RealClimate logo

The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,960 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.” ( ) 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:

    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?

  5. 1955

    When you call somebody a “Denier”, they become your enemy.

    An enemy will never help you to solve your problems.

    So the more people that you call a “Denier”, the less likely you are to solve global warming.


  6. 1956

    A global warming paradox

    I have a friend called Mickey Orlando Mann. Mickey lives and works in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

    According to the “” website, these are Mickey’s current temperature statistics:
    – annual average temperature = 13.3 degrees Celsius
    – average winter low temperature = -3.6 degrees Celsius (for January)
    – average summer high temperature = 30.6 degrees Celsius (for July)

    In summary, Mickey normally experiences a temperature range of about 34.2 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 13.3 degrees Celsius.

    Mickey is very worried about global warming. He knows that global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times. If global warming increases by another 0.5 degrees Celsius (taking us to the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit), them Mickey expects that his quality of life will suffer.

    If global warming increases by another 1.0 degrees Celsius from the current temperatures (taking us to the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit), then Mickey expects that his quality of life will be seriously affected.

    Mickey is so worried about the prospect of reaching the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit, that he has worked out what his temperature statistics would be, if that catastrophe were to happen.

    These are Mickey’s global warming temperature statistics, if we warm by another 1 degrees Celsius (taking us to the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit):
    – annual average temperature = 14.3 degrees Celsius
    – average winter low temperature = -2.6 degrees Celsius (for January)
    – average summer high temperature = 31.6 degrees Celsius (for July)

    In summary, Mickey would experiences a temperature range of about 34.2 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 14.3 degrees Celsius.

    But you don’t need to worry about Mickey, because he has a global warming contingency plan. Mickey’s parents gave him the middle name of “Orlando”, and Mickey has always dreamed of moving to the city that he was named after. If things get too hot for Mickey in Philadelphia, then Mickey plans to retire to Orlando, Florida, like many of his older friends have already done.

    To take his mind off global warming, Mickey decided to look up the current temperature statistics for Orlando, Florida, to see what temperatures the people who live in Orlando are currently experiencing.

    These are Orlando’s current temperature statistics:
    – annual average temperature = 22.9 degrees Celsius
    – average winter low temperature = 9.9 degrees Celsius (for January)
    – average summer high temperature = 33.2 degrees Celsius (for July)

    In summary, Orlando currently experiences a temperature range of about 23.3 degrees Celsius over a year, with an average temperature of 22.9 degrees Celsius.

    Looking at these temperature statistics, Mickey suddenly realised that the people who live in Orlando, Florida, are currently experiencing temperatures far, far hotter than Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius limit. How can they live in such extreme temperatures?

    The current average temperature in Orlando is 8.6 degrees Celsius hotter than the average temperature that Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    The current average summer high temperature in Orlando is 1.6 degrees Celsius hotter than the average summer high temperature that Philadelphia will have at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    Mickey wondered why any sane person would move to Orlando, Florida, when it is currently far, far hotter than Philadelphia would be at the 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    Mickey thought about this for a while, and then he saw the answer to his question. All of the people who live in Orlando, Florida, are mad.

  7. 1957
    Mack says:

    @81 Barry Finch

    It’s quite amazing how these “greenhouse gases” with their “springy covalent bonds” suddenly decide at this man-made abitrary point called the tropopause, I’m not going to be a greenhouse gas anymore,I’ve decided to hang around in some of these other spheres, including the thermosphere, and shield the planet from the 1360 watts of radiation blazing down from the Sun 24/7.

  8. 1958
    Mack says:

    @164 Astringent

    “blackbody radiation” …. black body… black…
    Nothing to do with colour….riiiight I hold a black ball and a white ball in either hand facing the Sun. The black ball gets hotter…. but it’s nothing to do with colour…riight.
    What colour is a red parrot, Astringent? That’s right… it’s blue. Norwegian blue.

  9. 1959
    Mack says:

    @ 162 BPL

    You don’t quite get it ,do you, BPL. It’s 1360watts/sq.m at the top of the atmosphere NOT your 340watts/sq.m., as depicted in Trenberth’s looney EEB diagrams. The 1360w/sq.m is a real measurement from real satellites…. your 340 w/sq.m at the TOA is just imaginary, concocted on the blackboard, calculated crap. You’ve geometrically whittled down the 1360w/sq from the Sun before it even arrives at the TOA. … you’ve got only 340w/sq.m arriving at and passing through the TOA.
    The 1360w/sq.m at the TOA is a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE, BPL. It must remain as it is… It’s the nett result of a flickering, waxing and waning Sun. They wait one year to get that result. You’re surely intelligent enough to realise that a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE cannot be mathematically worked on any more. You’ve already got the answer, the maths is over. You’re already at the bottom of the page…you’re trying to muck round with the number at the bottom of the page with the double lines under it. …the 1360w/sq.m.
    It’s reality… a measured reality, its even now observed in the thermosphere where nitric oxide and CO2 molecules are seen to glow red hot, with an active Sun. (SABER study) .. no way is that 340w/sq.m of yours,CALCULATED at the TOA, capable of achieving that. .. the 340w/sq.m. at the TOA is total bollocks.
    It’s 1360w/sq.m at the TOA, BPL. Harden up and get used to it.

  10. 1960
    Mack says:

    @91 Ravenpaw

    I always thought it was called the “RADIATIVE greenhouse effect” Good luck with trying to slow the speed of radiation from the air molecules to the spaces between them and further into space. Einstein would have been very impressed if you’d managed to refute his constant for the speed of light.