There's a beautiful article about 'rapid temperature change' on Wattsupwiththat. It's a generalization of McIntyre's idea that the 'hockeystick graph' is a numerical artifact.
It makes sense to me. And from hints that you dropped about a year ago, I get the feeling that you're pretty good at math yourself, so it might make sense to you, too.
Oh, I guess that link I put isn't working! I just tried it myself and it comes up empty. Or maybe my internet's acting up?
The long/layman version is: "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford, based on the work of Canadian professor Steven McIntyre. The shorter/less-laymanish version is the article "Mining for Hockey Sticks" on Wattsupwiththat.com (the link I tried to give you -- even if you don't agree with the article, it's nicely written, and will remind you why you like math... or at least why I like math).
The issue with global warming is that we really only have accurate data for the last fifty years or so -- and even then, the technology has changed from slow mercury thermometers to the very fast ones that they used during covid. Prior to fifty years ago there was poor coverage, making the 'global average temperature' a bit of a crap shoot.
And then: going back through the centuries, we really only have proxies like tree rings and ice cores. Proxies are fine, but they tend to fall into the realm of 'red noise' (as explained in the article). That's fine, but you somehow need to calibrate the data. But we only have about fifty years worth of reasonable data to calibrate things!
Now: My (McIntyre's) claim is that if you want to fit 1000 years of proxy data using only 50 years of 'real' data... and if you want to maintain 'autocorrelations' -- meaning that you want the peaks/troughs of the proxy data to roughly mean the same thing throughout history... then a 'hockey stick' is an inevitable outcome of that mathematical process. The article, if you can access it, involves generating series(es?) of 'red noise' data sets and showing that 'hockey sticks' naturally emerge.
Okay: I understand that what I just wrote looks suspiciously like I'm just using big words to confuse people. But I'm really not! There's just an outstanding issue of how you generalize from proxies to real data. I've gone through the math myself, and I think McIntyre (and Eschenbach) are correct.
I might be wrong. Obviously Michael Mann disagrees with me, but -- and you have no way of verifying this -- my pedigree is better than his. This is one of the times I wish Freeman Dyson were still around, because he'd probably be able to sort this out. I mean... he did... but from a different point of view.
Okay: I understand that what I just wrote looks suspiciously like I'm just using big words to confuse people.
No, I understand the argument, I'm just not sold on it. Frankly, most of the criticisms you are raising are valid ones, but ones that can still be solved. They're not irreconcilable. I'm not convinced that generating better and more accurate data will allow for a "hockey stick". Frankly, I think it should result in more accurate data. I'll look it up on their website later tonight.
There's a beautiful article about 'rapid temperature change' on Wattsupwiththat. It's a generalization of McIntyre's idea that the 'hockeystick graph' is a numerical artifact.
It makes sense to me. And from hints that you dropped about a year ago, I get the feeling that you're pretty good at math yourself, so it might make sense to you, too.
I doubt it's a numerical artifact. Do you have a link?
Oh, I guess that link I put isn't working! I just tried it myself and it comes up empty. Or maybe my internet's acting up?
The long/layman version is: "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by AW Montford, based on the work of Canadian professor Steven McIntyre. The shorter/less-laymanish version is the article "Mining for Hockey Sticks" on Wattsupwiththat.com (the link I tried to give you -- even if you don't agree with the article, it's nicely written, and will remind you why you like math... or at least why I like math).
The issue with global warming is that we really only have accurate data for the last fifty years or so -- and even then, the technology has changed from slow mercury thermometers to the very fast ones that they used during covid. Prior to fifty years ago there was poor coverage, making the 'global average temperature' a bit of a crap shoot.
And then: going back through the centuries, we really only have proxies like tree rings and ice cores. Proxies are fine, but they tend to fall into the realm of 'red noise' (as explained in the article). That's fine, but you somehow need to calibrate the data. But we only have about fifty years worth of reasonable data to calibrate things!
Now: My (McIntyre's) claim is that if you want to fit 1000 years of proxy data using only 50 years of 'real' data... and if you want to maintain 'autocorrelations' -- meaning that you want the peaks/troughs of the proxy data to roughly mean the same thing throughout history... then a 'hockey stick' is an inevitable outcome of that mathematical process. The article, if you can access it, involves generating series(es?) of 'red noise' data sets and showing that 'hockey sticks' naturally emerge.
Okay: I understand that what I just wrote looks suspiciously like I'm just using big words to confuse people. But I'm really not! There's just an outstanding issue of how you generalize from proxies to real data. I've gone through the math myself, and I think McIntyre (and Eschenbach) are correct.
I might be wrong. Obviously Michael Mann disagrees with me, but -- and you have no way of verifying this -- my pedigree is better than his. This is one of the times I wish Freeman Dyson were still around, because he'd probably be able to sort this out. I mean... he did... but from a different point of view.
No, I understand the argument, I'm just not sold on it. Frankly, most of the criticisms you are raising are valid ones, but ones that can still be solved. They're not irreconcilable. I'm not convinced that generating better and more accurate data will allow for a "hockey stick". Frankly, I think it should result in more accurate data. I'll look it up on their website later tonight.