Why The "Hockey Stick" Proves Nothing

I have been very busy at work, extracting energy from the earth so you can keep pounding away on your computer...even though you are convinced you are destroying the world.

However I have a minute now, and I would be delighted if you would take a few minutes to elaborate on how "basic physics" = "causal evidence".

Remember my name is listed on the former Chicago Climate Exchange so I think I will be able to follow you..... (getting popcorn....)

 

Why not read the paper you don't understand, and someone might explain it to you if you still don't get it? You are the one making the false assertions. Your turn.

 

I could say the same to your and caerbannog as caerbannog is once again arguing that McIntyre and McKintrick ever said you can created a hockey stick using the MBH98 method from data that doesn't contain a hockey stick. M&M have always insisted that there has to be a hockey stick somewhere in the data set for the MBH98 short centered PC method to produce a hockey stick. If there s no hockey stick in the data you will not get a hockey stick or if the method doesn't short center and you have a hockey in the series still you will not get a hockey stick.

Its complicated I know and it probably goes well over your and many warmmongers head but its simply comes down to the fundamental argument that one mistake justifies another. Simply put when warmmongers make mistakes they always tend towards creating hockey sticks.

The fact of the matter is that correct statistical analysis like what was done in MM03 will not produce a hockey stick.

However, most hockey sticks do not use the short centered PC analysis of MBH98 and instead use purely correlative models which will inherently produce hockey sticks from pure red noise instead of the pseudo red noise that MM05 used. One mistake doesn't justify another. The fact that there is more than one incorrect way to make a hockey stick doesn't mean that they are valid.

 

Forth grade reasoning....

Do you pray fervently to Allah 3 times daily?? Why not?? Since you haven't read the Koran, how can you claim you should not........


Doesn't mater anyway, you and yours simply ignore the fact that there have been thousands of "hockey sticks" in earth's past, and yet somehow your brainwashed minds decide THIS TIME....it is all due to SUV's and power plants.....

pretty weak conclusion don't you think??????

You are not fooling anyone.....well at least enough voters see through it now.....find another way to try bring on socialism to America

 

If that's the case there is no fallacy and MBH98 didn't make a mistake. Because the blade of the hockey stick is in the data: that's the upturn in temps that is known as part of the instrumental record. In other words, the hockey stick isn't broken.

 

Oh ye of little study in stats. The blade of the hockey stick can just be random or in the case of the original hockey stick something else. The only reason Mann got a hockey stick was because of the Graybill series which is a known CO2 proxy. That was the hockey stick series in the data that dominated the reconstruction.

 

Oh ye of little study, period. MBH99 corrected that series for CO2 fertilization. As you would have known if you had actually read the paper.

After correction: still a hockey stick.

 

I did. Its a joke. There is no temperature signal in the Graybill series. The series was selected because the trees were non responsive to temperature.The lack of a temperature signal is easily confirmed by simply looking at other other trees in the immediate area.

 

The series was selected because the trees were non responsive to temperature.The lack of a temperature signal is easily confirmed by simply looking at other other trees in the immediate area.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, you've been lied to. Let's compare the Graybill series to the (low altitude, hence not CO2-bottlenecked) Northern Treeline series:

[/url]

The correspondence between the two is close, until the beginning of anthropogenic CO2 increase about 1800. Then the high-altitude series shows higher growth during the 19th century.

 

Let me get this straight. It is better to compare the series to a cherry picked average of of north America than simply to other trees in the area? And in La La land Dr. Mann still has credibility.

You are being absolutely ridiculous. The average of of cherry picked series for an entire continent is not a better test than trees from the same area. You warmmongers are a piece of work. You don't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about the accuracy of your method only that your method produces the result you want. It doesn't matter to you that your method is a joke. It produces the what you think is the correct result and therefor is the best method.

 

You know, Windy, if you would actually read McIntyre's sources instead of reading McIntyre, you would have found that the graph you posted from his site is of high altitude trees, which would have been subjected to the same CO2 bottleneck.

If you actually have low-altitude data, go ahead and post it. We'll be waiting.

 

I know what it is. It is the first graph from MBH99. You seem to act like McIntyre doesn't address these things. I invite you to come to climateaudit.org some time. Just about ever major paper that its publicly available from both sides is there to download.

Now that graph relies on Jacoby and D’Arrigo 89 which is just an example of the selection fallacy we have been talking about here. JD89 starts with around 40 temperature series. Then selects based on correlation to the dependent variable which limits it to about 10 and gets a hockey stick. As I have said. There is more than one way to get a hockey stick. JD89 gets theirs through the classic double dip fallacy which will create a hockey stick from any red noise sample.

So in the case of MBH99 the spurious hockey stick of the graybill series correlates well to spurious JD89 hockey stick. So what? They are both still created by bad methodology.

The Graybill series is not a temperature series even Graybill says so. Even the NAS panel says so. Get it through your head.

And what is your obsession with altitude. Tree proxies are supposed to be high altitude. It is at the tree line(high altitude) where trees are supposed to be the most sensitive to temperature. Do you know anything about dendoclimatology?

 

Nope. The graph I posted was from MBH99, but not the one you posted. What you posted is the high-altitude data from the Sheep Mountain and the Patriarch grove: AKA, the Graybill series. What you have not posted is one shred of data to support your assertion that the Graybill series contains no temperature signal.

I'm at climateaudit frequently. And if you think McIntyre posts about every major climate paper, you have been seriously under-reading the literature.

By selecting on instrumental temperature, they have selected on response to signal, which is correct. The hockey stick they get from that shows that signal, which is also correct; there is no fallacy. And, for the umpteenth time, once you select data it is no longer random, regardless of how it was originally generated. Evolution works on this principle: once random mutations are selected, they are no longer random, and lead to spectacularly non-random results.

I don't suppose you'd care to back up those (false) assertions with actual quotes, would you? I didn't think so. Because "even Graybill" actually said (way back in 1993!) that prior to the mid 19th century, "climate signals ... may yet be discovered" in CO2-bottlenecked trees. You can find it on climateaudit.org.

The whole CO2-sensitivity hypothesis is based on the idea that high-altitude trees (experiencing a lower partial pressure of CO2 than low-altitude trees) were carbon-bottlenecked for growth, and that this bottleneck was relieved in the period (roughly 1850-1900) when CO2 began to rise; and that said high-altitude trees took a non-climatological growth leap during the same period. So if we're not suppose to care about altitude, as Windigo says, I guess Graybill's hypothesis must be wrong, according to our dendroclimatolgy expert Windigo. Better not tell McIntyre, or he'll excommunicate you for heresy.

 

Well excuse me I thought you were asking where your graph came from. As for my graph it the Abadneh aggregated chronology not Graybill. The Graybill series is from roughly the same area but they are not the same series. The Abadneh aggregated chronology chooses as a large part of its series different trees that are more responsive to temperature, i.e. whole bark trees.

Actually I have you are just speaking from ignorance with your uninformed assertion that the Abadneh series is the Graybill series. They are not. The Graybill series is of unresponsive strip bark trees. The Abadneh series contains whole bark trees as well which are responsive to temperature. The pronounced difference between the strip bark series and the whole bark series shows that the Graybill series is unresponsive to temperature. Which is to be expected as they are strip bark bristle-cones selected precisely because they are unresponsive to temperature.

Um, the topic is dendroclimatology. McIntrye has just about every major paper relating to dendro. I never said climate science as a whole. He doesn't specialize in climate science as a whole. His focus is on primarily on dendo. However, your post is quite telling. You say that you are frequently on climateaudit yet you have repeatedly claimed the McIntyre hasn't addressed certain issues like MBH99 adjustment of the Graybill series when that has been a major focus of McIntyre over the years specifically he has been trying to find out how Jacoby and D’Arrigo 89 created the series the Mann used.

Here you can see links to 21 climateaudit articals relating to Jacoby many of them dealing with the series used in MBH99

http://climateaudit.org/category/proxies/jacoby/


So we are left with only one conclusion you are either lying about what McIntyre says or about frequenting climateaudit.

No it is not correct because you are assuming that there is a signal. That is the the pitfall that PC analysis when done properly is suppose to avoid. We have been over this time and time again. Random data also produces a hockey stick. Selection on the dependent variable will always create spurious trends consistent to the selection criteria.

Your argument is starting to boarder on insane. And your own example proves my point. If I'm a breeder trying to encourage a trait if I select to breed on that trait I have imparted my own bias into nature because I interfered in the selection process by selecting what I wanted I have created an outcome the confirms my own bias.

First Graybill is just being honest. He doesn't believe that the trees are sensitive to temperature but he cannot rule it out before the temperature record existed. That is simply honest science. Second, how ridiculous is that argument???? Please read prior to the mid 19th century. Since the blade is post mid 19th century that confirms that the 19th century signal is CO2 not temperature as Mann argues.

Altitude is only a small part of Graybill analysis strip bark vs. whole bark bristlecones is the crux of his hypothesis. Whole bark series from the same altitude do show some sensitivity to temperature as Abadneh showed. Please trying and keep current.