Simple climate change refutation challenge

[mhaze]

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.

I don't refute that (right or wrong, way wrongly in my opinion) there is use of Mann's hockey stick in NH reconstructions as demonstrated by the IPCC reports.

However, there is no mainstream science support for global temperature hockey sticks (the IPCC's retreat from this position which they held in 2001).

 

[mhaze]

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.

Yes, thank you. And anyone who wishes can replicate this with Excel or a similar product.

The correlation between 20th century temperature and CO2 is very weak.

A correlation of 0.60-0.88 would another thing entirely.

 

[Alric]

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.

I could only find references on denialist blogs and a pdf of a paper by "an independent investigator". The paper has not been retracted.

"There is no such thing as a global temperature".

Reference please.

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.

Reference please. This is well accepted in the climatology community. What information makes you believe otherwise.

However, there is no mainstream science support for global temperature hockey sticks (the IPCC's retreat from this position which they held in 2001).

Reference please. As we showed you in this thread only a few posts above abrupt increases in modern temperatures are part of the IPCC latest report. What makes you believe otherwise.

The correlation between 20th century temperature and CO2 is very weak.

There is no magic number at which a correlation is true or false. Can you find a published example where a numeric correlation with a low number is used to argue a correlation does not exit between two phenomena.

Correlations are used only to demonstrate fit to a curve or comparing two sets of data with a third. Not correspondence between only two sets of data. You wrote a bit ago:

Your latest graph is completely unacceptable. The source article is not cited.....

I hope you can apply the same standard to the things you say.

 

[TrueSceptic]

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.

Yes, thanks, it does. So the time displacement makes this coefficient misleading, would you say? After all, it is well established that, when emerging from Ice Ages, CO2 levels lag temperature rises by about 800 (+/- 200) years. What is your view?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, thank you. And anyone who wishes can replicate this with Excel or a similar product.

The correlation between 20th century temperature and CO2 is very weak.

As weak as that between temperature and CO2 rises when emerging from Ice Ages?

 

[TrueSceptic]

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).

Perhaps you'd like to prove this.

If you do, as opposed to just asserting it, then where does that leave us when discussing temperatures? Any discussion about how present temps compare with earlier ones, such as during the MWP, then become gibberish (as if they aren't already!).

 

[mhaze]

I could only find references on denialist blogs and a pdf of a paper by "an independent investigator". The paper has not been retracted. Reference please.

Reference please. As we showed you in this thread only a few posts above abrupt increases in modern temperatures are part of the IPCC latest report. What makes you believe otherwise.

There is no magic number at which a correlation is true or false.

Jones
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741

Brindell -
Is there such a thing as average global temperature
also there is a good published paper on this subject, but this should be obvious

....above abrupt increases in modern temperatures are part of the IPCC latest report. What makes you believe otherwise.

Change in tune from IPCC 2001 to IPCC 2007.

Magic numbers for correlation? 0.20-0.40 is bad, not worth talking about. But that's all you are gonna get for co2/temp.

 

[neltana]

Yes, thanks, it does. So the time displacement makes this coefficient misleading, would you say? After all, it is well established that, when emerging from Ice Ages, CO2 levels lag temperature rises by about 800 (+/- 200) years. What is your view?

I think the correlation coefficient is the wrong test to use here. So yes, I feel it is misleading. I think the ice record shows a relationship between the two measurements, but that relationship is not the direct linear relationship used in mathematical and statistical circles as correlation.

Part of the the difficulty, of course, stems from the fact that common English usage uses the word correlation in a looser sense that means relationship. That may be causing some of the controversy around this topic.

At least as far as the ice core data goes, it seems that CO2 hits a low when we are in an ice age, starting it's fall sometime after the temperature starts to go down. Within about 1000 years of coming out of glaciation, CO2 start to go up again. (ref:Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, and N.I. Barkov. 2003. Historical CO2 record from the Vostok ice core.)

 

[Alric]

Jones
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741

Brindell -
Is there such a thing as average global temperature
also there is a good published paper on this subject, but this should be obvious

....above abrupt increases in modern temperatures are part of the IPCC latest report. What makes you believe otherwise.

Change in tune from IPCC 2001 to IPCC 2007.

Magic numbers for correlation? 0.20-0.40 is bad, not worth talking about. But that's all you are gonna get for co2/temp.

Both contrarian blogs. Any references from a science source, preferably a journal?

Any references or rationale for your remaining assertions?

 

[Pipirr]

That the temperature and C02 levels are rising abnormally is the consensus of hundreds of scientists. The purpose of this thread is to refut that interpretation with data other than the graphs presented above. The argument of distrust of the establishment is empty unless followed by facts or work.

Lest we allow yet another AGW thread to drift far, far away from the point...

Did you get a response to this, to your satisfaction?

 

[Diamond]

Both contrarian blogs. Any references from a science source, preferably a journal?

Any references or rationale for your remaining assertions?

Any references from scientific journals showing that the global mean temperature has real physical meaning as the sole construction from physical theory?

No?

Then what are you talking about?

The GMT is constructed in the same was as the Dow Jones 30. No economist would describe the Dow as being derived from fundamental economic theory.

Oh, and just calling the references false because they're on "contrarian" blogs just parades your ignorance.

 

[Diamond]

Do you really want to know, or are you just going to redefine "mainstream climate science" in your own denialist image?

Spoken like a true creationist. Creationist also make the claim that evolutionary biologists are in denial of God's Word.

There is no support for the Mann Hockey Stick in scientific literature today. Steve McIntyre's work (published in peer-reviewed quality journals) has stood the test of time.

 

[Diamond]

I thought you simply using my request back at me but were you just quoting me?

Ignoring the direction of causation, I don't understand why you would try to claim a poor correlation. The long term correlation is well accepted by just about everyone.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[Diamond]

Pixel has got the idea right.

You keep on about the temperature record, but you forget, we weren't around back then, burning millions of years of fossil fuels worth of carbon in a century or two. We are the joker in the pack.

Then you shouldn't bother referencing your statements with references to history which are so easily rebutted. Just repeat that its "unprecedented" and therefore immune to disproof from history.

As for the "millions of years worth of fossil fuels" schtick, it would be something if those millions of years worth of fossil fuels were burned all at once, but it avoids the inconvenient truth that all of the current fossil fuel burning is but a small fraction of the natural flux. Carbon dioxide is currently rising, but most of it comes from the oceans probably as a delayed reaction to the Medieval Warm Period 800-1000 years ago.

IIRC, there have been some times when it has been suggested that CO2 was a forcing, when upwellings of CO2 from the ocean have occured.

Evidence? Let's see if you can produce a scientific paper on an empirical result which shows such a forcing in the real atmosphere. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that you were blustering because you'd been shown to be wrong.

If the laws of physics haven't changed in the last 150 years, then we should see carbon dioxide rise preceding temperature rise. Since we don't (and I'm still waiting for oh, over four years for you to substatiate this claim) then we'd have to conclude that a) carbon dioxide is an insignificant "greenhouse gas" or b) there is some unknown mechanism or negative feedback which negates the effect of CO2's radiative properties.

 

[jsfisher]

Oh, and just calling the references false because they're on "contrarian" blogs just parades your ignorance.

In fairness, he didn't call the blogs false. Providing referred journal references is a reasonable standard for both sides of the discussion.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, thank you. And anyone who wishes can replicate this with Excel or a similar product.

The correlation between 20th century temperature and CO2 is very weak.

A correlation of 0.60-0.88 would another thing entirely.

Once again, that is why the models are important. They allow scientists to break up the atrributions as much as possible.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

It's a complex issue. As we are constantly reminded, it's not all about CO2.

 

[neltana]

...and I'm still waiting for oh, over four years for you to substatiate this claim)...

Please tell me that you two haven't really been arguing about this for over four years. That makes me feel sad.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Jones
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741

Brindell -
Is there such a thing as average global temperature
also there is a good published paper on this subject, but this should be obvious

....above abrupt increases in modern temperatures are part of the IPCC latest report. What makes you believe otherwise.



Both contrarian blogs. Any references from a science source, preferably a journal?

Jones issues well explained at climateaudit.org (2007 web award "best science blog"), links to the formal complaint and the data sources.

For global averaged temp, here ya go-
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

Change in tune from IPCC 2001 to IPCC 2007.
​

Magic numbers for correlation? 0.20-0.40 is bad, not worth talking about. But that's all you are gonna get for co2/temp.
​

Any references or rationale for your remaining assertions?

What isn't clear?

Unanswered questions of mine-

• 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.

 

[mhaze]

You couldn't make it up.

Diamond, what the h*** is that three blade prop doing sticking in a pile of snow with engine parts hanging on?

 

[Alric]

Then you shouldn't bother referencing your statements with references to history which are so easily rebutted. Just repeat that its "unprecedented" and therefore immune to disproof from history......

No comments on the fact that the graph you used is out of scale all of human evolution on earth?