I have no idea what your point is.
In Post 251, I stated thus:
How exactly is that missing the point? Do you deny that that’s an essential aspect of the hockey stick?
And extremely disingenuous to set up a straw man. So you invented some quotes for rhetorical purposes, fine.
Show me where I say what you claimed I said.
Please use the quote feature.
Thank you.
Again, I have no idea what your point is.
Earlier, you stated the following:
Have I made such a mistake in this thread? If so, please show me where, and please use the quote feature. Thank you.
Correct.
But how do you measure the standard?
Lol. Nice dodge.
The relevent aspect is “stable,” or in your words “not varied a lot”- it is not that they have not varied that’s relevent, it’s that recent variation has been highly rapid.
Stable does not necessarily mean that temperatures never oscillated, but that changes from one year or time period to the next were gradual and small. You have also brought up the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period as examples of temperature extremes. Yes, they were there- but the climate shifts, while dramatic net, were not rapid compared to the kind of temperature changes we have seen in the last century.
After your repeated accusations of cherry-picking when people acquiesced, despite your own selective cherry picking, I am disinclined to oblige. The record is there for all who care to read it. For instance, you have refused here to address my argument, instead attacking it by labelling it a strawman, thereby using a strawman. If I quoted you, I have no doubt, given your behavior in this thread, that you would axiomatically label any quote as cherry-picking instead of addressing the argument.
I’ll be you for a second. Yes or no, you have repeatedly asserted that since the temperature spike of the “elbow” occurs at the time that modern direct measurements are “spliced” into the data set, that this shows that proxy models for temperature prior to the introduction of direct measurement are inaccurate?
The answer, for anyone that has read the thread, is yes. The problem with the argument is that it takes for granted a causal link between the two that is unproven and due to the historic simultaneity of the events, ignoring that there may be other causal factors- such as the rapid industrialization of the time.
Yes, multiple times. The most recent is the one regarding the stability of the hockey stick I mentioned in this very post. The other that has been of particular concern to me is a consistent misapplication of accuracy in a scientific context. You have presented an extreme layman’s attitude about absolute accuracy in science, which in hard science does not exist, unless defined as a standard (in which case the original standard is 100% accurate to the standard).
Because proxy measurements are not completely accurate means what:
A) That they do not have the high “resolution” of direct measurement, and consequently provide less certainty (the scientific meaning). Note that this does allow even inaccurate ones to be used to model trends.
OR
B) That they’re wrong and should be discarded out of hand (the didactic layman’s understanding).
The question at the end reveals a lack of understanding of the quote of mine you provided. I recommend re-examining it.
No dodge. That is a straightforward refusal to a question that historically seems intended to derail the debate and obfuscate specific discussion of the issues.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that there is a temperature reconstruction that is similar to the hockey stick, except that (1) the temperature for the MWP is significantly higher than today; and (2) the temperature for the LIA is a lot lower than today - by roughly the same margin. Would that still be a hockey stick?
Lol. i.e. you set up a strawman but can’t bring yourself to admit it.
That’s close to what I said, but not quite. So if you insist on a yes or no answer, the answer would have to be “no.”
Then why not use the quote feature? Show me exactly which word I am confused about. As opposed to quotes invented by you for rhetorical purposes.
I won’t hold my breath waiting, since it is a lot easier for you to simply invent strawmen than to actually quote people.
And I recommend that you make your point in a coherent fashion.
Whatever. You opened the door to the question.
It would reveal the relevent part of the hockey stick- the sharp increase in temperature over the last century. That’s the part that matters.
I did no such thing. To attempt to claim such is, frankly, slander.
Which conveniently leaves out addressing the counterpoint, which is applicable if your argument in any way ties into this point- which it does. So please, present the argument you claim you have made in the manner that reveals the counterpoint is not applicable.
Because you are either being deliberately disingenuous or are in serious need of specific education on the matter. Many of your arguments use inference for their point, and insistence on exact vocabulary to deny argumentation is a political form of debate, not a practical.
Accusing me of inventing quotes, instead of responding with the actual arguments you alledge to have made, reveals guilt, quite frankly.
The expected ad hominem to attempt to undermine me instead of my points.
It’s quite coherent. You are the one who insists that you are a sufficiently intelligent layman to follow, weigh in on, and criticize the global warming debate. So step up.
Here’s a little hint: Where did our measurement system come from? Why, arbitraily defined selections of particular items as standards. There’s no need to measure the standard, other things are measured relative to the standard.
To calibrate to outside tests, comparison to an external standard is introduced, effectively for calibration purposes.
As long as trends occur and are measurable in corresponding ways in proxies compared to actual temperature measurements, the correspondence between direct and proxy measurement allows examination of the record prior to direct measurement via proxy with larger error bars than direct measurement alone would provide. By doing so with multiple proxies, all of whom have a different level of correspondence to direct measurement, a very accurate picture of trends can emerge, and a relatively accurate one with temperature.
Btw, you do know that temperature is, itself, a relative measurement, not an absolute one? Don’t let the existence of absolute zero fool you.
How? You are the one who quite early insisted that qualifications aren’t relevant to the debate. If I’m a physicist currently pursuing a graduate degree specializing in atmospheric physics, why does that affect what I say one jot to you?
Ummm, does that mean “yes” or “no”
Yes you did. You have set up strawmen.
Quote my argument and respond to it, and I will endeavor to respond. Oh that’s right, you don’t like to use the quote feature. I wonder why.
Lol. More dodging.
You suggested that my understanding is inferior because I am a layman. thus, you opened the door to discussion of your own credentials.
So, that pretty much sums it up as trolling, and not interested in doing more than ruffling feathers.
BrainFireBob.Join.
b
Second that. Join Bob!
You are welcome to join up, as others have remarked.
Note, however, that accusations of trolling are not permitted in this Forum, so you will not do that again.
[ /Moderating ]
:Shrug: I guess I will answer my own question:
The answer is clearly “no.” It wouldn’t be a hockey stick. (It might be something else that does or doesn’t support somebody’s theory about the climate. But that’s a different issue.)
Thus my criterion of “relatively little temperature variation” or “not varied a lot” would seem reasonable.
However, what if there was more variation than the Mann picture showed but still with an MWP that is lower than the current temperatures…similar to, say, the Moberg (red) plot (with the instrumental record accurately portraying what happened after the Moberg plot stops)?
I would say that in that case that perhaps you could quibble about whether the term “hockey stick” is the best descriptor of the shape, but that the most important aspects that have been gleaned from the Mann et al. work, namely that the late 20th century warmth is anomalous over the last millenium…and that the rapidity of the rise is also unprecedented…would still be preserved.
jshore hit it, as regards the point about the importance of Mann’s work.
You still haven’t proferred a theory meeting the criteria on the table: One that shows the splicing of direct and proxy measurements resulting in the spike over the direct measurement period is caused by the introduction of non-proxies, that is not based on the historical simultaneity of the two.
Apologies to the mod. I was not attempting to accuse. I saw two options: Trolling, or intelligent intransigence backed by a half-understanding of the information. No intent to break forum rules was intended, my apologies.
The insistence on direct quoting decided me.
For instance, if a=b then 2=1.
Given:
a=b
Then
- ab=a^2
Therefore
2) ab-b^2=a^2-b^2
Therefore
3) a+b=b
But we were given a=b, therefore
- 2=1
Now, I present this, and demand you quote where I said “divide by zero,” and deny I have done so. This is inherently specious as an argument.
Assuming that’s true . . . so what? If you get rid of one essential aspect of Mann’s work, the other aspects remain. If you get rid of 2 essential aspects of Mann’s work, the other aspects remain. If you get rid of all essential aspects of Mann’s work except 1, then that one last aspect remains.
Let me ask you this:
In terms of temperature reconstructions, how would you define a “hockey stick?”
Also, I am still waiting for cites for your claim that the “skeptics” are unwiling to modify their views in light of the evidence.
Or are you giving up on that claim?
I’m also waiting for answers to the questions I asked in Post #102.
I note that it’s harder to invent strawmen when you have to quote somebody.
You divided by zero to get from step 2 to step 3.
Simple.
And the only time that I demanded a quote of specific words from you was when you put specific words in quote marks. (Ever wonder why they are called quote marks?)
And that, brazil, is using a strawman to avoid the honest criticisms I levelled at you regarding your arguments. Claiming I have presented a strawman without proof does not make my arguments go away, and you have selectively ignored the honest criticisms levelled. The only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot answer them, either through a lack of understanding of the points raised or a disinterest in the stated topic, leaving you with attempting to attack my credibility.
Also, interestingly, you have again selectively quoted- in this instance, I was presenting an analogous argument to what I have been seeing from you, and you selectively quote to make it appear I was honestly attempting to prove 2=1.