Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths.
Posted: 31 October 2017 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1702
Joined  2016-12-24

This article is a fascinating and informative example of how Serious Science, science, science operates in the world of objecting thinking grown-ups.
Ari takes a close look at a weird article by Kenneth Richards (“Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs”)
tailor made to disregard the facts.

Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
Posted on 11 July 2017 by Ari Jokimäki
https://www.skepticalscience.com/80_graphs_climate_myths.html

... Lately, yet another chapter has been written to the continuing saga of climate-changed-before myths. An article about 80 graphs allegedly showing
something interesting has been making rounds. The article shows 80 graphs from different research articles and gives some selected quotes here and there.
The article has been debunked already in Climate Feedback by the authors of the studies from where the graphs were used for this 80 graphs article.
I also took a peek at the issue. I looked at each graph and also clicked the links to the studies behind the graphs to see how the graphs were originally presented.
I didn’t read the studies in full, though (it seems that neither did the author of the 80 graphs article).
I recorded my findings for each graph, and then looked the results as a whole.

Creating a straw man: Local, hemispheric, and global climate changes
. . .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2017 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01

CC, you are aware of course that the guys over at skepticalscience are known as part of the Hockey Team. Skepticalscience is known as a pro-Mann anti-denier contributors. Major alarmists. They insist that the Climate Change science has been settled a long time ago. On technical and scientific data, they would have no problem kicking our butts. As far as the climate graphs are concerned, there is only one that needs to be talked about in science, science, science. It is the one that Al Gore used.
 
Have to say, I am impressed by what they are saying.
 
There are many factors which can cause climate to change. Those who have followed climate science are well aware that changes in the Sun’s activity, volcanic activity, Earth’s orbital parameters, aerosols, clouds, and greenhouse gases, among other things can cause climate to change. One change of the climate can happen due to changes in solar activity and the next change can happen due to greenhouse gases, or the climate can change due to many factors acting at the same time.
 
That sounds more like Dr. Curry than Mann. Maybe those guys have turned a page.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2017 05:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4218
Joined  2009-10-21

There is no such thing as an “anti-denier” in a scientific discussion. There is only the data and the probabilities and the conclusions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2017 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1702
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 31 October 2017 11:50 PM

CC, you are aware of course that the guys over at skepticalscience are known as part of the Hockey Team. Skepticalscience is known as a pro-Mann anti-denier contributors. Major alarmists.
The geophysical situation is extremely alarming.
They insist that the Climate Change science has been settled a long time ago.
It has and you’ve been shown the evidence but refuse to absorb it.
On technical and scientific data, they would have no problem kicking our butts.
If your side had integrity and believed in honestly representing your opponents and the evidence, it would be.

But your side uses malicious ruthless tactics, and has absolutely no interesting in learning from the facts.
Their chosen self-interest is all they know about the world.

As far as the climate graphs are concerned, there is only one that needs to be talked about in science, science, science. It is the one that Al Gore used.
Hmmm, more moving targets?  Perhaps you should go back and reread your OP

Have to say, I am impressed by what they are saying.
There are many factors which can cause climate to change. Those who have followed climate science are well aware that changes in the Sun’s activity, volcanic activity, Earth’s orbital parameters, aerosols, clouds, and greenhouse gases, among other things can cause climate to change. One change of the climate can happen due to changes in solar activity and the next change can happen due to greenhouse gases, or the climate can change due to many factors acting at the same time.
They been say such things for a very long time.
 
That sounds more like Dr. Curry than Mann. Maybe those guys have turned a page.
Actually you’ve merely demonstrated how to politicize the science

I notice you are still stuck in your cult of personalities - what about the science itself and trying to understand the fundamentals of what’s happening to our planet these days?

Oh and what’s wrong with being an anti-denier?
Oh yeah maliciously lying about reality is a free speech right . . .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2017 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2228
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 November 2017 09:36 AM

Oh and what’s wrong with being an anti-denier?
Oh yeah maliciously lying about reality is a free speech right . . .


What’s wrong? Your predictions for starters. Myself, I like being a climate realist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2017 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1702
Joined  2016-12-24

i1
Lets get this thread back on track.

Those 80 graphs that got used for climate myths
Posted on 11 July 2017 by Ari Jokimäki
https://www.skepticalscience.com/80_graphs_climate_myths.html

... Lately, yet another chapter has been written to the continuing saga of climate-changed-before myths. An article about 80 graphs allegedly showing
something interesting has been making rounds. The article shows 80 graphs from different research articles and gives some selected quotes here and there.
The article has been debunked already in Climate Feedback by the authors of the studies from where the graphs were used for this 80 graphs article.
I also took a peek at the issue. I looked at each graph and also clicked the links to the studies behind the graphs to see how the graphs were originally presented.
I didn’t read the studies in full, though (it seems that neither did the author of the 80 graphs article).
I recorded my findings for each graph, and then looked the results as a whole.

Creating a straw man: Local, hemispheric, and global climate changes
. . .

I shared it because it documents the deliberate misrepresentation of science.

Posted on 11 July 2017 by Ari Jokimäki
Recent attack

By Kenneth Richards
Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs

on the so-called hockey stick graph is a compilation of 80 graphs from 2017 which consists of 76 graphs that describe local or regional situations, one graph that describes Northern Hemisphere situation, one graph that describes NH extratropics situation, and two graphs that describe global situation. As the hockey stick graph describes the situation in Northern Hemisphere, 80 graphs become 4 graphs, because local/regional graphs are meaningless in comparison to hemispheric/global situation.

Furthermore, two of the four remaining graphs have originally been published before 2017. We are left with two graphs from 2017. Both of them have been published in the same study, Steiger et al. 2017. The two graphs are indeed interesting as they don’t show any sign of recent global warming. But see the figure below. Apparently, the graphs in Steiger et al. weren’t good enough for the author of the 80 graphs article, but the graphs needed some editing (both graphs were edited in the same manner). There are also some other problems with these 80 graphs as shown below. ...

80gr_steiger.jpg

Creating a straw man: Local, hemispheric, and global climate changes

If we want to compare the current climate change to past climate changes, we need to look at global, or at least hemispheric situation. Similarly, if we want to debunk the hockey stick graph, which describes the climate evolution in Northern Hemisphere, we need to look at the Northern Hemisphere situation.

In this sense, it was strange to find out that almost all of the graphs in the 80 graphs thing were local or regional graphs. Of the 80 graphs, 76 are local or regional (so 95% of the graphs are not comparable to the hockey stick graph, or are not important for current global climate change). ...

This is what Nathan Steiger wrote about this issue in the Climate Feedback article:
“The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures.

My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.”

Before present means 1950, not actual present

The 80 graphs article contains 36 graphs which stop at 1950 or before that. In other words, almost half of the graphs don’t even show the modern times, when current climate change has occurred. ...

Cherry-picking graphs and doing tricks on them

Only parts of the graphs have been cut out from these Wilson et al. figures . . .
One of the graphs in this Rydval et al. (is missing)
This Stenni et al. figure has two graphs (removed)
Tejedor et al. ...
Only the juiciest bits were cut out from this Li et al. ...

Other problems

Appendix. The table of problems by graph

The table below show the main findings for each paper. ...

This is what I’m talking about, the deliberate and malicious liars that are considered absolutely fine and dandy by the likes of MikeYohe and the GOP.
He wants to hang Dr. Mann for not producing a perfect paleotemperature graph back in 98/99.
That’s it!

Yet Mike Yohe calls Dr. Mann all sorts of dirty disgusting things,
yet can’t produce a crime,
can’t point to any evidence
let alone some proof that would justify such shrill condemnation. 
One more time what is Dr. Mann guilty of !  Producing a pioneering piece of science that wasn’t absolutely perfect.
That’s it!


That part the GOP, alt-right wing and the MikeYohes never think about because - too busy carpet bombing.
Because he and the GOP who have taught him well are not interested in learning anything. 
They are into winning political fights no matter what it takes.

You folks here see the way Mike plays games with the truth, the way he is oblivious to his own ignorance, his disregard for absorbing information offered in good faith -
Perfect GOP tailored behavior in action.

And what’s the Democrats response, perhaps DougC summed it up best when attacking me for having the nerve to attempting an in-depth discussion with a confirmed contrarian,
to draw him out in order to better understand and define the creature and their tactics. 

DougC counsels willful ignorance of another type -
Ignore it, remain within ones comfort, go with the flow.

                  long face

Profile