The Hockey Stick Graph Reality

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
Yo, dipshit, when did I ever argue that point? Umm... never. I argued the five points up above. The ones you just ignored. Try again fool.
You have already been given the answer to all those...the fact that you don't like them because they are in opposition to your glassy eyed chanting cult's dogma is irrelevant.
You have answered NONE of them.

1) How does IR heat opaque materials?

2) Explain how the bulk of IR energy absorbed by water is lost to the air (as you claim) when water is 24 times as thermally conductive and has more than 4 times the specific heat capacity and 3,150 times the volumetric heat capacity as air.
Would have thought you would know this...but it stopped surprising me a long time ago how much you don't know...IR strikes opaque materials causing the molecules in the solid object to vibrate causing it to warm up....IR energy absorbed by the few microns of sea water that it can penetrate is carried off via convection through the normal evaporative process...Only SW heats the oceans crick...IR simply can't get the job done.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
What you need to realize is the far right hates science and wants to do away with it...No amount of evidence will ever convince them of the need for science.

The right is like the isis in many ways.
I am afraid it is you and yours who hate science matthew...you prefer the pseudoscientific chants of the glassy eyed cult.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,043
Reaction score
1,435
Points
275
Location
N/A
I haven't the faintest idea how you and yours expect that contention to fly in the face of your blatant, unfounded and unsupportable opposition to numerous tenets of mainstream science.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
I haven't the faintest idea how you and yours expect that contention to fly in the face of your blatant, unfounded and unsupportable opposition to numerous tenets of mainstream science.
You have demonstrated over and over that you don't have a clue...take a look back through history and you tell me how many times mainstream science has been wrong....especially in the case of relatively new fields of science....you will find that the mainstream is almost always wrong.

Your problem is that you have deified science...you apparently think it is all knowing, all seeing, and always correct...sorry to disappoint you, but science has always been mostly wrong...travelling long roads of wrongness till it finally reached a bit of truth...at present, climate science is on that long road of wrong...and the fact that politics has co opted an entire field of science should clue you in if you weren't so f'ing stupid.
 
OP
RollingThunder

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
Would have thought you would know this...but it stopped surprising me a long time ago how much you don't know...
Sounds like you're talking to yourself again, SSoooDDumb.



IR energy absorbed by the few microns of sea water that it can penetrate is carried off via convection through the normal evaporative process...Only SW heats the oceans crick...IR simply can't get the job done.
I know those are your 'precious' denier cult myths....but they are complete bullcrap based on your denial of science. Sunlight heats the oceans and the downdwelling IR from the greenhouse gases heats the ocean skin layer and slows the transfer of heat energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, thus increasing the heat left in the oceans, which transfers to greater depths.

In the real world.....

Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean
RealClimate
Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS)
5 September 2006
Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably by Hansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.

However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

During a recent cruise of the New Zealand research vessel Tangaroa, skin sea-surface temperatures were measured to high accuracy by the Marine-Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (M-AERI), and contemporaneous measurements of the bulk temperature were measured at a depth of ~5cm close to the M-AERI foot print by a precision thermistor mounted in a surface-following float. The M-AERI is a Fourier Transform Infrared spectroradiometer that has very accurate, NIST-traceable, calibration. The skin temperature can be measured with absolute uncertainties of much less than 0.1ºK The thermometer in the surface following float is accurate to better than 0.01ºK. Both are calibrated using the same equipment at the University of Miami.

Clearly it is not possible to alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in a controlled experiment at sea to study the response of the skin-layer. Instead we use the natural variations in clouds to modulate the incident infrared radiation at the sea surface. When clouds are present, they emit more infrared energy towards the surface than does the clear sky. The incident infrared radiation was measures by a pyrgeometer mounted on the ship, and the emission from the sea surface was calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation using the skin temperature measurements of the M-AERI. The difference between the two is the net infrared forcing of the skin layer. If we can establish a relationship between the temperature difference across the skin layer and the net infrared forcing, then we will have demonstrated the mechanisms for greenhouse gas heating the upper ocean. That is seen in the flow chart on the right.

The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking. There is a clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net infrared forcing. The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy. This corresponds to increased greenhouse gas emission reaching the sea surface.


Figure 2: The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.


There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship.

To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed.
 
Last edited:
OP
RollingThunder

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
In the real world....multiple 'hockey stick graphs' from many different scientific sources, using a number of different techniques and temperature proxies, all with the same results reflecting the unusually abrupt and rapid real world temperature increases in the last sixty years.

Hockey Stick
By Richard Littlemore
August 13, 2008
In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick - cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small “victory” in climate science debate, even while the science itself continues to pass them by.


Mann's Hockey Stick Graph

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, above, was placed prominently in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in part because it showed so clearly how temperatures over the last millennium rode along fairly steadily for hundreds of years and then spiked in the latter part of the 20th century (approximating the shape of a hockey stick).

Steve McIntyre, an amateur statistician and retired mining stock promoter found in Mann's work what he argued was a statistical anomaly, challenged Mann and was actually successful in getting Mann to submit a correction to the journal (I think it was Science) that originally published the graph. The excited chorus of “Ah ha!” rang through the deniersphere. Mann, they said, had “admitted he was wrong” (albeit on one small detail). And therefore, we could all go home and stop worrying about climate change.

This is stupid for a host of reasons. First, even Edward Wegman, the statistician who the (anti-climate change policy) Republicans “invited” to critique the “stick” agreed that Mann's original conclusions were reasonable, even if not absolutely verifiable beyond about 400 years.

But more obviously, the stick has been replicated time and again, using different termperature proxies and different methodologies. And guess what? In every instance, the image looks like a hockey stick. And in NO instance has McIntyre or any of his cronies so much as peeped about the credibility of these pieces of research.

So, even if you wanted to walk away from Mann's work (and we don't; it was good work overall), there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that the deniers fear or fail to recognize.

To whit: the image at the top is from a paper by Jones, et al , that appeared in the journal Science in 2001. It's based on multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, corals and historical records, and like the Wegman-approved Mann hockey stick, goes back 400 years.


D'Arrigio, et al

But don't stop there. What about the next image above. It's from a paper by D'Ariggo, et al, published in the Joutrnal of Geophysical Atmospheres in 2006, also uses tree rings, but extends for the full thousand years.
***


Briffa, et al

Or the next thousand-year image (above), from a paper by Briffa, et al, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2001 and based again on tree rings.
***


Oerlemans

Then there's the image (above) from a paper by Oerlemans, based on glacier records and published in the April 2005 issue of Science.
***


Jansen, et al

But let's not stop there. What about the next graph (above) from Jansen, et al, published in the Fourth IPCCReview in 2007.
***


Moberg, et al

And as we're on a role, why not also look at the next graph, from Moberg, et al, based on tree rings and lake and ocean sediment and published in Nature in 2005.
***


Wilson, et al

Then, we might reasonably consider the next graph, from Wilson, et al, more tree rings, different methodology, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres in 2007.
***


Jouzan, et al

Finally, why not look at Jouzel, et al, (Note that this graph goes in the other direction) which covers not 1,000 years but 800,000, and which seems to show a hockey stick shape for about 110,000 years. Oh yeah, this was published in Science in August of 2007, ample time for the climate “experts” at ClimateAudit to use their vast statistical skills to identify an anomalies or debunk that which bears debunking.

Alas, no. Despite it's quite pleasing new design, ClimateAudit is silent on all but the Mann graph and really has had NOTHING NEW TO SAY since 2003.

So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others who love to hold so closely to the Hockey Stick. Have you any legitimate criticism of all the other science that supports Mann's work? Any criticism at all?

Or would you prefer to huddle about like has-been high school football stars, forever reliving that one great play - imagining, even today, that it made a difference?
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
61,036
Reaction score
17,300
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
Dr. Mann's original Hockey-Stick Graph showing that global temperatures are rising way faster now than anytime in over a thousand years has been scientifically confirmed many, many times over by now by other teams of scientists all around the world, and it has been extended much farther back in time. It is now clear that late twentieth century and current warming is happening much faster than any previous warming over the entire Holocene period, or at least 11 thousand years.

Here's the science.

Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene
Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf
RealClimate
16 September 2013
(excerpts)
Recently a group of researchers from Harvard and Oregon State University has published the first global temperature reconstruction for the last 11,000 years – that’s the whole Holocene (Marcott et al. 2013).

A while ago, I discussed here the new, comprehensive climate reconstruction from the PAGES 2k project for the past 2000 years. But what came before that? Does the long-term cooling trend that ruled most of the last two millennia reach even further back into the past?

Over the last decades, numerous researchers have painstakingly collected, analyzed, dated, and calibrated many data series that allow us to reconstruct climate before the age of direct measurements. Such data come e.g. from sediment drilling in the deep sea, from corals, ice cores and other sources. Shaun Marcott and colleagues for the first time assembled 73 such data sets from around the world into a global temperature reconstruction for the Holocene, published in Science. Or strictly speaking, many such reconstructions: they have tried about twenty different averaging methods and also carried out 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations with random errors added to the dating of the individual data series to demonstrate the robustness of their results.

To show the main result straight away, it looks like this:


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

The climate curve looks like a “hump”. At the beginning of the Holocene -- after the end of the last Ice Age -- global temperature increased, and subsequently it decreased again by 0.7 ° C over the past 5000 years. The well-known transition from the relatively warm Medieval into the “little ice age” turns out to be part of a much longer-term cooling, which ended abruptly with the rapid warming of the 20th Century. Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone. (One result of this is, for example, that the famous iceman ‘Ötzi’, who disappeared under ice 5000 years ago, reappeared in 1991.)

Comparison with the PAGES 2k reconstruction

The data used by Marcott et al. are different from those of the PAGES 2k project (which used land data only) mainly in that they come to 80% from deep-sea sediments. Sediments reach further back in time (far further than just through the Holocene – but that’s another story). Unlike tree-ring data, which are mainly suitable for the last two thousand years and rarely reach further. However, the sediment data have poorer time resolution and do not extend right up to the present, because the surface of the sediment is disturbed when the sediment core is taken. The methods of temperature reconstruction are very different from those used with the land data. For example, in sediment data the concentration of oxygen isotopes or the ratio of magnesium to calcium in the calcite shells of microscopic plankton are used, both of which show a good correlation with the water temperature. Thus each sediment core can be individually calibrated to obtain a temperature time series for each location.

Overall, the new Marcott reconstruction is largely independent of, and nicely complementary to, the PAGES 2k reconstruction: ocean instead of land, completely different methodology. Therefore, a comparison between the two is interesting:

Figure 3 The last two thousand years from Figure 1, in comparison to the PAGES 2k reconstruction (green), which was recently described here in detail. Graph: Klaus Bitterman.

As we can see, both reconstruction methods give consistent results. That the evolution of the last one thousand years is virtually identical is, by the way, yet another confirmation of the “hockey stick” by Mann et al. 1999, which is practically identical as well (see graph in my PAGES article).

Conclusion

The curve (or better curves) of Marcott et al. will not be the last word on the global temperature history during the Holocene; like Mann et al. in 1998 it is the opening of the scientific discussion. There will certainly be alternative proposals, and here and there some corrections and improvements. However, I believe that (as was the case with Mann et al. for the last millennium) the basic shape will turn out to be robust: a relatively smooth curve with slow cooling trend lasting millennia from the Holocene optimum to the “little ice age”, mainly driven by the orbital cycles. At the end this cooling trend is abruptly reversed by the modern anthropogenic warming.

The following graph shows the Marcott reconstruction complemented by some context: the warming at the end of the last Ice Age (which 20,000 years ago reached its peak) and a medium projection for the expected warming in the 21st Century if humanity does not quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Figure 4 Global temperature variation since the last ice age 20,000 years ago, extended until 2100 for a medium emissions scenario with about 3 degrees of global warming. Graph: Jos Hagelaars.

Marcott et al. dryly state about this future prospect: "By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean."

In other words: We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene.

Just looking at the known drivers (climate forcings) and the actual temperature history shows it directly, without need for a climate model: without the increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans, the slow cooling trend would have continued. Thus virtually the entire warming of the 20th Century is due to man. This May, for the first time in at least a million years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has exceeded the threshold of 400 ppm. If we do not stop this trend very soon, we will not recognize our Earth by the end of this century.
Dr. Mann's original Hockey-Stick Graph showing that global temperatures are rising way faster now than anytime in over a thousand years has been scientifically confirmed many, many times over by now by other teams of scientists all around the world,
Well this thread didn’t age well.

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
126,260
Reaction score
20,004
Points
2,180
Mann's data still stands and his temperature trends have been found in a dozen different proxies. You've seen it here but I guess you just don't mind lying out your ass.
Mann's data is a crock of shit. His defenders keep using the same shitty data and methods that have already been exposed.
 

Muhammed

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
19,142
Reaction score
5,047
Points
290
Location
North Coast, USA
lol.....this is like posting up a thread about the cassette tape dominating the music industry in 2017.

Nobody cares bout the hockey stick graph.
You always get things backwards, kookie.

In reality, nobody cares about you and your demented anti-science drivel.

Whereas all of these hockey stick shaped graphs that the climate data forms when it has been analysed by many different teams of scientists around the world is still valuable evidence that the speed of the temperature increases for the last 50 or 60 years is unprecedented throughout (at least) the entire Holocene period.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
126,260
Reaction score
20,004
Points
2,180
lol.....this is like posting up a thread about the cassette tape dominating the music industry in 2017.

Nobody cares bout the hockey stick graph.
You always get things backwards, kookie.

In reality, nobody cares about you and your demented anti-science drivel.

Whereas all of these hockey stick shaped graphs that the climate data forms when it has been analysed by many different teams of scientists around the world is still valuable evidence that the speed of the temperature increases for the last 50 or 60 years is unprecedented throughout (at least) the entire Holocene period.
I like the original version of that video.

Hilarious!
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top