before - you provided the graph with no source. Now you have provided the graph, which is an arbitrary collection of data sets from various peer reviewed papers. You've provided no evidence that this is a balanced, global set but giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is supposed to be such, let's examine the data sets.



Jones - formally accused of scientific fraud for the data sets used in these studies. (bolded and green)

1. dark blue Jones 1998
2. blue (NH) Mann 1999
3. light blue Crowley (NH) 2000
4. lightest blue Briffa 2001
5. light green Esper 2002
6. yellow Mann and Jones 2003
7. orange Jones and Mann 2004
8. red-orange Huang 2004 (only goes back to 1500)
9. red Moberg 2005 (NH) (prominent MWP spike and low current warming)
10. dark red Oerlemans 2005 (only back to 1600, glacier records, sparse early coverage, NH as I recall)

I'm sure you can understand why Jones should not be acceptable in the context of our discussion. Further, three of the series are apparently the same as in Pipirr's NH (include the glacier records, 4 are NH only). I'm not sure that means they should be deleted, provided that the other series balance them out geographically.

Given that what balances them out geographically is largely Jones, you seem to have here largely NH non discredited data series, two of which only go back to 1500-1600. (leaving aside the easy discrediting of the Mann articles based on bad statistics).

So no cigar. Now going to the far right side of your graph, one sees the black (thermometer) line shooting way up, with a few of the historical series bunched down about the same height as the MWP.

By the way. If you accept Moberg, then you have to accept Loehle. (Earlier you said that you wanted to stick with lots of "more recent" studies than Loehle).

Please tell us where those "more recent studies than Loehle" are. Can we look at them?

Now please go to your graph and show me where that pesky "unprecedented modern warming" is compared to the MWP.

Maybe it's better to just stick with the thermometers?

 

[Pipirr]

Since we were talking about "global" temperatures and change, I naturally thought you were talking about 6.4. No, you had shifted the goal posts to "Northern Hemisphere only" and did in fact mean 6.10. So what do you want to assert here, Pipirr?

Who's shifting goalposts?

Its really simple. You said that you don't think that the hockey stick is supported by mainstream science. I give you a link to it still being used in the IPCC report.

Hardly unsupported by mainstream science, if the IPCC is still using it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The important one the recent instrumental record. Here they are for anyone's examination.

Do you think recent instrumental (surface) records are accurate? Evidence?

Why do you suppose not?

Do you think proxy temps are as accurate? More accurate? Less accurate?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Your latest graph is completely unacceptable. The source article is not cited and you have made no indication of what the various colors of spagetti are (although I suspect this is just more of the same pap that's stuck on the other graphs we have seen).

What have you presented? No one knows...

"More of the same pap"? Observe the open-minded sceptical mind at work.

 

[Alric]

Now going to the far right side of your graph, one sees the black (thermometer) line shooting way up, with a few of the historical series bunched down about the same height as the MWP.

Yes. That's the hockey stick. I am glad you were able to identify it finally.

On a more serious note. As long as you accept any of these data and believe people can read thermometers the hockey stick still exists.

I would like to hear more of "Jones accused of fraud" can you provide some info for that?

 

[mhaze]

Yes. That's the hockey stick. I am glad you were able to identify it finally.

On a more serious note. As long as you accept any of these data and believe people can read thermometers the hockey stick still exists.

I would like to hear more of "Jones accused of fraud" can you provide some info for that?

Okay, so as you see it, then modern thermometers show the blade of the hokey stick, and historical readings the shaft of the hokey stick. Well, that's one way to look at it, certainly, but it only begs numerous questions.

Of these, the important question is I think simply whether current temperatures are historically unprecedented in the last 1000-2000 years. At least that seems like a fair way to look at the issue.

There was a pretty good thread here on JREF on Jones a while back if you search "Jones fraud" it should come up. If not, sure, we'll get linkys.

As Diamond pointed out bluntly "There is no such thing as a global temperature" that is actually a solid point of view compared to these stretched-very-thin efforts to generate a global temperature that has any scientific merit, but a lot of people like the idea. Of course the politicians like it. And it was in your premises of the OP (Global temperature::Global CO2).

Also worth noting, a lot of the historical temperature series are not really such great science. The bristle cone pines used by Mann is just one example. Mann would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was European only (False, hundreds of studies refute that) but then he would argue that he can derive a Global Temperature using just bristle cone pines from one area in Colorado (!@#$@#()!@#()$*!!!!)

According to Mann, these pine trees "Telethermometer" with the rest of the world......like, as if they all have little mobile phones stuck in those treetrunks...