How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Could you find some published peer reviewed work?

By the way. Your last reference is not from the NAS but some guy.

I call it a straw man because since Mann's result many others studies have been performed confirming Mann's initial observations. Not a single one contradicting it. The graph I constantly show with the hockey stick at the end contain Mann's and others results.

Could you find some published peer reviewed work?

Provided.

Your last reference is not from the NAS but some guy.

Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita...
"some guy???"

I call it a straw man because since Mann's result many others studies have been performed confirming Mann's initial observations. Not a single one contradicting it. The graph I constantly show with the hockey stick at the end contain Mann's and others results.

Really?

REPEATING NAS:

The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, I've seen all that. It's a minority view, and those who hold it are entitled to it. I just find the majority view - that the recent global increase in temperature is indeed unprecedented in the last couple of millenia - more convincing.

Who says this is a majority view? Even NAS, didn't they say 400 years and disavowed assertions as to a longer period?

 

[hammegk]

Who says this is a majority view?

The half-dozen AGW zealots (ohNo! OMG!) posting here.

 

[mhaze]

The half-dozen AGW zealots (ohNo! OMG!) posting here.

 

[Pixel42]

Who says this is a majority view?

The IPCC. Their reports summarise the consensus view, i.e. the majority view (unless you subscribe to one of the paranoid conspiracy theories about them).

From their latest report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume ed to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}

 

[mhaze]

The IPCC. Their reports summarise the consensus view, i.e. the majority view (unless you subscribe to one of the paranoid conspiracy theories about them).

From their latest report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Your quote that I objected to was this:
I just find the majority view - that the recent global increase in temperature is indeed unprecedented in the last couple of millenia - more convincing.

From your quote from the consensus of the few (IPCC):
Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.

"Unprecedented" is not the same as "unusual", and 1,300 years is not equal to " last couple of millenia".

So....???

 

[Alric]

Could you find some published peer reviewed work?

Provided.

Your last reference is not from the NAS but some guy.

Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita...
"some guy???"

I call it a straw man because since Mann's result many others studies have been performed confirming Mann's initial observations. Not a single one contradicting it. The graph I constantly show with the hockey stick at the end contain Mann's and others results.

Really?

REPEATING NAS:

The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

Maybe I missed it. Where is your peer reviewed work references refuting Mann.

The Nature published NAS conclusion was:

"The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not be embarrassed to have been involved in the work."

What you keep posting is a statistical detail that has little bearing in the overall work. Not to mention all other work that agrees with man.

 

[mhaze]

Maybe I missed it. Where is your peer reviewed work references refuting Mann.

Posted.

What you keep posting is a statistical detail that has little bearing in the overall work. Not to mention all other work that agrees with man.

Ah, it does look like I must post it yet again.
Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

Thus, Mann 1998 is useless.

What was M&M's conclusion?

 

[Alric]

Posted.


Ah, it does look like I must post it yet again.
Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

Thus, Mann 1998 is useless.

What was M&M's conclusion?

No. You haven't posted peer reviewed work disproving Mann.

The paragraph above this post taken from Nature mag and citing the NAS report disagrees with your assessment.

"The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report."

 

[a_unique_person]

No. You haven't posted peer reviewed work disproving Mann.

The paragraph above this post taken from Nature mag and citing the NAS report disagrees with your assessment.

"The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report."

McIntyres old web page has a link to his presentation at the NAS. He takes it so seriously, they listen, they say thanks, you're correct to an extent, but it doesn't really change anything. End of Story.

You would think. With McIntyre, though, it's in one ear, out the other. Instead we have the great "hockey stick" controversy that's like whirlwind around the blogosphere, but a storm in a teacup for the NAS.

 

[mhaze]

No. You haven't posted peer reviewed work disproving Mann.

Peer reviewed, published ...

McIntyre/McKitrick 2003
MM05 (GRL)
MM05(EE)
Reply to Huybers
Reply to von Storch

What was M&M's conclusion?

 

[a_unique_person]

E&E? They aren't fit to be classed as Peer reviewed, since they have not just once but repeatedly published utter rubbish.

 

[Alric]

Peer reviewed, published ...

McIntyre/McKitrick 2003
MM05 (GRL)
MM05(EE)
Reply to Huybers
Reply to von Storch

What was M&M's conclusion?

That's my point. None of those disproves Mann's work and only the GRL paper can be considered peer reviewed. They only discuss some statistical problems that the NAS and other scientific committees have found to not affect the overall conclusion.

None of those even begin to address the remaining body of work that later was found to be consistent with Mann's conclusion.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

If you follow that link you will find references to 10 studies that are in agreement with recent unprecedented warming. Or a hockey stick...

 

[Pixel42]

Your quote that I objected to was this:
I just find the majority view - that the recent global increase in temperature is indeed unprecedented in the last couple of millenia - more convincing.

From your quote from the consensus of the few (IPCC):
Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.

"Unprecedented" is not the same as "unusual", and 1,300 years is not equal to " last couple of millenia".

So....???

And there it is, exactly the response from you I expected to read when I logged back in this morning. I hope I'm not so predictable.

1. 1300 years is closer to 2000 years than it is to 400 years, which is the figure you were bandying about.

2. It says "at least".

3. 1300 years covers the Medieval Warm Period, which is the only period ever seriously suggested to have been warmer than it is now in the last 2000 years.

4. We agreed that "unprecedented in the last couple of millenia" was an appropriate approximate definition of "the hockey stick is true", but a shaft of 1300 years followed by a blade of 50 years would meet most people's definition of a hockey stick.

5. And here's the next couple of lines from the IPCC report, which I deliberately didn't quote last time to see if you'd latch onto the word "unusual" and interpret it as you have without bothering to read the context and find it what it really meant:

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.

The IPCC give the following definitions of what they mean when they use the terms 'very likely' and 'likely'.

very likely: 90–99% probability
likely: 66–90% probability

In other words the IPCC are stating very clearly that there is a 66-90% probability that the hockey stick is true, though of course they are far too staid to use such a phrase in an official report.

The IPCC summarises the majority consensus view, and that view still includes the hockey stick. Get over it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The half-dozen AGW zealots (ohNo! OMG!) posting here.

Welcome to one of the many Global Warfareming threads here.

Why do you say "AGW zealots"? Which parts of the OP do you subscribe to?

 

[TrueSceptic]

E&E? They aren't fit to be classed as Peer reviewed, since they have not just once but repeatedly published utter rubbish.

E&E was set up specifically to publish work of insufficient quality for 'Nature' or 'Science'. In addition the level of "peer review" used is frequently so poor as to be embarrassing. Sourcewatch Editor quoted

 

[mhaze]

And there it is, exactly the response from you I expected to read when I logged back in this morning. I hope I'm not so predictable......The IPCC summarises the majority consensus view, and that view still includes the hockey stick. Get over it.

You made a statement that is wrong:

I just find the majority view - that the recent global increase in temperature is indeed unprecedented in the last couple of millenia - more convincing.

I wouldn't hare objected if you had said 1300 years and if you had limited your assertion to NH. Prior to the MWP the Roman warm period was probably hotter than today, so even if you limit to NH you can't support 2-3k years.

Just another attempt to hijack mainstream science by fringe radical opinion.

 

[mhaze]

E&E was set up specifically to publish work of insufficient quality for 'Nature' or 'Science'. In addition the level of "peer review" used is frequently so poor as to be embarrassing. Sourcewatch Editor quoted

Sourcewatch as reference, now? Throw in some Bigcityliberal and a bit of Mediamatters, sprinked with BBC and Fenton communications.

 

[Pixel42]

You made a statement that is wrong

No I did not.

I stand by my statement: the opinion of the majority of climatologists is that the current warming is unprecedented in the last couple of millenia. There is ample evidence for that statement in the IPCC reports, and in the peer reviewed literature.

I repeat: I consider the evidence and arguments that support that majority opinion more convincing than the evidence and arguments that support the minority opinion that there has been a period in the last 2000 years, e.g. the Medieval Warm Period, when average global temperature was higher than it is now. Only a small number of climatologists hold that opinion.

 

[mhaze]

No I did not.

I stand by my statement: the opinion of the majority of climatologists is that the current warming is unprecedented in the last couple of millenia.

Clearly you stand by your opinion, but as for evidence, naught.