• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple climate change refutation challenge

Alric said:
Ehrr it is. Anything after the middle of the 1800 is from metereological station data. The hockey stick part is from the middle of the 1900s. Previous data uses other proxies but most studies agree temperature was never higher than the present. Actually only Loehel's paper is the only that argues that its possible that it may be just short of being a little higher at one point in the past.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.gif

Disagreeing with the scientific consensus has always seem irrational to me.
Click to expand...

Wronger than wrong. Attempts to ignore previous assertions mode in the thread - thus props up the OP by ignoring contrary data.
Previously I said.
However, in this case, neither do you get your cake, or get to eat the cake that wasn't gotten. How peer reviewed studies showing a Medieval Warm Period would you like? The reconstruction I presented is only one.

A dozen? You see, it was the "Hockey Stick" that stood suspiciously apart, by way of the conspicuous absence of the Medieval Warm Period. A couple dozen peer reviewed studies?

More?
​
 
a_unique_person said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

AUP, you and Pixel have presented the more or less mainstream view as per IPCC. (Doesn't mean you are right) nonetheless that mainstream view in this thread would be hijacked by some radical "CO2 rules!" concocted theory.
 
Diamond said:
Yes I am. You are clearly credulous to a fault if it comes out of a computer.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I checked when someone told me that you can't find "gullible" in the dictionary!

So why call yourself that? Seems a bit odd.
 
Diamond said:
No, but if you're about to assert that carbon dioxide rise causes warming then the witness of the ice core record is definitely against you.

But what's mere evidence when it comes up against an irrational belief?
Click to expand...
What irrational belief would that be? What do you think I believe?
 
Diamond said:
As I wrote: all of the multiproxy studies which make up that graph overweight one proxy. Some of them use the Mann Hockey Stick as a proxy in itself (or at least the PC1).

All of them fail statistical tests for significance. All of them show spurious correlation to something called "global mean temperature"

They are all worthless.
Click to expand...
So you claim, with no evidence.
 
Diamond said:
Go tell Galileo, Darwin, Einstein and Wegener. Tell them that they're being "irrational"

Its much more likely that's its you who are irrational because you fundamentally misunderstand science and what constitutes proof.
Click to expand...
Classic! You really are hilarious, you know? See HTBAGWS.

You have no idea what you are, do you? You're no Galileo, you're one of the dogmatists pointing at the Sun and shouting "See, it moves. It moves!".
 
TrueSceptic said:
Originally Posted by Diamond
As I wrote: all of the multiproxy studies which make up that graph overweight one proxy. Some of them use the Mann Hockey Stick as a proxy in itself (or at least the PC1).

All of them fail statistical tests for significance. All of them show spurious correlation to something called "global mean temperature"

They are all worthless.
​
So you claim, with no evidence.
Click to expand...

Also worthless: Trueskeptic's flippant response.

Question: Does "mainstream climate science" support the Hockey Stick?

I think not.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Also worthless: Trueskeptic's flippant response.

Question: Does "mainstream climate science" support the Hockey Stick?

I think not.
Click to expand...
Do you really want to know, or are you just going to redefine "mainstream climate science" in your own denialist image?
 
Pixel42 said:
It's perfectly possible to make absolute statements about the effect of each individual factor. Climatologists do it all the time, without finding it necessary to preface each one with the qualification "all other factors being equal". Only someone who was wilfully misunderstanding Alric's intention would have interpreted his statement in the way you did.
Click to expand...

It is perfectly acceptable to make unqualified statements when they are within a context that makes the unstated qualification obvious. That is not what Alric did.
 
TrueSceptic said:
Which specific statement do you mean: we've had quite a few? We need to establish whether this is just a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...


Here it is, the part in bold type:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If its concentration goes up, temperature must too. Its a physical property of CO2.​
 
IPCC represents the scientific maintream, wouldn't you say?

mhaze said:
AUP, you and Pixel have presented the more or less mainstream view as per IPCC
Click to expand...

But then you say:
mhaze said:
Question: Does "mainstream climate science" support the Hockey Stick?

I think not.
Click to expand...

Yet in the IPCC reports we find:

Figure 6.10, Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr.
IPCC AR4, WG1. Chapter 6, page 467. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

Looks like that damn hockey stick. A whole kit bag full of them...

Does "mainstream climate science" support the Hockey Stick?

I think so.
 
jsfisher said:
Here it is, the part in bold type:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If its concentration goes up, temperature must too. Its a physical property of CO2.​
Click to expand...
You seem obsessed about that statement. Would you be happy if Alric withdrew it and gave us another one that included the caveats mentioned since?
 
mhaze said:
Wronger than wrong. Attempts to ignore previous assertions mode in the thread - thus props up the OP by ignoring contrary data.
Click to expand...

I sincerely would like to see this data but it has not been shown.

mhaze said:
Question: Does "mainstream climate science" support the Hockey Stick?

I think not.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

Diamong said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/114947b6b11f87495.jpg
Click to expand...

Now this is data and can be discussed. I added a point to graph just for perspective:

CO2HEvo.png


As Pippirr and others have pointed out no human has lived at most of the CO2 levels presented in this graph. The scales in temperature, CO2 concentration and most importantly, impact to humans and current ecology are not covered by that graph.
 
Pipirr said:
IPCC represents the scientific maintream, wouldn't you say?



But then you say:


Yet in the IPCC reports we find:

Figure 6.10, Records of NH temperature variation during the last 1.3 kyr.
IPCC AR4, WG1. Chapter 6, page 467. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf

Looks like that damn hockey stick. A whole kit bag full of them...

Does "mainstream climate science" support the Hockey Stick?

I think so.
Click to expand...

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?

 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
So where is your hockey stick in this inkblot, exactly?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom