RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,954 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 1951
    Victor Grauer says:

    #227 MARodger: With or without various El Niño temperature spikes, Victor the Troll insists “there is no long-term correlation” between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 (except between 1980 and 1998).

    V: Don’t blame me. The absence of long-term correlation is displayed very clearly in Grumbine’s scattergram — only he omits the dates, making the climate history difficult to spot. Once we take the dates into account, it becomes clear that the diagonal that’s supposed to indicate a correlation is limited to the period ca. 1980-1998. Before 1980 (corresponding to 335 ppm), we see what looks like a random jumble. After 1998 (corresponding to 370 ppm), we see a period where CO2 levels continue to climb where temperatures either level off or rise only slightly.

    Your version covers a longer time period, but the result is essentially the same, aside from the spike produced toward the end by the El Nino of 2015-2016. Your insistence that the presence of this spike somehow compensates for the clear lack of correlation displayed in your own scattergram over a 16 year period is indeed touching. Sorry, but a statistical correlation is defined as “the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.” ( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/correlation ) Data collected over a 2 year period can’t possibly compensate, presto chango, for a period of 16 years where the attributes very clearly do NOT vary together.

    MAR: So it doesn’t matter that we can calculate the linear correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 to produce a line rising with remarkable consistently from bottom left to top right.

    V: Oh yes, the “correlation” can be calculated for sure. As Grumbine indicates on his graph, the correlation coefficient he came up with is 0.78. Which tells us something very useful about the value of such a calculation. I.e., that, in itself, it is meaningless. In the absence of a critical analysis of the sort I’ve performed, the numbers mean little. Literally: garbage in garbage out. Aka pseudoscience.

  2. 1952
    Victor says:

    #365
    As usual, MAR chimes in with his usual mix of silly invective, pointless blather and meaningless bluff. His amateurish attempt at psychoanalysis is belied by his mis-spelling of “subconscious” as “subconscience.” Just in case one might assume it’s a typo and he’s not a nitwit, he does this twice.

    He then goes on to demonstrate his utter lack of reading comprehension by once again totally misconstruing the scattergram analysis I presented on my “grubby little” blog page.

    MAR: What the moron is perhaps getting at is that he can happliy cherry-pick some sections of that 120-year-long record and of these cherry-picks he found only the one 1979-98 provides the same result as the “very strongly correlated” period 1900-2019. So I don’t see that such an analysis would lead to his denialist assertion that this full 120-year period shows no correlation when his eyeball was telling him it was “very strongly correlated.”

    V: No cherry picking needed, Mr. R. All you need do is match the CO2 levels with their corresponding dates and the problem becomes obvious. He of course fails to grasp the all important distinction I’ve made between a purely statistical correlation and a meaningful one. Does he fail to get it because HE’s the moron? Or because he is, very simply, in denial. Probably a bit of both.

    He then proceeds to link us to a couple of graphs that make no sense whatsoever. He really seems to have gone over the edge at this point. I guess I have that effect on him. In one we see a bunch of funny little red dots all lined up to illustrate “calculated temperature using CO2 correlation.” Sorry Mr. R, but I have no idea what you are getting at. Temperatures are depicted by displaying temperature data and correlations are depicted by displaying scattergrams. What is your point? The second graph is even more confusing, especially since he references three lines but displays only two. And what pray tell is “temperature calculated from CO2 correlation”???

  3. 1953
    Victor says:

    It’s hard to take you seriously folks, when your “scientific arguments” are so heavily laden with insults and ad hominems. It doesn’t take a Ph. D. in psychology to identify the obvious signs of defensiveness — which tells me that deep down you have doubts about the “science” you profess to have mastered.

    CCHolley: The time of day is defined by the position of the sun, correlation has nothing to do with it.

    V: When last I checked, sundials are no longer widely used, CC. We use clocks now. And watches. According to my watch it is now 2:11 PM. No need for me to check the position of the sun. Moreover, for the enlightenment of all the “scientists” posting here, a correlation is a correlation, even if one term is defined by the other. Correlation is based simply on the relation between two sets of data.

    And speaking of the sun, I’ve given the issue some thought and realized that comparing the lack of correlation between solar output and global temperatures to a lack of correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures is ludicrous. CO2 levels are now up to 415ppm, roughly 125 units higher than the level in 1890. That’s close to 1/3 the current level. On the other hand, variations in solar output over any comparable period are miniscule compared to the total energy output of the sun during any similar period. Actually “miniscule” doesn’t begin to describe such a huge difference. If total solar output rose from 1890 to present at a rate proportional to the rise in CO2 levels, you can bet there’d be a crystal clear correlation with global temperatures. Of course, the Earth would be toast, so let’s pray that never happens.

    Thus, attempting to compare the effects of solar variation with those of CO2 levels is grossly misleading. (Now where have I seen that term before?) The fact that there is NO long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature cannot, therefore, be so easily dismissed. And by the way, that lack of correlation has nothing to do with “the physics.” As I’ve stressed more than once, correlation involves a relation between two sets of data. Period. Physics has nothing to do with it.

    And speaking of correlation, I’m amazed at the degree of ignorance displayed in these pages when it comes to my critical analysis of the three misleading scattergrams presented by MAR, BPL and Grumbine. There is no way you can make a silk purse out of those sow’s ears. Yet we see so many here turning themselves inside out in an effort to do so. Yes, Wolfe used monthly rather than yearly data, so what? The rise from the “mid-70’s” to the “late 90’s” is displayed clearly enough in his graph despite the apparent “noise.” So what’s your point? As far as the last 5 years are concerned, sorry, but a period of only 5 years cannot possibly produce a long-term correlation where none was apparent in the 130 years prior to that period. Why would anyone think it could?

    Now as far as “the physics” is concerned: science is filled with hypotheses based on a combination of math and lab tests. And in the vast majority of cases such hypotheses have failed to obtain support when tested in the real world. Real world testing is especially important in the realm of climate, where all sorts of factors that can’t be replicated in the lab come into play. The ultimate real-world test is therefore the test of whether or not a rise in CO2 levels will in fact produce a rise in global temperatures over time. When we see a correlation between the two for only a 20 year period from the late 19th century to the present, it looks very much as though “the physics” as tested in the lab has failed to produce the predicted result when tested in the real world. While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, causation is in fact very much dependent on correlation.

    So, OK, I’ve been reminded that other factors are involved that might well be masking a correlation that remains hidden. Fine. Now demonstrate to me what those factors are and how they operate to obscure the steady rise in temperatures necessary to support your hypothesis. Because without such real-world support, “the physics” you so confidently point to is falsified. And sorry but it’s not enough to simply produce a list of factors, such as volcanic eruptions (or lack of same), solar irradiation, industrial aerosols, etc. The existence of factors that MIGHT POSSIBLY be relevant, is not the same as supporting evidence.

    The problem is especially acute when we consider the well-known 40 year period from ca. 1940 through ca. 1979, when temperatures first took a 10 year plunge, then leveled off, while CO2 levels were soaring. The odd notion that an underlying temperature rise was masked by the presence of industrial aerosols was thoroughly debunked by me several months ago on these pages when I displayed a series of temperature graphs from regions with little to no industrial activity. Guess what? Temperatures failed to rise in these regions as well. Simply pointing to effects such as these as though they amounted to supporting evidence when clearly they don’t is a sign that there is something very wrong with the thinking behind “the consensus” we are continually being reminded of.

  4. 1954
    Martin says:

    I wonder why so many flawed papers indicating manmade CO2 is causing global warming is not yet retracted. Many peer-reviewed paper showed it is a flawed propaganda but still that theory gets funding and promotion. Is there some very basic thing wrong in the policy of climate science?