No splicing=no hockey stick again attempts to place blame in the introduction of direct measurement for the observed temperature spike during the last century. Again, this argument is dependent on the premise that the introduction of direct measurement “creates” the temperature spike, instead of the introduction of direct temperature measurement corresponding to a vast increase in industrialization- while a potential point on its own, it then becomes a hypothesis that needs proving.
There are two ways to “disprove” a hypothesis in science. 1) Prove that a inherent necessity of the hypothesis is false (for instance, theories based upon the luminiferous ether were disproven by the proof there was no ether), and 2) Prove a second hypothesis is a better or more accurate fit to the data.
Unfortunately, neither of these is done, and thus, assuming a causal link is unfounded assumption.
As to the last question, it entirely depends on how well the proxies “don’t reflect” the hockey stick. Accuracy in science is a question of error and approximate fit- the better the fit, the more accurate the proxy. What it “means” is this is why we use multiple proxies . Specific confidence in specific proxies to present a detailed picture is undermined; however lack of resolution of the picture does not make the picture worthless.
You’re the one who refuses to back up your claims about what I supposedly said in this thread. You’re the one who invented quotes. It’s not up to me to prove that your inventions are inventions. It’s up to you to back up your claims. Which you are apparently unable to do.
Absolutely not. I was simply playing along with your hypothetical. I was showing that it is possible to use the quote feature to point out the critical part of an argument.
Oh, my, no, not unable- the arguments are quite clearly there. The only reason you yourself should need them is if a) Your memory is fuzzy, b) You intend to argue by claiming it was cherry picking, meaning you are not offering an argument yourself.
I gave you the opportunity to offer your argument concisely. I have also offered, independently, my criticisms of your arguments, which you have consistently ignored. This is disingenuous.
Then, contrary to your assertions, you are not a sufficiently educated layman to debate the issue. I will however give you a chance. What is it that you do not underatnd? I am telling you why the conclusions you are drawing are invalid- frankly, they are too absolute.
Lol. So anyone who doesn’t understand your incoherent ramblings is not capable of discussing temperature reconstructions? Whatever. I guess I’ll just stick with my “didacticism”
The sad thing, Brazil, is you are now attempting to trivialize my arguments by saying “look at how incomprehensible that is”- and I can guarantee you that the people who have been debating with you would in all probability not only understand my arguments, but most probably are thinking “but that goes without saying!”
I have several times given you opportunities to clarify your arguments and positions. You have not done so, attempting to trivialize and undermine me instead. Apparently, you do not realize that this undermines you, instead.
Do I need to go through post 102 again?
Included primarily for completeness, it was the discussion going on at the time in the thread, included to guarantee there was no accusation of cherry-picking.
This places the existence of the hockey stick dependent on the splicing. For this argument to be other than nonsense, it assumes that the splicing is caused by the introduction of direct measurement.
That assumption is dividing by zero in my math example above.
The hypothesis that the introduction of direct measurement shows a spike in temperature that always occured but is not present in the proxy record may be tested. It is also not the only potential explanatory hypothesis, since the introduction of direct measurement corresponded with an industrial spike. As it happens, we have evidence that the second hypothesis- the introduction of industry et al and the temperature spike- go hand in hand that is not dependent on the introduction of direct measurement to world temperatures. So, we have one unfounded speculatory hypothesis and one hypothesis that has some proof. The second hypothesis- that the temperature spike happened and we measured it- is therefore far stronger and more likely.
Therefore, assuming that splicing in direct measurement causes the spike is not only unfounded, but false.
This argument is partially in support of the argument immediately preceding; on its own merits, it also divides by zero.
Many proxies do not reflect the recent increases in temperature- this is a question of the sensitivity of the proxies.
What this does is tell us the accuracy and error range in sensitivity of the proxies, allowing us to “calibrate” the proxy when looking at it in reverse.
By combining multiple proxies of various degrees of accuracy, we can look at the “movement” of temperature over time, and determine trends in movement. Or, as I said above- what it “says” is that this is why we use multiple proxies.
What it should do is cast major doubt on reconstructions using solely the proxies not reflecting the recent temperature increases at all, if there are any. If they reflect them weakly, then you are looking at huge error bars when you use the proxy to look backwards, not an unusable proxy. By combining multiple proxies and looking at trends we can, however, say very definite things about temperature in the past, which is what we do.
I would guess that some of the people who I have been debating with are thinking “right on!,” mainly because you are arguing against me. But a True Neutral Observer would have to concede that much of what you say doesn’t make much sense.
Ask nicely and in good faith, and I may try to clarify. Set up strawmen, and I’ll simply point it out.
Just so you know, my question about Post 102 was addressed to a different poster.
It’s a simple yes or no question. Anyway, I don’t know what you mean when you say that an argument “assumes that the splicing is caused by the introduction of direct measurement.” That’s what splicing is all about.
Why? Do you even understand what I mean when I use the word “splice”?
The “splicing” is “caused” by somebody’s decision to combine data from 2 different sources in 1 graph.
If I understand you, your point is irrelevant. The question is not whether temperatures apparently rose between the late 19th century and today. The question is why the proxies appear to have missed most of the apparent temperature increase and can we be confident that there weren’t other temperature changes that the proxies missed.
And there are many. Just look at the spaghetti graph that’s been linked to so many times.
And can we state with a reasonable degree of confidence that the hockey stick is correct?
We can state with reasonable certainty that the spike that defines the hockey stick is correct.
And just because the question was directed at another poster does not mean it was not a specious argument, and I pointed it out as such.
I understand splicing quite well. It is apparent that it is you that do not. Splicing the two data sets creates two different sets of error bars in the two portions of the graph, no more, no less. This is not inherently bad, as levelling it as a criticism of the practice necessitates as an assumption.
The proxies “missing” the temperature increase- bah. The proxies need only reflect the trends in temperature increase, this allows statements to be made about their sensitivity. If there is minimal reflection, this places the error bars further out in reconstructions using that particular proxy.
What’s relevent to the global warming debate is that the proxies show similar trends, leading high confidence to the picture of temperature they represent.
And a truly neutral observer that understood plain English would easily understand my points. The only reason there is for you to claim not to is because you are unable to answer them- they are destructive to your arguments.
Which is what I’m doing, I’m pointing out you are making logical leaps that are, essentially, invalid logic to come to your conclusions.
Yes or no? brazil, that’s just pathetic reasoning, I’m sorry.
If you cannot grasp why your argument about the hockey stick is dependent on the measurement method creating the spike, and that that is nothing more than ungrounded assumption, then there is no helping you.
At a guess, wanting someone else to speak with you stems from the fact that you know you are caught, you cannot answer my arguments. Should be readily apparent to the attentive reader.
Oh, and regarding the error bars being outside the hockey stick- the fact they’re not for the majority of proxies is what makes this such a damn source of concern for climatologists.
Then please summarize and explain Brainfirebob’s arguments to me (the ones that I indicated I did not understand), and I will attempt to understand and respond. Thank you.
I’ve told you before that you can’t reduce climatological questions to “yes or no.” The earth’s climate is a complex system, and it doesn’t operate on the level of “gotcha” questions and semantic traps. More often than not, the answer to your “yes or no” questions is going to be “sometimes.”
You’re not limiting the climate by insisting on simple answers. It’s going to go on working the way it works. All you’re limiting is your ability to understand it.
I have no idea what your point is, except that it has to do with your inability to back up your claims about what I have said.