The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by livefree, Feb 27, 2017.

  1. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Personal attacks and insults are a sign of a weak or no argument.

    Why is the slope of temperature vs. time the same for the time periods 1910 - 1940 and 1980 - 2010 when the rate of CO2 concentration increase is much smaller for the earlier time period ?? And why is there cooling with increasing CO2 concentration for the time period 1940 - 1980 ?? All that is needed to show that the global average temperature is dependent on much more than CO2 concentration is to analyze the CO2 and temperature data. A junior high student can see the fallacy in the CO2 alarmism.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  2. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why are you lying? The only other option being that you are stone blind.

    The slopes very obviously are not the same. As anyone not blinded by cultic dogmas can plainly see for themselves.

    [​IMG]
    Source: NASA GISS

    I had mentioned in my last post that the slope of the running mean line, which represents the rate of increase in temperature, was roughly the same from about 1915 to 1980, ignoring the unusual and possibly spurious spike in the 1940s (after which temperatures returned to the same trend line).....and so the increase over that 65 year period was only about about 2.5 degrees C., while the increase in temperatures from 1980 to 2015 (where this particular graph stops...2016 was significantly hotter than 2015, BTW) was about .8 degrees C. in only 35 years.

    So, oh blind one, the two slopes you claimed were "the same" are actually very different...one taking 60 years to rise 2.5 degrees and the other taking only 35 years to rise .8 degrees.








    There wasn't. There was a spike....possibly natural, possibly faulty record keeping during a war, or possibly due to anthropogenic factors from the war....that looks to have started about 1938 that peaked in the early 1940s and had ended by about 1948 with temperatures higher at that point in time than they were when that spike began, after which temperatures continued to rise at about the same rate as they were rising between 1915 and 1938. It is easy to see that there was no "cooling" in the '50's, 60's, and 70's, as you fraudulenty claimed, since the temperatures are higher by about .1 degrees at the end of that period in 1980 than they were at the beginning in 1950. After 1980, temperatures really started rising much faster.
     
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The slopes are almost exactly the same. Any middle school student with a ruler can determine that.

    The chart you have presented clearly shows the cooling trend. Again any middle school student can see that.
     
  4. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So...are you admitting that you are a "middle school student"? Not surprising! LOLOLOL. Well, any college Professor with an ability to read graphs can see that you are full of beans. Your drivel got debunked. Face it. Repeating your fraudulent dogmas over and over after they are debunked just makes you look very silly. The slopes are very obviously different.

    I misplaced a decimal place in my last post. It should have read: ...the slope of the running mean line, which represents the rate of increase in temperature, was roughly the same from about 1915 to 1980, ignoring the unusual and possibly spurious spike in the 1940s (after which temperatures returned to the same trend line).....and so the increase over that 65 year period was only about .25 degrees C., while the increase in temperatures from 1980 to 2015 was about .8 degrees C. in only 35 years.

    So, oh blind one, the two slopes you claimed were "the same" are actually very different...one taking 60 years to rise .25 degrees and the other taking only 35 years to rise .8 degrees.






    Again, middle school students don't know very much.....too bad that is your standard, dude.

    The trend line from 1948 to 1980 is positive, rising by about .1 degrees in that period. And it is obviously similar to the the trend line from 1915 to 1938. That depicts the underlying CO2 driven global warming trend. Overlaid on that are natural variations that temporarily push the global temperatures higher or lower outside of the overall trend line. In this case WWII may be responsible for that large spike. Looking at that graph, it is obvious that the trend line after WWII is unfolding in a higher temperature range than the trend line before WWII, and it ends up .1 degrees hotter. That's called warming, not "cooling".
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2017
  5. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look carefully at the NASA GISS chart which you posted. How is it possible to claim warming when there is an obvious cooling trend and to argue that the slopes are not the "same." Only if true believers do not believe their lying eyes ??
     
  6. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Still willfully blind or outright hallucinatory, eh?

    I say the slopes are not the same because the slopes are not the same.....the first slope from 1915 to 1980 rises only .25 degrees over a 65 year period and the second one from 1980 to 2015 rises .8 degrees in only 35 years.

    [​IMG]
    Source: NASA GISS


    As far as you seeing "cooling from 1940 to 1980", that reflects your ignorant and deceitful denier cult attempt to distort the graph by cherry-picking an anomalously high starting point to "look" down from, while ignoring everything in the record before that point. Your cult tried this when, after 20 years of rapidly rising global temperatures, the year 1998, pushed by a strong El Niño, shot up way higher than all of the previous years on record. After your cult tried to push the moronic propaganda meme that the world was really cooling because some of the years following the anomalously high 1998 super spike were cooler than 1998.....even though, as anybody with more than half a brain could see plainly see, every year after 1998 was warmer than every year before 1998. That is called "cherry-picking", or fraudulent statistics, and actually has no relevance whatsoever to the actual long term temperature trends. Some particularly confused denier cultists tried to hang on to the cult's dogma that the world "was really cooling" even after 2005 became the next new 'hottest year on record', surpassed by 2010, then surpassed again by 2014, 2015, and 2016, each in succession becoming the 'hottest year on record'.

    Now you are trying to do the same thing with the instrumental temperature record. There was an anomalous spike in global temperatures in the 1940's, way above the previous rising temperature trend since 1915. That underlying trend resumed in the records after the spike was done. The spike was perhaps caused by natural factors, or it may have been human caused factors resulting from WWII, or a combo, or it may be not altogether real and result mostly from the poorer record keeping during the war. In any case, cherry-picking the year 1940 to look down from and claim "cooling", while ignoring the strong rising trend from 1910 to 1940, is as bogus as the non-existent post 1998 "cooling"....because almost every year after 1948 was as warm, warmer or much warmer than every year before 1940, and the trend line from 1948 to 1980 is entirely higher than the trend line from 1915 to 1940.
     
  7. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Starting from ~ 1910 there is a period of warming followed by a period of cooling followed by a period of warming. The gradients of the warming periods are the same. Middle school kids can see this but alarmists cannot ??

    The MWP was warmer than today's temperature.
     
  8. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope! Starting from 1910 (remember, you just picked that date), there was a period of warming that has continued until now, with only minor natural or human caused* fluctuation up and down from the overall rising temperature trend driven by the rising CO2. Every year since 1910 has been hotter than 1910 and no year since has been cooler than 1910. (* - Industrial aerosol and particulate pollution was causing a slight global cooling effect that offset some of the CO2 driven warming after WWII and through the fifties and sixties and beyond, when industrialization was ramping up enormously worldwide, until nations starting passing 'clean air acts' and other environmental protections that eliminated a lot of that pollution)

    I already debunked your bogus denier cult trick of cherry-picking an anomalous spike in temperatures and claiming that the years afterwards were cooling even though they are hotter than the years before the upward spike in temperatures. And I pointed out how the temperature trend from 1915 to 1980 only rises .25 degrees in 65 years while the trend from 1980 to 2015 rises .8 degrees in only 35 years, making your claim that the two trends are exactly the same look like the completely insane lie that it is.

    Repeating your lies just makes you look even more retarded.

    And BTW, the science shows that the MWP was not global, only regional, and that globally that period was cooler than today.....although it would make absolutely no difference to the evidence supporting the reality of the current human caused global warming even if the MWP had been warmer than today.
     
  9. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please look at the graph. It's unbelievable how blind alarmism affects eyesight.

    The MWP was indeed global and took place over many decades. Again the alarmism blindness is apparent.
     
  10. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's both hilarious and sad how blind denial/rejection of science, evidence and the laws of physics causes your absurd inability to see what is right in front of you....like that graph, or the enormous amounts of hard scientific evidence that you have been exposed to on this forum.

    All of the actual scientific studies indicate that the MWP was not only regional but varied in timing, with some regions of the planet being somewhat hotter than average while other regions were cooler than average, with the warm regions and cool regions shifting position over that whole period of time. There was nothing particularly globally coherent about it, or all that warm either, actually. There was nothing like the all inclusive, continuous, fully global warming at increasing rates that the world is witnessing now.

    It's a moot point anyway, except in denier cult mythology, because, as I said earlier: 'it would make absolutely no difference to the evidence supporting the reality of the current human-caused global warming even IF the MWP had been warmer than today'.

    Which it wasn't. Scientists understand quite well what natural forces caused whatever regional upward bumps in temperature that ended up getting somewhat inappropriately called the "Medieval Warm Period", and those factors are not happening now or causing any warming. All of the evidence indicates that this current abrupt rapid global warming is being primarily driven by the over 46% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that has resulted from mankind's activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. And that truth is anathema to your billionaire puppetmasters at the top of the fossil fuel industry.....and that is the real reason you blindly try to deny the facts about what is happening to the Earth's climate now.

    Not that it really matters, but could you possibly pry your mind open enough to actually read this???

    Medieval Warm Period' Wasn't Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says
    Dec 4, 2015
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  11. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There have been thousands of scientific papers on the MWP. The consensus of those papers is that the MWP was global and was ~ 1 deg C warmer than current global average temperature.
     
  12. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Another lie that you can't support with any actual evidence.

    And, as I suspected, you were too afraid to read the article I cited.....or to respond to the truth about why you deny reality.

    "All of the evidence indicates that this current abrupt rapid global warming is being primarily driven by the over 46% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that has resulted from mankind's activities, mostly burning fossil fuels. And that truth is anathema to your billionaire puppetmasters at the top of the fossil fuel industry.....and that is the real reason you blindly try to deny the facts about what is happening to the Earth's climate now.

    Not that it really matters, but could you possibly pry your mind open enough to actually read this???"


    Medieval Warm Period' Wasn't Global or Even All That Warm, Study Says
    Dec 4, 2015[/QUOTE]
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thousands of studies contradict what you spew. Who paid for your cited study ??
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  14. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You say that lie over and over but even when challenged to come up with any evidence, you never can, which is very pathetic.

    I post scientific studies.....you post squat.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2017
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've posted the sources months ago.
     
  16. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's what you denier cult propaganda pushers always say......and it's always a lie...."waaah, I don't need to show you no stinking evidence,'cause I already did so at some nebulous time in the past, somewhere or other". Nobody buys that bullcrap any more, dude.

    If it wasn't a lie, you'd have no trouble finding some reputable source to support you....and you can't.....which, BTW, doesn't mean some denier cult nutjob just proclaiming it on his blog.....it means published scientific papers from reputable science journals that clearly state that the MWP was completely global, not just referring to some discreet region like Europe or part of North America.....and it should clearly state that the MWP was globally warmer than today.....but there isn't anything like that out there....the scientific studies show regional warming along with some regional cooling in some other parts of the world.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2017
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's been done many times. Sources are demanded and ignored. Rinse and repeat.
     
  18. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What's "been done many times" is the BS you're doing right now....refusing to even try to provide any evidence to support your fraudulent claims by fraudulently claiming that you have already provided the evidence at some unnamed time in the past and on some unnamed thread.

    As I said: 'That's what you denier cult propaganda pushers always say......and it's always a lie...."waaah, I don't need to show you no stinking evidence,'cause I already did so at some nebulous time in the past, somewhere or other". Nobody buys that bullcrap any more, dude.'
     
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Point proven ^^
     
  20. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right....you've proven my point that you never can provide any actual evidence to support your fraudulent claims by once again refusing to provide any evidence.....by fraudulently claiming that you already posted your supposed 'evidence' sometime or other, someplace or other. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

    SOOOOO pathetic!!!
     
  21. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you refuse to educate yourself there is nothing I can do. Continuously posting sources showing that the MWP was global and warmer than today is a waste of time. You have no initiative and curiosity to investigate.
     
  22. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In the real world....

    Hockey Stick
    By Richard Littlemore
    August 13, 2008
    In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick - cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small “victory” in climate science debate, even while the science itself continues to pass them by.

    [​IMG]
    Mann's Hockey Stick Graph


    Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, above, was placed prominently in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in part because it showed so clearly how temperatures over the last millennium rode along fairly steadily for hundreds of years and then spiked in the latter part of the 20th century (approximating the shape of a hockey stick).

    Steve McIntyre, an amateur statistician and retired mining stock promoter found in Mann's work what he argued was a statistical anomaly, challenged Mann and was actually successful in getting Mann to submit a correction to the journal (I think it was Science) that originally published the graph. The excited chorus of “Ah ha!” rang through the deniersphere. Mann, they said, had “admitted he was wrong” (albeit on one small detail). And therefore, we could all go home and stop worrying about climate change.

    This is stupid for a host of reasons. First, even Edward Wegman, the statistician who the (anti-climate change policy) Republicans “invited” to critique the “stick” agreed that Mann's original conclusions were reasonable, even if not absolutely verifiable beyond about 400 years.

    But more obviously, the stick has been replicated time and again, using different termperature proxies and different methodologies. And guess what? In every instance, the image looks like a hockey stick. And in NO instance has McIntyre or any of his cronies so much as peeped about the credibility of these pieces of research.

    So, even if you wanted to walk away from Mann's work (and we don't; it was good work overall), there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that the deniers fear or fail to recognize.

    To whit: the image at the top is from a paper by Jones, et al , that appeared in the journal Science in 2001. It's based on multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, corals and historical records, and like the Wegman-approved Mann hockey stick, goes back 400 years.

    [​IMG]
    D'Arrigio, et al

    But don't stop there. What about the next image above. It's from a paper by D'Ariggo, et al, published in the Joutrnal of Geophysical Atmospheres in 2006, also uses tree rings, but extends for the full thousand years.
    ***

    [​IMG]
    Briffa, et al

    Or the next thousand-year image (above), from a paper by Briffa, et al, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2001 and based again on tree rings.
    ***

    [​IMG]
    Oerlemans

    Then there's the image (above) from a paper by Oerlemans, based on glacier records and published in the April 2005 issue of Science.
    ***

    [​IMG]
    Jansen, et al

    But let's not stop there. What about the next graph (above) from Jansen, et al, published in the Fourth IPCCReview in 2007.
    ***


    [​IMG]
    Moberg, et al

    And as we're on a role, why not also look at the next graph, from Moberg, et al, based on tree rings and lake and ocean sediment and published in Nature in 2005.
    ***

    [​IMG]
    Wilson, et al

    Then, we might reasonably consider the next graph, from Wilson, et al, more tree rings, different methodology, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres in 2007.
    ***

    [​IMG]
    Jouzan, et al

    Finally, why not look at Jouzel, et al, (Note that this graph goes in the other direction) which covers not 1,000 years but 800,000, and which seems to show a hockey stick shape for about 110,000 years. Oh yeah, this was published in Science in August of 2007, ample time for the climate “experts” at ClimateAudit to use their vast statistical skills to identify an anomalies or debunk that which bears debunking.

    Alas, no. Despite it's quite pleasing new design, ClimateAudit is silent on all but the Mann graph and really has had NOTHING NEW TO SAY since 2003.

    So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others who love to hold so closely to the Hockey Stick. Have you any legitimate criticism of all the other science that supports Mann's work? Any criticism at all?

    Or would you prefer to huddle about like has-been high school football stars, forever reliving that one great play - imagining, even today, that it made a difference?
     
    HereWeGoAgain likes this.
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,789
    Likes Received:
    8,618
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you only consider work from the hockey team this ^^ is what you get.
     
  24. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOLOLOLOL. So, in denier cult nutbagger lingo, "the hockey team" equals all of the climate scientists. That's hilarious!

    Even funnier is that you still can't find any evidence to support your fraudulent claims so, after multiple challenges to come up with ANY, you are still fraudulently claiming that you already posted such evidence someplace sometime. That is sooooo stupidly pathetic!
     
  25. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How can you be doing that "continuously" when you haven't done it yet ever?
     

Share This Page