Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

That's ridiculous. If you have a point make it.

It's just your total inability to understand it. Face it, dude or dudette!

 

[CapelDodger]

Prima facie I found no reason to suspect the information is incorrect. The issue is how the information is showed to force twisted conclusions. I'm sure you can find out why.

Standardised anomoly isn't the most obvious choice for the y-axis. I've very little stats background, but doing it this way does seem to make the Antarctic trend greater than the basic anolomy trend, as shown at tamino's http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/. Perhaps it was chosen for that very reason?

My instincts point me at this; I'll have to think it over Antarctic sea-ice extent is less variable than Arctic sea-ice extent, so the standard deviation is presumably smaller, so "number of standard deviations from average" exaggerates the actual variation. Or something like that?

 

[CapelDodger]

Read McIntyre's site. Lately he's spent time on a rebuttal of the silly Lewandowsky survey, which is taking a howitzer to a mosquito. His larger issue is with protocols of data selection and analysis. He argues that it's improper to hunt for results in limited data sets without specifying in advance what limits determined the data set ...

Indeed it is, which is why scientists don't do it. They describe their selection criteria and justifications for them in the methodology part of a paper.

... since every possible shape inhabits a sufficiently large data set (go back to the sculptor who chips away everything that doesn't look like a horse, or whatever). Select the points you want from this space:...
___________________________________________________________



___________________________________________________________
.and you can produce any shape you desire. Hockey stick, saw-tooth, exponential, whatever.

Which McIntyre demonstrates. The difference between him and scientists are that scientists don't have a desired outcome, whereas McIntyre does (hint : it's not a hockey-stick). What scientists want is the correct outcome or something close to it, since they know their work will be checked. Checked by people they respect, not by McIntyre. Whatever they do he'll just lie about it anyway.

This was the issue with McIntyre's pursuit of the Yamal dendrochronologies. There were more sample sites available than Mann, et. al. used. They resisted McIntyre's efforts to get the raw data. The expanded data set (all available chronologies in the region) did not produce the signal that Mann. et. al. found.

Many lines were excluded in the proper analysis because they were not good proxies for temperature (being, for instance, more sensitive to precipitation). McIntyre included those to get his desired result.

Mann et al 1998 has, of course, been replicated many times since using different proxies and statistical methods and always comes up with much the same result. No doubt McIntyre would get onto them if he could just finish off this first reconstruction.

Also, arguments wihout ad hominem suggest confidence.

Wafflegab suggests someone entirely at sea.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Standardised anomoly isn't the most obvious choice for the y-axis. I've very little stats background, but doing it this way does seem to make the Antarctic trend greater than the basic anolomy trend, as shown at tamino's http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/. Perhaps it was chosen for that very reason?

My instincts point me at this; I'll have to think it over Antarctic sea-ice extent is less variable than Arctic sea-ice extent, so the standard deviation is presumably smaller, so "number of standard deviations from average" exaggerates the actual variation. Or something like that?

You're quite right! That graphic is a masterpiece of manipulation. Even the choice of colours is made to provoke in the unaware -99.9% of population- the perception of "well, what a pole loses the other one gains, so nothing happens". The representation is so artful that you have to watch it carefully to realise that the Arctic trend goes down three sd while the Antarctic goes up just one, so the Arctic has a definite trend towards loss while the Antarctic has a shy trend that faints when contrasted with its own variability.

The graphic says nothing about how variable are both extents in figures, so one of them can vary just a little and the other one a lot. Not surprisingly it is the Antarctic the one varying less in absolute terms, as you said. But the important thing is that this graphic simply doesn't reflect that in such a way that a hypothetical Antarctic sea ice extent of 23456788 km2 for every year from 1978 to 1995 and 23456789 km2 for every year since 1996 would give a trend similar to the red one in the graphic, but without the electrocardiogram-like plot used to deceive the unaware.

But there's even more in the graphic and that's a twist, because the "honest" graphic try to vindicate without real cause both processes are from the same nature and deeply connected. Among the deniers there are masters of graphical manipulation. I'm not surprised that some see artificial hockey sticks. There's a Spanish proverb that says "a thief thinks everybody is his colleague"

 

[CapelDodger]

I bet you can't substantiate this your claim with a proper peer reviewed paper.

I have this, if it helps :

"So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.

McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web."

 

[aleCcowaN]

I have this, if it helps :

I expected something like that to be the kind of source behind that, but I still have hopes that Malcolm is somewhat serious and he'll be able to provide a peer reviewed paper supporting his claim.

 

[CapelDodger]

You're quite right!

Yeah, I get a lot of that.

That graphic is a masterpiece of manipulation. Even the choice of colours is made to provoke in the unaware -99.9% of population- the perception of "well, what a pole loses the other one gains, so nothing happens"

Most, of course, won't even look at the y-axis, they'll assume it represents extent not a sort of first-derivative. De Freitas et al did a similar trick a few years ago, graphing rate-of-change of temperature to get a flattish line which many (most?) took to be actual temperature. From that they claimed to have proved ENSO responsible for thirty years of warming and that JFK shot Jack Ruby. Or something similar.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is Briffa's response to McIntyre's attack on his integrity and competence :

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/


with an expansion at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

 

[CapelDodger]

I expected something like that to be the kind of source behind that, but I still have hopes that Malcolm is somewhat serious and he'll be able to provide a peer reviewed paper supporting his claim.

A link to McIntyre's study anywhere would do, except that it would presumably link to ClimateFraudit. Malcom Kirkpatrick doesn't seem to have read it because he says McIntyre used all the data when in fact he chose a subset according to his own criteria (which are presumably described in his study, since it's improper to hunt for results in limited data sets without specifying in advance what limits determined the data set).

On that note, from Briffa :

"A chronology using only the recent data from either POR or YAD will exhibit a greater 20th century increase in growth than one based on JAH, but one based only on KHAD, as in McIntyre's experiment, is the most anomalous and, therefore, arguably the least defensible."

No doubt McIntyre has defended it robustly but I still suspect cherry-picking. How does it look to you, Malcolm? A bit dodgy, don't you think?

 

[lomiller]

Read McIntyre's site.

No. If you can;'t be bothered to present the arguments yourself (and support them with peer reviewed literature if required) then they have no value to the discussion. Stop trying to outsource your arguments, make your case yourself using your own words.

 

[lomiller]

Standardised anomoly isn't the most obvious choice for the y-axis. I've very little stats background, but doing it this way does seem to make the Antarctic trend greater than the basic anolomy trend, as shown at tamino's http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/. Perhaps it was chosen for that very reason?

My instincts point me at this; I'll have to think it over Antarctic sea-ice extent is less variable than Arctic sea-ice extent, so the standard deviation is presumably smaller, so "number of standard deviations from average" exaggerates the actual variation. Or something like that?

Pretty close, but remember standard deviation is a measure of how much difference there is between data points. The difference between data points in Arctic sea ice is big because more than half of it has disappeared over the last decade. Or put another way the standard deviation is smaller in the Antarctic because the ice hasn't changed much.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Standardised anomoly isn't the most obvious choice for the y-axis. I've very little stats background, but doing it this way does seem to make the Antarctic trend greater than the basic anolomy trend, as shown at tamino's http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/. Perhaps it was chosen for that very reason?

My instincts point me at this; I'll have to think it over Antarctic sea-ice extent is less variable than Arctic sea-ice extent, so the standard deviation is presumably smaller, so "number of standard deviations from average" exaggerates the actual variation. Or something like that?

Pretty close, but remember standard deviation is a measure of how much difference there is between data points. The difference between data points in Arctic sea ice is big because more than half of it has disappeared over the last decade. Or put another way the standard deviation is smaller in the Antarctic because the ice hasn't changed much.

We are not talking exactly the same way, but I'm sure further analysis will clear it up for everyone. Here's a simple example the kind I used with my students:

First, the sea ice extent in the northern pole area in three different planets in the same system:

Then a graphic to illustrate how real ice evolves, including linear trends and their equations:

Now, let's replace the original values by their "standardized anomalies"

so it's possible a misrepresentation of the whole process:

The wrongdoers can argue that they didn't make the data up and even say that their source was their rivals. Well, it'd be good if their haven't chosen among the multiple possible analysis and data sources those that allowed them showing what they want. Suppose we suppress Mcintyria and colour red Dysonia plot line, the denier argument would be that while Realworldia loses ice, Dysonia gains it, with a plot showing "compensation". Reality says Realworld loses it and Dysonia has it almost constant.

 

[aleCcowaN]

This is Briffa's response to McIntyre's attack on his integrity and competence :

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/


with an expansion at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

I imagine the reaction: data are still lost and the lost data show "the real thing". I still wonder why don't they collect money and organize an expedition to the Yamal Peninsula to collect their own samples. What do they expect to find? all the trees burnt to hide sample selection misdemeanours? What do they fear? the multiplication of Mullers like the biblical loaves?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, you really don't know what you are talking about here.
I have offered to tutor you...

I doubt that anyone who argues in your style has much to offer except a bad example.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No. If you can;'t be bothered to present the arguments yourself (and support them with peer reviewed literature if required) then they have no value to the discussion. Stop trying to outsource your arguments, make your case yourself using your own words.

Why don't you apply that standard to those who cite Skeptical Science?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

P.S.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Malcolm Kirkpatrick: Species of Foraminifera could not adapt to CO2 changes that took millions of years to happen.
What do you think will happen to Foraminifera when CO2 changes over decades?

First asked 10 September 2012
11 days and counting!

Questions:
a) What rate of change in atmospheric CO₂ do you anticipate?
b) How do you infer that "species of foraminifera could not adapt to CO₂ changes that took millions of years"? Species go extinct in, broadly speaking, two ways: they evolve into different species or they leave no descendants. A high rate of extinction at the species level might mean no more than a rapid rate of evolution.
c) Why suppose that extinction rates that coincide with increase or decrease in CO2 levels are caused by CO₂ changes? Both extinction and CO₂ might be responding to some other factor.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's ridiculous. If you have a point make it.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language".

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, could you please take the time to reply to the above?

I have to consider this. I'm hanging on "traps heat". I wonder what happens to thermometers wrapped in insulation that is painted in various colors and shades of grey, floating in space in orbit around the sun. Don't they all reach the same temperature if they're all composed of the same material (mercury or alcohol in calibrated glass tubes) and orbit at the same distance?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I have to consider this. I'm hanging on "traps heat". I wonder what happens to thermometers wrapped in insulation that is painted in various colors and shades of grey, floating in space in orbit around the sun. Don't they all reach the same temperature if they're all composed of the same material (mercury or alcohol in calibrated glass tubes) and orbit at the same distance?

Try it and see. The earth is floating in space in orbit around the sun, so you can set up the experiment in your back yard.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Questions:
a) What rate of change in atmospheric CO₂ do you anticipate?

How does this relate to what Reality Check asked?

b) How do you infer that "species of foraminifera could not adapt to CO₂ changes that took millions of years"? Species go extinct in, broadly speaking, two ways: they evolve into different species or they leave no descendants. A high rate of extinction at the species level might mean no more than a rapid rate of evolution.

You made up that "quotation" in your off-topic paragraph! RC didn't infer that nor said or implied that. The original quote is very different in nature:

Can you understand the inanity of ignoring the most relevent event in that citation:

Approximately 40% of Bentham foraminifera species went extinct at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), which included a strong ocean acidification event (Zachos et al., 2005; Kump et al., 2009).
​

Can you understand that the topic is ocean acidifcation and its effects on foraminifera? The effect is that species go extinct.

Soon it will be evident to everyone that you are trying to twist what RC originally said because you have no answer at all, valid or invalid, that's why you gave some turns about foraminifera just to end up distorting quotes two weeks later

c) Why suppose that extinction rates that coincide with increase or decrease in CO2 levels are caused by CO₂ changes? Both extinction and CO₂ might be responding to some other factor.

You're saying something similar to "how do you know cholera killed those people? It could have been the high fever and loss of electrolytes!". You could read the papers yourself and process the available databases à la McIntyre if you like:

Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum / Zachos et al. 2005 Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Data.

Ocean Acidification in Deep Time (Multiple data sources cited in the document)

Is there precedence in Earth history for the rapid release of carbon dioxide (CO2) by fossil fuel burning and its environmental consequences? Proxy evidence indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher during long warm intervals in the geologic past, and that these conditions did not prevent the precipitation and accumulation of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) as limestone; accumulation of alkalinity brought to the ocean by rivers kept surface waters supersaturated. But these were steady states, not perturbations. More rapid additions of carbon dioxide during extreme events in Earth history, including the end-Permian mass extinction (251 million years ago) and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56 million years ago) may have driven surface waters to undersaturation, although the evidence supporting this assertion is weak. Nevertheless, observations and modeling clearly show that during the PETM the deep ocean, at least, became highly corrosive to CaCO3. These same models applied to modern fossil fuel release project a substantial decline in surface water saturation state in the next century. So, there may be no precedent in Earth history for the type of disruption we might expect from the phenomenally rapid rate of carbon addition associated with fossil fuel burning.

But you're not here to discuss things, aren't you, Malcolm? You do think that your puerile and desperate distortion of the opponent words are quips and that you pushed out Megalodon from the discussion, so you try to do "the same" with Reality Check. Hilarious! You probably think that a bad tv program is powerful because it pushes its audience towards other channels.

BTW, 13 days and counting.