The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

No, you are again making factually incorrect statements.

No, it was exponential from the start. And as the response of temperature to CO2 is also exponential -- i.e., a 10% increase in CO2 has the same effect on temperature no matter what the starting level -- the early increases would, if AGW nonscience were true, be expected to have the same effect as the later, larger increases from a higher baseline.

No, that is again just factually incorrect. Global temperature increased just as much in the 1910-1940 period as in the 1970-2000 period, despite much lower CO2 levels.

No, they are not, as already proved.

No, there is not. There is an ASSUMED causal connection based on computer model results, but that causal connection has in fact been shown empirically to be far weaker than claimed by AGW screamers.

No, that is a claim that is often repeated, but is in fact false. What the scientific community agrees on is that the earth has -- unsurprisingly -- warmed to more normal temperatures since the Little Ice Age, and that CO2 has contributed to that warming. YOUR OWN GRAPH shows CO2 rising exponentially from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, while temperatures were FALLING:


Time series of annual values of global mean temperature anomalies (red and blue bars) in degrees Celsius, and carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa, both from NOAA. Data are relative to a baseline of the 20th-century values. Also given as dashed values are the preindustrial estimated values, with the scale in orange at right for carbon dioxide, where the value is 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The latest values exceed 400 ppmv. For temperature, the 2015 value is more than 1 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels. Image credit: Kevin Trenberth/John Fasullo

YOUR OWN GRAPH shows they are factually correct.

No, that's factually incorrect. YOUR OWN GRAPH, above, clearly shows a virtually linear rising trend in temperature from about 1910-1940. Readers can see this for themselves. They don't need you to tell them to disbelieve their own eyes because the facts disprove AGW nonscience.

But mostly because CO2 does not drive temperature.

That's just indisputably false. YOUR OWN GRAPH clearly shows temperatures declining slightly in the 1940-1970 period, despite exponentially rising CO2.

You mean the ones that ended in 1998, despite continued exponential increases in CO2...?

No, that's false. YOUR OWN GRAPH clearly shows an increase of ~0.6C between 1910-1940, and a slightly larger increase 1970-2016 (which is a 50% longer time period):

 

Nope! There you are again, idiotically parroting anti-science denier cult bullcrap that has already been thoroughly debunked. Your whole post is nothing but lies, misinformation and drivel.

 

Thanks for proving my point - again.

 

Since my point is that denier cultists are foolish, clueless, very ignorant, anti-science stooges for the fossil fuel industry, it is good that you are recognizing that it is true.

 

That's funny. Keep on proving my point by the name calling and insults.

 

You're quite hilarious. Keep on proving my point by continuing to demonstrate that you are foolish, clueless, very ignorant, very science-denying, and obviously stooping for the fossil fuel industry. So far, you're nailing it.

 

I don't know if it is funny. Imagine one living life just coping, changing fonts and pasting and being able to produce a single thought besides name calling and insults.
Mental derangement and continuous, non-stop outrage may be pity, may be dangerous, but hardly funny.

 

You deniers are both sad and hilariously clueless. Imagine people so out of touch with reality that they spend their days denying science, attacking competent scientists whose well supported conclusions offend their crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, posting delusional screeds without a shred of evidence to support their fraudulent propaganda, making arguments totally lacking in logic, rationality, sense or sanity.....and there would be the pathetic delusional losers from the astroturfed cult of AGW reality denial.

Mental derangement and continuous non-stop lying seem to go together with the denier cultists, and that is not at all funny.

 

Spoke as a true scientist.

 

It's so over the top that it's satirically funny even if he is serious.

 

Speaking of denier cult reality-denying insanity....

Too true....and you would certainly know all about that....

 

So you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. Thought so.

 

LOLOLOLOL.....you deniers are hilarious when you hallucinate.....

In the real world, the OP stands without any meaningful responses from you anti-science cultists. In spite of the fraudulent myths that you denier cultists tell each other constantly, the hockey stick graph is very well verified and is not at all disputed in the world scientific community, as the OP and a lot of evidence posted since clearly shows. The only place the graph is dismissed as somehow wrong is in the little alternative reality bubble of reality-denying propaganda, lies, 'fake news', and extremely crackpot conspiracy theories that constitutes the cult of AGW denial ginned up by the billionaires at the top of the fossil fuel industry to stooge for them. Too bad you are so gullible.

 

Come again, we must accept your words or words of the scientific community as true for what reason? Just not hear the annoying barrages of meaningless insults and get rid off copied -colored-pasted pages we have to scroll through to get to an ongoing conversation? Can you just go away or be banned as a troll?

 

Because they are supported by all of the scientific evidence.

While your ignorant denial of reality is supported by nothing whatsoever but your crackpot rightwingnut political and economic ideologies, that have nothing to do with science or reality.

 

Come again, we must accept any of your words or any words of the scientific community as true for what reason?
When evidence has no place in such disciplines as Thermodynamics and Theory of Heat and Mass Exchange and many others, why would we have to listen to any word of scientists believing that Thermodynamics and Theory of Heat and Mass Exchange have no place in discussion about warming?

 

You have made it very clear that you understand none of that.....but you nevertheless somehow imagine that you know more, understand more and are way smarter than all of the world's scientists. That is referred to as being sorely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."

The phenomenon was first observed in a series of experiments by Dunning and Kruger of the department of psychology at Cornell University in 1999.[1][2] The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, because lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras.[3] The authors noted that earlier studies suggested that ignorance of standards of performance lies behind a great deal of incorrect self-assessment of competence.

This pattern of over-estimating competence was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, practicing medicine, operating a motor vehicle, and playing games such as chess or tennis. Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

• fail to recognize their own lack of skill
• fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
• fail to accurately gauge skill in others
• recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill

Dunning has since drawn an analogy – "the anosognosia of everyday life"[5][6] – with a condition in which a person who experiences a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of, or denies the existence of, the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis: "If you're incompetent, you can't know you’re incompetent.… The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."

 

More hilarity from the resident wacko alarmist.

 

This is nothing more than a wordy use of the argumentative fallacy of Poisoning the Well. Instead of refuting the message you try to discredit the message by attacking the messenger.

Why don't you offer something of import to refute the assertion that was made?

For instance, the claim that all the so-called "heat" is hiding in the deep oceans totally ignores the fact that the heat had to warm up the surface waters in order to be transported to the deep ocean. Yet there is no evidence that this has happened. Even NASA claims the ocean surfaces are not warming.

But the global warming alarmists would have us believe the Laws of Thermodynamics have been repealed!

 

People that understand graphs instantly spot the fraud by Mann and his "hockey stick."
Only a total jerk represents tenths of a degree as super fast while his time line is very short. Mann knew it was a fraud. He has to go to court to prove it is not a fraud.

https://realclimatescience.com/the-100-fraudulent-hockey-stick/

The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick
In 1999, NASA showed no net global warming from 1876 to 1976. This wrecked their hockey stick plans, so NASA erased all of the inconvenient pre-1880 data and cooled 1880 temperatures by about 0.2C.



NASA 1999 NASA 2016

This abuse of science is atrocious, but it gets worse. The NASA data had already been highly corrupted in 1999. In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) showed 0.4C cooling from 1940 to 1970, and no net warming from 1870 to 1970.



14 Jul 1974

NASA has since erased this cooling, and now shows 1940-1970 as warming.



The 1940 to 1970 global cooling was also reported by CRU, and they blamed droughts, floods, blizzards and tornadoes on it.



14 Jul 1974

But the fraud gets much worse. Briffa’s trees showed the 1970’s as one of the coldest periods in the last 600 years. So Michael Mann completely erased them when he created the hockey stick.



briffa_recon.gif (420×320)

In 1981, NASA still showed about half of the 1940-1970 cooling, which they have since erased.



1981 version 2016 version

The only hockey stick, is the hockey stick of data tampering.



Global warming is indeed Mann-made, by Michael Mann and James Hansen. But it has nothing to do with climate or science.

 

Nope! Just pointing out that his delusion that he is smarter and knows more than the professional scientists when he obviously knows less than nothing about science, since he is filled with misinformation and crackpot pseudo-science, is a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. It wouldn't be a surprise to find that you are also afflicted.

I have, in fact, debunked his bogus claims many times with scientific evidence.....like I'm about to do to you.

And up pops another Dunning-Kruger Effect afflicted denier cultist, full of misinformation and lies.

In the real world...the ocean surface waters are measurably warming and have been since about 1910. NASA does not say that "the ocean surfaces are not warming". That is a lie.

Figure 1. Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880–2015
This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
Data source: NOAA, 2016
Web update: August 2016

Key Points

* Sea surface temperature increased during the 20th century and continues to rise. From 1901 through 2015, temperature rose at an average rate of 0.13°F per decade (see Figure 1).
* Sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in 1880 (see Figure 1).
* Based on the historical record, increases in sea surface temperature have largely occurred over two key periods: between 1910 and 1940, and from about 1970 to the present. Sea surface temperature appears to have cooled between 1880 and 1910 (see Figure 1).
* Changes in sea surface temperature vary regionally. While most parts of the world’s oceans have seen temperature rise, a few areas have actually experienced cooling—for example, parts of the North Atlantic (see Figure 2).

 

You are new here. Just to let you know that for the last 7 years this poster has never used any argumentative fallacy or anything else which by any means can be argumentative or even slightly related to logic. It is all said here http://politicalforum.com/index.php...k-graph-reality.498157/page-8#post-1067286332
So, don't even try. Just sit back and enjoy the circus. There are more than enough hilarious clowns here, another one as an example: http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-15#post-1067285128

 

I believe Hansen was already one of those wacko activists shouting on streets with all kinds of BLM , WSP "protestors" before her came with his stuff to PF as livefree, wasn't he?

 

...thoroughly debunked every bit of fraudulent denier cult bullcrap and lies that has been posted using actual scientific evidence.

Too bad you deniers are so confused and bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry's self-serving propaganda and lies. Too bad your crackpot, reality-challenged rightwingnut political and economic ideologies force you to live in an unreal fantasy world and reject and deny the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes.

 

I have science research on the Sun that could account for a good deal of the warming.

BTW, why is science studying what the left wing Gore calls settled science?
http://www.snf.ch/en/researchinFocu...climate-change-quantified-for-first-time.aspx
Sun's impact on climate change quantified for first time