Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ed Snack's comment
#1
From HERE


Quote:David Appell, you appear to unfamiliar with statistics, completely unfamiliar. In fact the "stick" of the Hockey Stick is exactly what you would expect if a load of poorly correlated "proxies" are thrown together; the variances are random and thus a relatively straight line is produced. It has nothing to do with "physics" as such expect that you can attempt to draw a correlation, but, as I'm sure people have told you before, correlation is NOT causation. And especially not (as I'm sure your cognitive dissonance will chime in here and you will want to dispute this) with data that has been statistically manipulated first.

You have failed to understand Mann 1998 & 1999 completely. There is nothing surprising about the blade at all. They selected data that correlated to 20th century temperature records and weighted it by the degree of correlation. Using that method it is impossible not to have a rapid rise. The key is that these studies purported to show that this recent warming was "unprecedented". You are clueless about the intent of the study but claim to defend it ! And you cite Wahl & Amman in support, but W&A include the R2 statistic showing that almost the entire "stick" is statistically insignificant. You can argue whether RE is a reasonable yardstick, but having performed an R2 test, it is fraudulent to omit the result in a paper where it disagrees with the conclusion if you also cite it where it supports your conclusion. Mann did exactly that by citing R2 in support of his 1815 step. Why do you support fraud ?

And further, you continue to ignore another elephant in the room, on what basis can you claim that the Bristlecone Pine proxies that are essential to the Mann reconstructions are temperature proxies ? There's peer reviewed research (Gray & Idso) from 1993 "proving" that they are CO2 proxies, and nothing after that to refute that peer reviewed conclusion. The correlation of that proxy with LOCAL temperatures is not very high, in fact they are better correlated with local precipitation. Then there is a later far better controlled set of Bristlecone records, collected by Linah Ababneh that shows no such radical rise in ring widths. Conclusion, the Gray & Idso bristlecone proxies ARE NOT temperature proxies at all. If you wish to claim that they are correlated with some other temperature dependent measure, that must first be shown to exist.

Just for your education as you seem intent on remaining stunningly ignorant on the details, the Gray & Idso samples are probably neither CO2 or temperature proxies but are demonstrating a (probable) mechanical deformation related to the "strip-bark" phenomena. G&A appear to have preferentially sampled strip bark examples in the strip area and this shows anomalous results likely arising from the response of the trees to the strip bark process. The later and apparently more carefully collected Ababneh samples that do not include a high proportion of strip-bark trees has quite different properties. Ones that, BTW, are far better correlated with local conditions. It is also possible that the G&A data has been "unusually" detrended for growth effects, but I haven't looked at the details on this.

Sep 2, 2015 at 12:26 AM | [Image: transparent.png]Ed Snack
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#2
David Appell, comically replied many times after this comment above. He seems unaware what a fool he is with his pretzel like replies.

He asked if there were evidence that Medeivel Warm Period (MWP) was global.


Quote:"David Appell, why is it so important to climate science to prove there was no MWP, when all evidence prior to the Hockey Stick established there was a MWP?"

What evidence?

LINK

He make clear he doesn't think it exist:


Quote:"golf charlie: I'll ask again, since you didn't answer the first time: what is the evidence for a global MWP?"

LINK

A simple check would show HUNDREDS of published papers showing that it was indeed global.

Here is on such link showing many such papers:

Medievel Warm Period Project
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#3
David Appell,was taken apart by many in the comment threads.Here is one great example.

From HERE

What an entertaining show that was. So many hilarious things in one thread, with for instance Appell:
- demanding answers to his questions but himself constantly answering questions with questions:

Quote:"David Appell, you keep posting Marcott et al as support for your faith that the uptick (blade) is exceptional. But it isn't known to be in any way unusual. There is no study that shows the current rise as being strange."

[Appell:] Define "strange."
"Will you now please acknowledge that you misunderstood the evidence of Marcott et al and that Mann is not supported by that paper?"
[Appell:] Misunderstood what?
"David Appell, why is it so important to climate science to prove there was no MWP, when all evidence prior to the Hockey Stick established there was a MWP?"
[Appell:]What evidence?

- accusing people of insulting him, followed by insult after insult from him:

Quote:"If not... well - please acknowledge that you are a zealot, not a rational person."
[Appell:] If you expect further replies, you'll stick to the science and can the insults.
[Appell:] Robert: Personal attacks just show you can't counter my science.

Followed by:

Quote:[Appell:] You people are very poor at understanding physics.
[Appell:] Wow. Haven't ANY of you ever taken a course in physics??
[Appell:] My God you are dense.
[Appell:] If you can't follow, you aren't much of a climatologist, newbie or otherwise.
[Appell:] Only suckers like you and people who read this fall for it.

- performing outstanding circular reasoning (squared!):

Quote:[Appell:] It was the blade -- a rapid increase in temperatures relative to the several hundreds of years before -- that was so notable about the hockey stick -- a clear sign of the anthropogenic signal.
[response]:
What you've done, instead, is simply restate part of the hypothesis. Your statement that CO2 is increasing (super exponentially even maybe) is a part of the global warming hypothesis. Your statement that CO2 radiative forcing increase logarithmically is also part of the GW hypothesis.
So all you've got is a circular argument - If you believe in global warming then global warming is true. That ain't science mate - that's practically theology. Start accepting circular reasoning in your science and you'll end up being lumped in with the creationists and intelligent designers.
[Appell:] .......

- saying that the existence of a global MWP (which he denies LOL) would somehow increase the risks of manmade GHG's (wow what a leap he makes there!):


Quote:[Appell:] The reconstructed hockey sticks shows no evidence for a global MWP. Ironically, if they had, it would make our current situation WORSE, for it would show our climate is much more sensitive to forcings than we think. That would make the risks we face from manmade GHGs even higher.

- thinking averaging world temperatures gives a meaningfull climate related parameter.
- and last but not least, equating heat with temperature (my personal favorite!):

Quote:[Appell:] Why is average temperature a meaningful concept? Because it increases as heat is added to a system.
[response in a nutshell]: Nonsense. Adding heat (energy) to a pan of boiling water does not change its temperature.
[Appell:] .......

What a tool.


Sep 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM | [Image: transparent.png]Wijnand
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#4
Taken from the first comment,is this little known gem:


Quote:And further, you continue to ignore another elephant in the room, on what basis can you claim that the Bristlecone Pine proxies that are essential to the Mann reconstructions are temperature proxies ? There's peer reviewed research (Gray & Idso) from 1993 "proving" that they are CO2 proxies, and nothing after that to refute that peer reviewed conclusion. The correlation of that proxy with LOCAL temperatures is not very high, in fact they are better correlated with local precipitation. Then there is a later far better controlled set of Bristlecone records, collected by Linah Ababneh that shows no such radical rise in ring widths. Conclusion, the Gray & Idso bristlecone proxies ARE NOT temperature proxies at all. If you wish to claim that they are correlated with some other temperature dependent measure, that must first be shown to exist.

Bolding emphasis mine

This mean that Dr. Mann,used Bristlecone data from the Idso paper.that was really about CO2 effect on water use efficiency,NOT about temperature.
Mann's paper was dead from the start.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)