Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Captcha | Main | UWA's ethical collapse »
Tuesday
Sep012015

More Appell comedy gold

The climate change world has, I think it's fair to say, been a little quiet recently, but thank goodness we have David Appell around to provide entertainment.

In his latest offering he announces a "long and useful list of studies that find a hockey stick from reconstructions of paleoclimate data".

Sounds interesting. Here's one of them.

I have to say, an ice hockey team armed with sticks shaped like that would be a sight to behold.

Josh?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (174)

Ed Snack wrote:'
"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 ?"

I made no claim whatsoever about any proxy, let alone Bristlecone Pines.

You people are very poor at understanding physics.

Sep 2, 2015 at 12:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

FWIW, the figure shows that the Northern Hemisphere extra tropical (not global) reconstruction since 1000 is a pretty clear hockeystick. Since 2011, Lundquist and Christiansen have published a number of papers on this reconstruction

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3991/2011/cpd-7-3991-2011.html

Sep 2, 2015 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterEli Rabett

David Appell.

"I made no claim whatsoever about any proxy, let alone Bristlecone Pines."

What I think you mean is that you IGNORED this problem.

Professor Hand and many others have been quite clear about the problem with the blade of the hockey stick.

Why aren't you?

Does your defence of it really, as you appear to say, boil down to "this is expected by physics because more CO2 means more warming"?

Sep 2, 2015 at 1:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterRB

RB wrote:
"What I think you mean is that you IGNORED this problem."

Wow. Haven't ANY of you ever taken a course in physics??

I ignored nothing. Proxies simply aren't part of my argument. Period. It depends only on the functional form of atmospheric CO2, and the relationship between temperature, forcing, and CO2.
David Appell.

"Does your defence of it really, as you appear to say, boil down to "this is expected by physics because more CO2 means more warming"?"

Yes, more CO2 means more warming. The science is very clear on that. That's what you all really dislike.

Sep 2, 2015 at 1:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Proxies simply aren't part of my argument. Period.

Then why do you keep referring to papers/graphs that interpret and show them as the majority of the time series? If all you care about is the recorded temp record, stick to that.

Sep 2, 2015 at 1:24 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

terrymen wrote:
"Then why do you keep referring to papers/graphs that interpret and show them as the majority of the time series?"

Because they demonstrate the theoretical expectations are correct.

"If all you care about is the recorded temp record, stick to that."

I have. My argument does not depend on proxies in any way.

Sep 2, 2015 at 1:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Because they demonstrate the theoretical expectations are correct.

So then they are part of your argument. If your argument 'does not depend on proxies in any way' there are dozens of temp series. You don't use any of them, except for temp series grafted on to proxy series.

Sep 2, 2015 at 1:40 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

terry wrote:
"So then they are part of your argument. If your argument 'does not depend on proxies in any way' there are dozens of temp series. You don't use any of them, except for temp series grafted on to proxy series."

Still completely and utterly wrong.

My argument does not depend on proxies in any way whatsoever.

What is going on here? Why can't anyone understand this EXTREMELY simple argument?

Given actual CO2, and CO2's forcing, a hockey stick will result.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

David Appell and Eli Rabett, the MWP has enough evidence in recorded history for me not to accept your purported ignorance or reliance on back dated history.

That the maligned staff (largely rightly so) of UEA's CRU smelled rat when the Hockey Stick was first drafted (as shown in the Climategate emails) is something they got right. 20th century grafting of unrelated records was one thing. The eradication of the MWP is another.

The USA may have some great achievements, but there is no need to rewrite recorded history in the rest of the world, before 1492, simply because there isn't any back home. Britain has history going back before the MWP. I have also lived and worked in Greece and Italy where recorded history goes back further still.

The amount of money wasted on an Inconvenient Truth is appalling

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:13 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

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

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

David Appell

The fact that you "haven't said anything about the stick" demonstrates not only that I most certainly do understand your argument, but also that have completely missed the point. (Not a novel experience for you, I fear.)

Your insistence that the handle is what we would expect "by the laws of physics" suggests that you believe that the climate didn't change at all before mankind was around. Is that your belief? I am beginning to think it might be!

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterWFC

WFC wrote:
"Your insistence that the handle is what we would expect "by the laws of physics" suggests that you believe that the climate didn't change at all before mankind was around. Is that your belief?"

My God you are dense.

MY ARGUMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE HANDLE.

NOTHING.

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

DA: 'Given actual CO2, and CO2's forcing, a hockey stick will result.'

...and this hypothesis explains the current global temperature pause?!

Here is an explanation: the ongoing increase in CO2 is related to the current global temperature plateau via inverse-super-exponential forcing - the inverse-super-exponential forcing function is a function defined axiomatically to match observation based on the assumption that warming and cooling are determined exclusively by varying CO2 levels with a probability so closely related to observation that theory and observation are inextricably entwined and any attempt to falsify one would result in the collapse of the other.

Can I please be a climatologist?

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

ZT wrote:
"DA: 'Given actual CO2, and CO2's forcing, a hockey stick will result.'
...and this hypothesis explains the current global temperature pause?!"

No.

It also does not explain why the US women won the World's Cup, why Paula Deen was dethroned from her food empire, or the recent Pluto observations by New Horizons.

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

David Appell

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

I presume that the word "global" is inserted here because you know that (a) there is ample evidence of a MWP in the NH, but (b) no human records were kept, of temperatures, in the Southern Hemisphere, during the MWP.

It is a debating (not scientific) point which would have more force of the "hockey stick" purported to be a global temperature reconstruction. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. It purports to be a NH temperature reconstruction.

I know that YOUR ARGUMENT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE HANDLE.

Of course it doesn't. Because you know it is wrong, unsustainable, and cannot even think of a specious argument to justify it beyond a few judiciously worded rhetorical questions.

What I am exploring is your willingness (and ability) to explain why you are still willing to hold a brief for the paper which produced that handle.

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterWFC

DA:
...and this hypothesis explains the current global temperature pause?!"
"No.
It also does not explain why the US women won the World's Cup, why Paula Deen was dethroned from her food empire, or the recent Pluto observations by New Horizons."

So, in science when a hypothesis does not account for observations - is that because:

1) The hypothesis is an unalterable fact of simple physics and observations are lacking in some way
or
2) The hypothesis is faulty?

As a newly qualified climatologist, my money is on 1.

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

WFC wrote:
"I presume that the word "global" is inserted here because you know that (a) there is ample evidence of a MWP in the NH, but (b) no human records were kept, of temperatures, in the Southern Hemisphere, during the MWP."

False. PAGES 2k has proxy data for Australasia (starting about 980 AD), South America (820 AD onward), and Antarctica (160 AD). See figure S4 in their supplement.

"Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia," PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

ZT wrote:
"So, in science when a hypothesis does not account for observations"

It does. A hockey stick is expected on theoretical grounds, and a hockey stick has been found many many times in published reconstructions:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/36-hockey-sticks-and-counting.html

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Davis Appell

Which part of the word "human" did you fail to understand?

Sep 2, 2015 at 2:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterWFC

False. PAGES 2k has proxy data for Australasia (starting about 980 AD), South America (820 AD onward), and Antarctica (160 AD). See figure S4 in their supplement.

You keep talking about proxies. Why? They have nothing to do with your argument, after all.

Here's the problem with your EXTREMELY simple argument, David: It's too simple. You're assuming (or lecturing, or whatever it is) that C02 is the one and only forcing. This is wrong. Here's an idea: count to 10, wipe the spittle off of your monitor, and calmly explain how C02 trumps albedo, clouds, and multi-decadal ocean currents. For starters. I have dozens more if you can calmly discuss the first three. Thanks.

Sep 2, 2015 at 3:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

terrym wrote:
"You're assuming (or lecturing, or whatever it is) that C02 is the one and only forcing. This is wrong"

False. Reread my post again. See the mentions of methane and nitrous oxide. And of their forcing that ~ square root.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html

Sep 2, 2015 at 3:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

"....and calmly explain how C02 trumps albedo, clouds, and multi-decadal ocean currents."

Those are feedbacks, not forcings.

Sep 2, 2015 at 3:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

WFC wrote:
"Of course it doesn't. Because you know it is wrong, unsustainable, and cannot even think of a specious argument to justify it beyond a few judiciously worded rhetorical questions."

I don't know that. If I did, why would I say the opposite?

But I'm done with you -- there are too many obvious things you don't grasp.

Sep 2, 2015 at 3:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Those are feedbacks, not forcings.

Yes, I was sloppy in my writing; apologies. I should have just said variables that affect temperature. Or if you prefer, climate. But yes, forcing was incorrect.

That said, it seems you're asserting that, given all of the hundreds or thousands of feedbacks and forcings interacting in this chaotic system, C02 trumps all of them combined. Is that a fair assesment?

Sep 2, 2015 at 3:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

Terry wrote:
"That said, it seems you're asserting that, given all of the hundreds or thousands of feedbacks and forcings interacting in this chaotic system, C02 trumps all of them combined. Is that a fair assesment?"

Show me one larger over the last 1000 years.

Sep 2, 2015 at 3:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

So.. yes? Is that a fair assesment of your position, or argument, or whatever you'd prefer to call it? Just looking for a yes or no. Thanks.

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

Hmm - I think I'm falling behind here, climatologically.

1) DA said his CO2 super-exponential physics hypothesis could not explain the pause in increasing global temperature:
DA: 'Given actual CO2, and CO2's forcing, a hockey stick will result.'
ZT'...and this hypothesis explains the current global temperature pause?!'
DA: 'No.'

2) Then DA said the CO2 super-exponential physics hypothesis does account for observation
DA: "It does."

So - does the CO2 super-exponential physics hypothesis account for only some global temperature observations and not others?

Forgive my ignorance - I am only recently qualified as a climatologist and have only invented one irrefutable climatological hypothesis on my own*.

(*the 'inverse-super-exponential forcing function' hypothesis (TM), Nobel prize pending)

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

terry: show me one larger since 1750.

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

"So - does the CO2 super-exponential physics hypothesis account for only some global temperature observations and not others?"

Yes.

If you can't follow, you aren't much of a climatologist, newbie or otherwise.

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

terry: show me one larger since 1750.

Why, when you won't answer my question? It's a pretty simple yes or no. I'm not sure why you're not willing or able to answer. One Q at a time, then we can move to the next. After the earlier question, you're next. Thanks.

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

Speaking as an SH resident, as far as I am aware no Human tribe wrote any kind of temperature record before literate NH denizens ventured here. No value judgments about SH cultures, but literacy (and scientific thought modes) here were imported from the NH after the 16th Century. Therefore, all we have for temp records are proxies, but many are quite persuasive as to their veracity. Also a good reason for the tremendous expansion of exploration by Polynesians, Asians etc in open canoes etc during the MWP.
There is very strong evidence for the above exploration, which required reasonably warm weather for the explorers to survive.

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

What evidence is that, Alexander?

Because PAGES 2k didn't find it in the proxies; see their Figure 2 here:

"Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia," PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

David Appell, there is a lot of evidence for an MWP. The IPCC had no problem with the MWP, until Mann appeared.

Obviously if you believe that those who founded the IPCC were a bunch of clueless idiots.....

That other studies have confirmed there was a global MWP, is evidence you have chosen to ignore.

That the Hockey Stick has zero predictive skill, has been demonstrated for 20 years. Why should anyone trust it as a historical record?

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie wrote:
"David Appell, there is a lot of evidence for an MWP."

Then it shouldn't be difficult to point me to it....

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

"That other studies have confirmed there was a global MWP, is evidence you have chosen to ignore."

Which studies?

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

golf charlie wrote:
"That the Hockey Stick has zero predictive skill, has been demonstrated for 20 years."

False.

It was apparent from day 1 that the hockey stick had no predictive value.

That was obvious from the very definition of what it was -- a reconstruction.

(eye roll)

Sep 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Because PAGES 2k didn't find it in the proxies; see their Figure 2 here:

More proxies.

Why do you keep bringing up proxies and at the same time claim they have nothing to do with your argument? Why do you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question?

Sep 2, 2015 at 5:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterterrymn

Terry: I've explained this to you several times now. If you don't get it still, you're never going to.

Sep 2, 2015 at 5:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

This is quite the riddle-me-ree but I think I get it. Appell says his argument doesn’t depend on proxies, but unrestrainedly cites proxy studies in support of it. He says it is shtum about a handle, yet it still results in a hockey stick. Therefore he is talking about a handle-less hockey stick! Perhaps Josh can draw an ice hockey team on all fours, scrabbling after the puck with just a 30cm blade in their hands? The New York Rangers would be an apt, if slightly inexact, choice: their goaltender goes by the name of Lundqvist.

Sep 2, 2015 at 6:14 AM | Unregistered Commenterigsy

iggy wrote:
"Appell says his argument doesn’t depend on proxies, but unrestrainedly cites proxy studies in support of it."

False. I say very general physics says a hockey stick curve results, so it's not surprising a hockey stick curve results from so many reconstructions.

"Therefore he is talking about a handle-less hockey stick!"

Not exactly, but you're about as close to understanding it as anyone else he has been. Which is worrisome....

Sep 2, 2015 at 6:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Appell you really should read these before commenting further:

on MWP: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
a collection of references to published studies around the globe

on Marcott; http://climateaudit.org/?s=marcott

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterPethefin

Petfin: co2science is paid-for propaganda that cannot meet the stanards of real publication in the scientific literature. Only suckers like you and people who read this fall for it. That's what they're counting on.

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

David Appell you showed your true nature by declining to read through the science publications that co2science was referring to. Ever heard of primary sources? Why do you feel that primary source would be tainted by a secondary source whom you obviously despise? Science-denier are you?
No word on the Marcott criticism, too much for you to handle? Confirmation bias truly is a bitch.

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterPethefin

David Appell,

Appeals to what physics has to say aren't relevant. Physics is reductionist and has nothing -- nothing at all -- to say about how the whole world works. Depending on what he's interested in, a physicist will treat the planet as a point, a sphere, external to the particles he's studying, or whatever. In all cases, the complexities of the world are assumed away. Engineering is the discipline which tries to blend the findings of physics in order to deal with the complicated world as it really is -- makes it much uglier. Physicists prefer to shut out the noise.

In your case, you're assuming away all the known and unknown other influences on the temperature and, as if by magic, the one influence you allow turns out to be the most important. But then what do you expect if you restrict yourself to simple physics?

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Swan

petfin:

who funds co2science?

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Methinks Appell knows nothing about physics but a lot about creative writing. Averaging temperatures says it all.

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:40 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

"Appeals to what physics has to say aren't relevant."

I can only laugh at this kind of foolishness.

Just what do you think governs your world, if not physics?

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

"Averaging temperatures says it all."

If you don't understand that a scalar field can be averaged, you don't understand freshman physics.

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

David Appell still desperately waving his hands and sticking this head into the sand, a true sign of a scientific mind. What a waste of time.

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPethefin

Robert wrote:
"In your case, you're assuming away all the known and unknown other influences on the temperature and, as if by magic, the one influence you allow turns out to be the most important."

What natural factor(s) have had a comparable forcing to anthropgoenic CO2+CH4+N2O over the period 1000 AD to present?

Sep 2, 2015 at 7:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>