• 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

Trying to argue for or against climate change in the briefest way possible deserves the Fred Thompson treatment - refuse to play the game because the premise is silly. It's a very complex subject where it is difficult to separate the science from agendas, and even then, there is no general agreement on the science so there is no consensus to discuss.

There are published studies that show CO2 concentration is caused by warming, not causing warming. Some argue otherwise. Some argue that solar activity dominates over everything that mere humans have accomplished. Choose your poison. I'm going to keep on creating CO2 for as long as possible, then stop permanently. What's your plan?
 
There are published studies that show CO2 concentration is caused by warming, not causing warming. Some argue otherwise. Some argue that solar activity dominates over everything that mere humans have accomplished. Choose your poison. I'm going to keep on creating CO2 for as long as possible, then stop permanently. What's your plan?

This is the mentality the contrarians would like to create. The scientific consensus is that the detected climate change is due to anthropogenic accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The contrarians are not published or their few papers are of low impact and in low caliber journals.

Both ideas are not equal.

My plan is not to have an approach to life similar to Homer Simpson.
 
This is the mentality the contrarians would like to create. The scientific consensus is that the detected climate change is due to anthropogenic accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The contrarians are not published or their few papers and in low caliber journals.

Both ideas are not equal.

Oh, the science is settled?
contrarians are not published
Ridiculous and untrue.

their few papers are of low impact

Again, false. No global hockey stick in IPCC 2007 due to Mcintyre.

in low caliber journals.

Untrue, published in top journals.

scientific consensus is that the detected climate change is due to anthropogenic accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Untrue.
 
Last edited:
The scientific consensus using the available data is settled. Science of course is never settled.
 
From the IPCC Working Group I, chapter 6 p 466. A little perspective on McIntyre's work.

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were
unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl
and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of
differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had
implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the
original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the
original proxy data. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,b) raised
further concerns about the details of the Mann et al. (1998)
method, principally relating to the independent verification
of the reconstruction against 19th-century instrumental
temperature data and to the extraction of the dominant modes
of variability present in a network of western North American
tree ring chronologies, using Principal Components Analysis.
The latter may have some theoretical foundation, but Wahl and
Amman (2006) also show that the impact on the amplitude
of the final reconstruction is very small (~0.05°C; for further
discussion of these issues see also Huybers, 2005; McIntyre
and McKitrick, 2005c,d; von Storch and Zorita, 2005).

So I guess it depends on one's perspective. I read that and find it hard to muster a big whoop for McIntyre. Not a definitive result, nor the death of the hockey stick.

Your mileage may vary.
 
So I guess it depends on one's perspective. I read that and find it hard to muster a big whoop for McIntyre. Not a definitive result, nor the death of the hockey stick.

And that is just Mann's study. Since then several other studies have come out that generally agree with Mann. See the composite of six temperature reconstructions posted several times in this thread. All of them fall within the 95% confidence interval of Lohele.
 
Last edited:
There are published studies that show CO2 concentration is caused by warming, not causing warming.

There are? So you don't think cars and power plants put CO2 into the air? And that CO2 increases are due to other causes? Which studies were these?

Some argue that solar activity dominates over everything that mere humans have accomplished.


And it's your belief that there is an equal amount of science on both sides of that issue?
 
There are? So you don't think cars and power plants put CO2 into the air? And that CO2 increases are due to other causes? Which studies were these?
They can be. For instance, when emerging from an Ice Age, temperatures rise, probably due to Milankovitch cycles, causing CO2 to be released from the oceans. CO2 is also released when plant matter decays, although this is part of the carbon cycle so would maintain a balance of we didn't interfere. Volcanoes also release CO2, enough for major eruptions to show in global CO2 records.

The point, of course, is that the CO2 we are producing is in addition to that.

And it's your belief that there is an equal amount of science on both sides of that issue?
That is often the claim, or that science is not about numbers, or that consensus is not science, and anyway the few dissenters are often right.
 
That is often the claim, or that science is not about numbers, or that consensus is not science, and anyway the few dissenters are often right.

When was the last time in modern times that a few dissenters upturned a whole field of knowledge. And if they did, they did by publishing their work based on new data. Not by nitpicking the consensus.
 
From the IPCC Working Group I, chapter 6 p 466. A little perspective on McIntyre's work. So I guess it depends on one's perspective. I read that and find it hard to muster a big whoop for McIntyre. Not a definitive result, nor the death of the hockey stick.

Your mileage may vary.

By all means read the references.

Citation: McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005), Reply to comment by Huybers on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance,’’ Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023586.
The apparent contradiction between verification statistics is thus fully resolved: the cross-validation R2 of 0.0
demonstrates that the MBH98 model is statistically insignificant;the new simulations, implementing the variance rescaling called for by Huybers and newly revealed in the MBH98 code, confirm our earlier finding that the seemingly high MBH98 RE statistic is spurious.
Your mileage may vary but no hockey stick.
 
Last edited:

Was there something you wanted to discuss? For starters that graph shows the degree of anthropogenic global warming....

Consider this statement from the National Research Council. Because of the uncertainty created by doubts on the "hockey stick" they were asked by congress to make a report on the cause of climate change:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

I found these very enlightening paragraphs:

Science is a process of exploration of ideas—hypotheses are proposed and research is
conducted to investigate. Other scientists work on the issue, producing supporting or negat-
ing evidence, and each hypothesis either survives for another round, evolves into other ideas, or is proven false and rejected. In the case of the hockey stick, the scientific process has proceeded for the last few years with many researchers testing and debating the results.
Critics of the original papers have argued that the statistical methods were flawed, that the
choice of data was biased, and that the data and procedures used were not shared so others
could verify the work. This report is an opportunity to examine the strengths and limitations
of surface temperature reconstructions and the role that they play in improving our under-
standing of climate. The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just
one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching
argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of
research on global climate change
."

What about those other lines of research. How do you put everything together?

However, large-scale surface tempera-
ture reconstructions for the last 2,000 years are not the primary evidence for the widely
accepted views that global warming is occurring, that human activities are contribut-
ing, at least in part, to this warming, and that the Earth will continue to warm over the
next century. The primary evidence for these conclusions (see, e.g., NRC 2001) in-
cludes:

• measurements showing large increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases beginning in the middle of the 19th century,
• instrumental measurements of upward temperature trends and concomitant
changes in a host of proxy indicators over the last century,
simple radiative transfer calculations of the forcing associated with increasing
greenhouse gas concentrations together with reasonable assumptions about the sign
and magnitude of climate feedbacks
, and
• numerical experiments performed with state-of-the-art climate models.


Supporting evidence includes:
• The observed global cooling in response to volcanic eruptions is consistent with
sensitivity estimates based on climate models.
• Proxy evidence concerning the atmospheric cooling in response to the increased
ice cover and the decreased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at the time of
the last glacial maximum is consistent with sensitivity estimates based on climate
models.
• Documentation that the recent warming has been a nearly worldwide phenom-
enon.
• The stratosphere has cooled and the oceans have warmed in a manner that is
consistent with the predicted spatial and temporal pattern of greenhouse warming.

Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years are consistent with
other evidence of global climate change and can be considered as additional supporting
evidence. In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented
for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination
with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, support the
conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
However, the uncertainties in the reconstructions of surface temperature and external
forcings for the period prior to the instrumental record render this evidence less con-
clusive than the other lines of evidence cited above. It should also be noted that the
scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substan-
tively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was
found to be as warm as it is today.


That is how a consensus is achieved. Its not just a "hockey stick" or because Al Gore says so. Its many lines of evidence independently arriving at the same conclusion. So even if McIntyre is absolutely correct there is a plethora of observations that make the consensus that climate change is real and anthropogenic.
 
Last edited:
So we have a consensus agreement there is no hokey stick?

Leaving Mann and Gore, and Real Climate out of the mainstream, off to the radical fringe.
 
So we have a consensus agreement there is no hokey stick?

Leaving Mann and Gore, and Real Climate out of the mainstream, off to the radical fringe.

No.

From the same NRC report:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century
warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000
years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that
includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documen-
tation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004,
Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa
2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of
local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this
newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemi-
sphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.


And it has been warmer since...

They do point out, not surprisingly, that there is less confidence that it has not been warmer as you go back in time using only Mann's data. However, other data subsequent to Mann's and the NRC report also agree with Mann's conclusions. For example:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html

fig3a.jpg


Is that another hockey stick I see?...
 
Last edited:
When was the last time in modern times that a few dissenters upturned a whole field of knowledge. And if they did, they did by publishing their work based on new data. Not by nitpicking the consensus.
I agree, but that is how GWS think.
 
From the same NRC report:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemi-sphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.


And it has been warmer since...

They do point out, not surprisingly, that there is less confidence that it has not been warmer as you go back in time using only Mann's data. However, other data subsequent to Mann's and the NRC report also agree with Mann's conclusions.


"Finds it plausible" = agreement?
 
Last edited:
"Finds it plausible" = agreement?

Fascinating to see how the denier mind works. If we can find even the slightest hint of a crack in the wall, the wall therefore does not exist.

You could seriously use their method of thinking to deny absolutely any scientific finding about anything.
 
"Finds it plausible" = agreement?

The word plausible is used when talking about millenia. It agrees with the last 1000 years. And don't miss the point that Mann's data is not the only line of evidence and it every other measurement study has agreed with it.
 
The word plausible is used when talking about millenia. It agrees with the last 1000 years. And don't miss the point that Mann's data is not the only line of evidence and it every other measurement study has agreed with it.

Citation: McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005), Reply to comment by Huybers on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance,’’ Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L20713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023586.
The apparent contradiction between verification statistics is thus fully resolved: the cross-validation R2 of 0.0
demonstrates that the MBH98 model is statistically insignificant;the new simulations, implementing the variance rescaling called for by Huybers and newly revealed in the MBH98 code, confirm our earlier finding that the seemingly high MBH98 RE statistic is spurious.
So you have lots of other studies that agree with R2 = 0.0?
 

Back
Top Bottom