Global warming

[rcronk]

Excellent analsyis of viewpoints; I do have one suggestion. As you seek references for supporting viewpoints, require exact citations with page and chapter numbers, no vague citing of 2000 page documents with the assertion that "it's in there somewhere".

In other words, a cite should be something that one can click on, and immediately see that it is directly an answer to the assertion, and then in short order, find the primary arguments.

Thanks - I added your suggestion to the instructions on my last post. I hope in the end, we can all agree that it is an objective list of arguments that have both sides of the AGW argument equally represented. I appreciate everyone's help on this - I can't do it on my own. If you want your point of view in this, please post in the thread I linked to above. Thanks.

 

[mhaze]

Pat Michaels A Straight Shooter and not a liar.

Interesting. I have received the oral testimony of Hansen from 1988, and it is quite different than expected. There is one or two pages which are a bit blurred, and I'm going to have to ask for them to be redone.

But just looking at this, here are my preliminary comments. I'm not sure how to address JREF Warmers arguments about "Michaels lying", because although they are of like mind that some type of lying happened, their comments are all over the map on how exactly it happened. Then again, that really doesn't matter, does it.

There were no lies by Michaels.

Here is a bit more that has become clear.

Hansen bluntly says to the Senate that Scenario A is "Business as Usual". In the first part of the talk, he talks about global climate. Then goes on to talk about summer heat spells. (This may have been a hasty concoction, as on that day in the summer of 1988 it was extremely and unusually hot in Washington DC. )

The written documents submitted with the oral talk follow one another closely as to content. A preprint of Hansen et al 1988 is included, along with the three viewgraphs that were presented.

As far as the "summer heat wave" section of the talk, Hansen discusses maps - not graphs - which have as the underlying basis, Scenario B. This is where all of the vague beliefs about "Hansen only talked about Scenario B" originate from.

Ten years later, when Michaels gave his Congressional presentation, he was addressing the primary prediction made by Hansen in 1988. That of course nothing to do with the sensational "summer heat waves" talk of ten years prior. There is of course no discussion of maps.

Rather it was on the primary topic - global warming. Michaels was dead on correct to note that Hansen's prediction of 0.4C temperature increase was wildly incorrect.

Hansen's phrase to the Senate was exactly as Michaels clear stated, "Scenario A was business as usual".

I still don't have 100% legible copies of all pages of these documents, but they should come in perhaps in a day or two.

 

[Raskolnikov123]

1) There is a mischaracterization that Mann's dataset is the definitive source for the "hockey stick". No. Mann collected his data via tree rings. Other studies using other sources of data have come up with similar results.

2) McIntyre's criticisms and the high attention paid to them by members of Congress resulted in the National Academy of Sciences being called in to referee the dispute. You can access their report here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676. In summary, they acknowledged some methodological issues with Mann's work, but substantiated what climate scientists would describe as the most important conclusions of Mann's work, that temperatures are going up, and have gone up sharply recently. They had high confidence in that conclusion over the last 400 years, but less confidence going back 1000 years. This is very similar to how the IPCC assessed the same data, with higher margins of error going back further in time.

This is the NAS' conclusion about M&M's criticism of Mann...

"As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al."

In other words, Mann's methods weren't the best, but the conclusions hold when better techniques are applied to the same data.

3) There is a mischaracterization that the same flaws in Mann's data apply to the independent sources for proxy climate data. In essence, there is an attempt to damn the other sources by association. But that doesn't hold. The criticisms of Mann's work were on an arcane (by lay standards) technical point. They were *not* a damning of the entire technique of principal component analysis. Again, read through the NAS report for a thorough discussion of the various data sources and statistical techniques that have been applied to the historical climate record.

Sorry guys, the hockey stick is alive and well. Scientific investigation of the topic didn't stop with McIntyre's paper

 

[mhaze]

1) There is a mischaracterization that Mann's dataset is the definitive source for the "hockey stick". No. Mann collected his data via tree rings. Other studies using other sources of data have come up with similar results.

2) McIntyre's criticisms and the high attention paid to them by members of Congress resulted in the National Academy of Sciences being called in to referee the dispute. You can access their report here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676. In summary, they acknowledged some methodological issues with Mann's work, but substantiated what climate scientists would describe as the most important conclusions of Mann's work, that temperatures are going up, and have gone up sharply recently. They had high confidence in that conclusion over the last 400 years, but less confidence going back 1000 years. This is very similar to how the IPCC assessed the same data, with higher margins of error going back further in time.

This is the NAS' conclusion about M&M's criticism of Mann...

"As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al."

In other words, Mann's methods weren't the best, but the conclusions hold when better techniques are applied to the same data.

3) There is a mischaracterization that the same flaws in Mann's data apply to the independent sources for proxy climate data. In essence, there is an attempt to damn the other sources by association. But that doesn't hold. The criticisms of Mann's work were on an arcane (by lay standards) technical point. They were *not* a damning of the entire technique of principal component analysis. Again, read through the NAS report for a thorough discussion of the various data sources and statistical techniques that have been applied to the historical climate record.

Sorry guys, the hockey stick is alive and well. Scientific investigation of the topic didn't stop with McIntyre's paper

Really?

What else may that report have said?

Any better evidence that may indicate the hockey stick once more rises, zombie like, a verifiable walking dead?

 

[Schneibster]

All that's needed is to note that the chart Michaels presented that he claimed was the one Hansen presented, is not the one Hansen presented. That means Michaels lied. Anything else is just obfuscation intended to draw attention from the fact that Michaels lied.

 

[Raskolnikov123]

What else may that report have said?

I read out loud to my kids, not to adults. I expect them to actually show initiative when a link is provided.

Any better evidence that may indicate the hockey stick once more rises, zombie like, a verifiable walking dead?

What evidence would you consider better than that provided by the NAS?

 

[mhaze]

I have a high opinion of the NAS and of this report, but do not think that saying that it supports the zombie Hockey Stick accurately reflects its content at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

Interesting. I have received the oral testimony of Hansen from 1988, and it is quite different than expected. There is one or two pages which are a bit blurred, and I'm going to have to ask for them to be redone.

But just looking at this, here are my preliminary comments. I'm not sure how to address JREF Warmers arguments about "Michaels lying", because although they are of like mind that some type of lying happened, their comments are all over the map on how exactly it happened.

Mi point has remained crystal clear and focused. Michaels lied to Congress in 1998 about the Mann et al 1988 model, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony. These are two different things.

Then again, that really doesn't matter, does it.

It does, given that Michaels is prominent in the anti-AGW camp, and his 1998 lies are widely believed. It's important to get this point straight. Michaels is condemned from his mouth - just read his 1998 Congressional testimony (available via the Cato Institute website). Michaels claimed that the Hansen et al 1988 model predicted four times the warming in the 90's than really occurred, which it didn't.

There were no lies by Michaels.

See above.

Here's the Michaels money-shot yet again

"That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1)."

That model, not some testimony. It was the model Michaels lied about.

You're weird flutterings about Hansen's Congressional testimony in 1988 are inane. Michaels blatantly lied about the Hansen et al 1988 model. He did it to dishonestly discredit that model, which had in fact predicted 90's warming pretty accurately.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have a high opinion of the NAS and of this report, but do not think that saying that it supports the zombie Hockey Stick accurately reflects its content at all.

The NAS report supports the Mann et al reconstruction. I know that's just me saying it, but it's true.

There's a strange symmetry between your desperate defence of Michaels's lying testimony to Congress in '98 and the way you perceive the scientific defence of Mann et al. I'm not sure of the psychological term, but it might be "projection" or something similar.

 

[mhaze]

But just looking at this, here are my preliminary comments. I'm not sure how to address JREF Warmers arguments about "Michaels lying", because although they are of like mind that some type of lying happened, their comments are all over the map on how exactly it happened.

Mi point has remained crystal clear and focused. Michaels lied to Congress in 1998 about the Mann et al 1988 model, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony. These are two different things.

Exactly how crystal clear and focused your comment is speaks for itself.

 

[CapelDodger]

Exactly how crystal clear and focused your comment is speaks for itself.

I hope so. Clarity and precision is what I strive towards.

Your response speaks for yourself, of course. If you could see a chink you'd have tried to worm your way into it, but instead you make this sad post.

Michaels's lie wasn't about Hansen's Congressional testimony, it was about the Hansen et al model, and I suspect that fact is starting to get through to you.

 

[mhaze]

I hope so. Clarity and precision is what I strive towards.

Your response speaks for yourself, of course. If you could see a chink you'd have tried to worm your way into it, but instead you make this sad post.

Michaels's lie wasn't about Hansen's Congressional testimony, it was about the Hansen et al model, and I suspect that fact is starting to get through to you.

Michaels lied to Congress in 1998 about the Mann et al 1988 model, not about Hansen's 1988 testimony. These are two different things.
​

Exactly how crystal clear and focused your comment is speaks for itself.

Now which do you opine it was, some Mann Model or some Hansen model?

Perhaps a supermodel in the fashion show?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[mhaze]

Now, does that mean that a cycle has peaked and is going to start reversing? I surely hope so, but hope has no place in science. The data suggests that we are going to experience another warming in the next few years.

Another look at raw data.

The CRU says this is the global temperature over the last 5 years:
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.476
2006 0.422
2007 0.437
Flatline from 2003 to 2007. A slight cooling.
No rise.


As for the Southern Hemisphere …
2003 0.371
2004 0.299
2005 0.329
2006 0.288
2007 0.254
Almost back to 0.0.

NO WARMING.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then why is it that, considering how much the data has been revised, the AGWs are so absolutely (almost religiously) certain? One place I visited seemed to have it right that it's almost now considered immoral to be even skeptical of the AGW position. I've read comments (from whackjobs admittedly) in reply to skeptics that are along the lines of "I wish you and everyone like you would die."

I'm not at all certain. I'm considering the risk that will happen if it is correct, and most of what I have seen so far seems to suggest it is correct. If we are wrong, then we get a world that is far less reliant on fossil fuels, which have been a source of much of the conflict around the globe. If we are right, we prevent many serious problems.

 

[Schneibster]

Well, if we're going to invoke the CRU, let's make sure we read everything they have to say.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, if we're going to invoke the CRU, let's make sure we read everything they have to say.

You do understand that the data set at the end of the graph is measured with a different technique than the rest of the data?

 

[a_unique_person]

Another look at raw data.

The CRU says this is the global temperature over the last 5 years:
2003 0.465
2004 0.444
2005 0.476
2006 0.422
2007 0.437
Flatline from 2003 to 2007. A slight cooling.
No rise.


As for the Southern Hemisphere …
2003 0.371
2004 0.299
2005 0.329
2006 0.288
2007 0.254
Almost back to 0.0.

NO WARMING.

 

[CapelDodger]

If you want to get into technicalities, there are probably some random sets of data that wouldn't form hockey sticks, but that is a technicality only.

McIntyre used "red noise" which basically amounts to a data set that is built to have no trend at all. And it formed a hockey stick.

There's a distinction between "white noise" and "red noise". Both have no inherent trend, but while white noise is purely random ,red noise has an influence on subsequent events. (I'm sure - I hope ? - someone out there can handle this better than me.) A parameter in the statistical model defines how long the red noise influence extends. Long story short, McIntyre et al select a large parameter for no better reason than it serving their purpose - faking a hockey-stick.

That's how these people work.

But the hockey stick graph eliminates the medieval warm period and the little ice age ...

It doesn't; what it does is reveal that the global influence was far less than the anecdotal European evidence suggests to those not well-versed in the subject.

... which in effect makes the 'blade' look so much more worse than it actually is rather than a fairly normal reaction that is maybe slightly out of variance due to MM sources.

In truth it's the European/North Atlantic collective memory that's being called on to make the globally abnormal appear normal. That's why you say that the MWP and LIA aren't represented in Mann et al. They are there, but not with the amplitude you expect.

I'm going to drop the whole ice core graph discussion ...

And why not, it's not terribly relevant to what's currently going on.

... because I'm obviously not getting through to you as to why it's important for whatever reason.

And I'm obviously not getting across my point that it's only real importance is as a tactic to divert attention from the current situation.

I'll say one last time though, please read:

Skeptics Guide to Anthropogenic Globa Warming
(It's even a PDF.)

Editorial in the Wall Street Journal? I'm going to plough through that? WSJ journalism is upper-bracket, but WSJ editorial is frankly weird. I really don't think there'll be anything in there I haven't heard and laughed at before.

Correction, it was both late 90's and early 2000 temperatures. It's a recognized error, but the recognition was a paltry small announcement several days after it came out.

As I recall, McIntyre discovered a jump in US temperature records years after the event and made some significant noise about it. He didn't work out why it occurred, he just finally found a real nugget after a lot of digging. The scientists involved, made aware of the discrepancy, burrowed in to discover the cause. It took a few days to identify it, at which point they reported it and produced new reconstructions.

Compared to the fanfare that occurred when 1998 was wrongly declared the warmest year, you'd think they'd spend a little more effort on it.

I missed that fanfare myself. As far as I'm aware 1998 and 2005 are too close to call. It doesn't matter much, a dead-heat suffices.

And you're missing the point that I was/am still talking about the way they are going about things (by saying that it means squat, which I don't think it does... even if it doesn't change the data much, the way it was handled makes it seem like they are reluctant to let the scientific method do it's work).

I know you're trying to get your perception of what's going on across to me, I can even understand it. Your perception of this incident is exactly what McIntyre et al have projected, but it's a phantom.

Yes, but it doesn't matter how much one side is wrong if the other side is too. That's like two children in a playground who both punch some other kid there. Just because one did it doesn't justify the other doing it or make it right.

mhaze invited it, and as far as I'm concerned he's getting it.

Anyway, I think I'll try a bit of a different tact. If I recall correctly, a lot of this stuff has already been discussed and it went absolutely nowhere before.

Meanwhile, the world got warmer. And Diamond melted away.

The only reason I brought the topics up is because you asked me why I lean towards the Anti-AGW.

You brought these topics up quite independently. I asked, you answered, I said "thank you". I'm not chasing down your answer - as I said at the time, I wouldn't be at your throat over it. Nor am I.

So now I have a question for you, CD:

In the past on this thread, you've stated that you don't believe that statistics are a science.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics, and therefore scientific. Are actuaries scientists? It's a grey area.

How do you feel about the fact that a great deal of the IPCCs evidence relies on computer models that (like any model) relies quite heavily on statistics?

The bulk of the evidence is in observation. The theory behind AGW is well-established, as described in IPCC reports. Climate models are physical models, not statistical models.

A question for you : how do you regard Solar Cycle Science, which is entirely based on statistics? (No models, no theory, just statistics and "track-records".) Laughable, or what? David Rodale thinks SCS is sweet; is he deluded?

I'm also curious on thoughts about this article, which describes some potential problems with the structure of the IPCC:

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=1

Wow, things are so much nicer now that I can post links. It'll be a few days before I'm able to reply again, but I'm interested in reading what you think.

What I don't think is that the IPCC and its structure matter at all. The IPCC reports - four so far, over twenty years - collate the science that's going on, all of it referenced. This isn't science that the IPCC is doing or is even commissioning, all the IPCC does is report. Conservatively.

I think you should leaven your critical look outwards from the ClimateAudit et al environment with a critical look inwards from the normal world.

 

[CapelDodger]

You do understand that the data set at the end of the graph is measured with a different technique than the rest of the data?

The money-shot end of the graph )) is predicted, not measured. So what's this technique you speak of?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The money-shot end of the graph )) is predicted, not measured. So what's this technique you speak of?

No, No. The Vostok ice core data does not show the last 6 or 7 years of data. The recent data is extracted from a different technique (possibly with a different accuracy) and incorporated into the Vostok data. You do see the potential problems with this sort of incorporation?