Moderated Global Warming Discussion

mhaze · May 17, 2012

Final Death of (Zombie) Hockey Stick

Gwynpaine said:
At a small political meeting I intend to begin a speech: <<<blah blah blah>>>....

Here's what you can quote if you've got the courage to. I don't think you do but let us know. You see, it goes contrary not to science but to AGW believers' beliefs.

Note it's from Rand Simberg, a well respected space scientist. Note it details the story of McIntyre's investigation of the Mannian hockey stick termperature series. Note it is fairly conclusive.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/

Then note the destruction of the pseudo scientific theory of the hockey stick by Simberg has this self-critical disclaimer:

What does this all mean? First, let’s state what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that we know that the planet isn’t warming, and it doesn’t mean that if it is, that we can be sure that it is not due to human activity.(I add: The exact same disclaimer that should have been placed in Mann's work, but was not, due to pious faith or...whatever)

So you can note that the actual process of science continues, in spite of fanatical believers. But the the Gorian and the Mann supporters of the hockey stick are flat wrong.

Cheers!

Trakar · May 17, 2012

Gwynpaine said:
At a small political meeting I intend to begin a speech:

“fewer than three percent of the top climatologists think the IPCC report was too “alarmist.” Their voices, though few, are widely heard. But at least x per cent of top climatologists think that the IPCC report was too conservative. Although global catastrophe is not imminent, according to these scientists , the decisions that may avert global catastrophe have to be taken very soon........”

I would like a definite order of magnitude for x. My authority for the three per cent extreme skeptics is Anderegg, Schneider and Jacobson. It is in line with other studies. Counting and measuring and defining expert opinion must always involve some spurious exactitude, of course, but that is the number thrown up by the most objective study I have been able to locate. My faith in Anderegg s is fortified by the feebleness of the only objections I have been able to locate (Bodenstein, Aarstad, Pielke pere et fils). If Anderegg et al have counted the peer review papers correctly the objection must be that masses of valid papers have been uncounted because unpublished. Such a massive subversion of peer review would surely leave a massive trail of evidence. It such a trail existed it would not have been necessary to create such a mountainous fuss over the molehill known as Climategate

The MIT Joint program and some NASA scientists are among the extreme “alarmists” whose findings I intend to report. Any others?

The problem you present has several aspects, and I am unaware of any firm answer that I find compelling and rigorous.

Among the aspects, science by the nature of its processes, is very conservative and highly qualified. Given this, it is unlikely that many (if any)scientists consider mainstream climate science to be "too conservative." You rightfully distinguish between the IPCC reports and the state of mainstream climate science, but this is a trickier proposition to properly identify and qualify. You seem to be looking for a "quick and dirty" percentage here and in looking at your potential argument as outlined, I'm not sure that this angle of attack would be as compelling as some might think. It is probably better to explain the governmental positions that force even strongly conservative science findings to be filtered through additional standards of evidence and qualification.

Likewise it is important to establish the understanding that while climate science evolves with each published paper, IPCC reports usually cutoff the publications they look at 1-2 years prior to their report release date and new IPCC reports only come out every 6-7 years. The bigger issue to my considerations isn't that the IPCC reports are onerously conservative, it is that by the time a report has been released, and a year or so has been spent digesting and interpreting the findings, the vast majority of the science which the reports are based upon is 5-10 years old and by the time we approach the release of a new IPCC report, the findings of the last report are based upon science that is 10-15+ years old.

It isn't always the case of the science being "too conservative," often it is simply an issue that the mainstream climate science understandings and positions have evolved from the science understandings and positions that the IPCC reports are based upon.

Reality Check · May 18, 2012

Not The Final Death of (Zombie) Hockey Stick

mhaze said:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/
So you can note that the actual process of science continues, in spite of fanatical believers.

So you misseed that this is a article in a political blog that does not cite any new science about the hockey stick graph :jaw-dropp

?

Steve McIntyre's blog post that is indirectly cited is about the Yamal tree code proxy data. It is well known that tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. Thus the hockey tree graqph did not include the post-1960 data. Steve McIntyre though has done different analysis and added more core data to show his reconstructions differ from the original reconstructions. This difference shows up after 1960. The reconstructions differ significantly after 1980.

So you also should note that Steve McIntyre has not made any actual process of science since this is just a blog post. Actual process of science includes publishing your results in a peer-reviewed journal. For some reason Steve McIntyre does not seem to have published anything about the hockey stick graph in climate journals since 2005.

Warmer1 · May 18, 2012

mhaze said:
Here's what you can quote if you've got the courage to. I don't think you do but let us know.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/

Yes, you can quote that if you have the courage to quote outdated, irrelevant and thoroughly debunked information.

If you are interested in the actual temperature data rather than some nonsense blog post, you may want to read this study which supports Mann's work.

http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/

"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives."

Links to the data sets are provided on the same page. (IOW no data is being hidden)

The homepage
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

"A New Assessment of Global Warming
The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study sets out to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies.

Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."

http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/

Berkeley Earth Land Temperature Anomaly Video (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has also put together a video representation of our analysis of global land-surface temperature from 1800 to the present, available here. http://berkeleyearth.org/movies/

Would anyone just happen to know how long it has been since the first independent study debunked any wrongdoing with Climategate? I wonder how long it has been since someone on this forum accurately predicted that the deniers would have to cling to the dishonesty of Climategate for a very long time? Even after five reviews of Climategate cleared the scientists so long ago Mhaze still doesn't understand what happened? How is this possible?

Mhaze, the data presented in the article that you posted is so out of date. I'm guessing that you missed the Berkley Project which fully supports the CRU data in the graph that your bogus article linked to.

The Berkeley Project is great. Deniers paid to prove themselves wrong. How long will it be before deniers start attacking the study that they paid for? When will the next denier try and use the debunked Climategate fiasco to try and discredit the Berkeley Project?

It does take courage to quote nonsense that's for sure.

Trakar · May 19, 2012

A few Climate Change items

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cl...novation-according-to-boiler-guide-2012-05-18
press release
May 18, 2012, 12:04 p.m. EDT
Climate Change is Leading to Rapid Boiler Innovation According to Boiler Guide

…One of the best carbon neutral ways to heat a property is through the use of a biomass boiler. Biomass consists of organic matter such as plant or wood, which is often reduced to pellet form. The carbon produced through the burning of biomass is offset by the carbon taken in by the organic matter during its growth, making it entirely carbon neutral as well as a sustainable source of energy providing that more trees are planted as replacements.
High efficiency central heating boilers can also go a long way towards cutting down a home's carbon emissions. High efficiency 'A' rated condensing boilers convert 90% or more of their fuel into heat, compared to 70% or below for old G rated boilers, by retaining the heat that would normally be wasted through the flue of a non-condensing boiler…

www.boilerguide.co.uk

===========================================
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107837
Industrialised Countries Under Critical Spotlight at U.N. Meet
By Julio Godoy

BONN, Germany, May 18, 2012 (IPS) - The latest session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), taking place May 15-25 in the former German capital Bonn, is the perfect opportunity to reaffirm the enormous and growing body of scientific expertise on policies to tackle global warming.

During the current session, attended by hundreds of scientists, environmental activists, and government delegates from all over the world, the UNFCCC – the agency tasked with fulfilling the obligations of the Kyoto Protocol – is hosting numerous workshops for at least five groups dedicated to debates and decision-making on climate change.

The UNFCCC is also obliged to hold international debates on a follow up treaty that is expected to take effect in 2013. Until now, despite mounting pressure and numerous attempts to reach an agreement on a post-Kyoto protocol, there is no global consensus on how to continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), the primary culprit of global warming…

==========================================

Trakar · May 19, 2012

CapelDodger said:
"All models are wrong but some are useful", the saying goes, and I don't see that model as one of the useful ones, frankly. It's a rare Republican Member who'd vote for a National Clean Energy Standard, and no Republican President would sign off on one in the near future.

If Obama gets a second term, the Democrats recapture the House, and they get a filibuster-proof Senate majority then we may see one in the next few years. Otherwise, fuggedaboudit.

More about the poll -
- 58 percent of poll respondents said that protecting the environment improves economic growth and creates new jobs. Just 17 percent thought environmental protection hurts growth and jobs, and 25 percent thought there was no effect.

Trakar · May 19, 2012

mhaze · May 19, 2012

Warmer1 said:
Yes, you can quote that if you have the courage to quote outdated, irrelevant and thoroughly debunked information.

If you are interested in the actual temperature data rather than some nonsense blog post, you may want to read this study which supports Mann's work.

http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/

"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives."

Links to the data sets are provided on the same page. (IOW no data is being hidden)

The homepage
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

"A New Assessment of Global Warming
The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study sets out to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies.

Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."

http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/

Berkeley Earth Land Temperature Anomaly Video (October 2011)

The Berkeley Earth team has also put together a video representation of our analysis of global land-surface temperature from 1800 to the present, available here. http://berkeleyearth.org/movies/

Would anyone just happen to know how long it has been since the first independent study debunked any wrongdoing with Climategate? I wonder how long it has been since someone on this forum accurately predicted that the deniers would have to cling to the dishonesty of Climategate for a very long time? Even after five reviews of Climategate cleared the scientists so long ago Mhaze still doesn't understand what happened? How is this possible?

Mhaze, the data presented in the article that you posted is so out of date. I'm guessing that you missed the Berkley Project which fully supports the CRU data in the graph that your bogus article linked to.

The Berkeley Project is great. Deniers paid to prove themselves wrong. How long will it be before deniers start attacking the study that they paid for? When will the next denier try and use the debunked Climategate fiasco to try and discredit the Berkeley Project?

It does take courage to quote nonsense that's for sure.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against. Like I said, the final nail in the coffin of the "Hockey Stick" has been nailed shut.

You might consider that if some people replicate the mathematics of the HS algorithms, and publish saying it is bogus, then find access to the full group of original data sets through freedom of information act stymied by legal processes, that there is a question as to who is right. Recently, the last of those data sets became, finally, available. Now they support the conclusion of what you call "deniers". Deniers of the HS were therefore right.

Are you agreeing with that, and saying it doesn't matter because there is more recent data?

Or what?

mhaze · May 20, 2012

Reality Check said:
So you misseed that this is a article in a political blog that does not cite any new science about the hockey stick graph ?

Steve McIntyre's blog post that is indirectly cited is about the Yamal tree code proxy data. It is well known that tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. Thus the hockey tree graqph did not include the post-1960 data. Steve McIntyre though has done different analysis and added more core data to show his reconstructions differ from the original reconstructions. This difference shows up after 1960. The reconstructions differ significantly after 1980.

So you also should note that Steve McIntyre has not made any actual process of science since this is just a blog post. Actual process of science includes publishing your results in a peer-reviewed journal. For some reason Steve McIntyre does not seem to have published anything about the hockey stick graph in climate journals since 2005.

No, you are incorrect, apparently not having read the article I linked to.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/mcintyre-gets-some-new-yamal-data-still-no-hockey-stick/

And I'm not sure that as the new data vindicates yet again the old conclusions, there would be any reason to "republish". Maybe so, maybe not. However, there certainly is reason to note it in a blog post such as this.

The basic story is this:

McIntyre refutes Mann's study, finds no hockey stick in data
controversy arises
Guys like Briffa block FOA requests for data sets to solve the matter
Finally in 2012 McIntyre gets data sets and he was right the first time
No hockey stick

steenkh · May 20, 2012

mhaze said:
The basic story is this:

McIntyre refutes Mann's study, finds no hockey stick in data

controversy arises

Guys like Briffa block FOA requests for data sets to solve the matter

Finally in 2012 McIntyre gets data sets and he was right the first time

No hockey stick

So what about the other studies that confirm the hockey stick?

Reality Check · May 21, 2012

mhaze said:
No, you are incorrect, apparently not having read the article I linked to.

You need to goi back and read your post.:

mhaze said:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/

That is a politica blog.
It is not WattsUpWthThat.
It is not the orginal source which is Steve McIntyre's blog post that you do not seem to have read.
The actual story is this:

In 2005, McIntyre refutes Mann's study, finds no hockey stick in data
Multiple authors refute McIntyre paper.
From 2005 to today, McIntyre publishes nothing about the hockey stick in a climate sceince journal.
In 2012 McIntyre gets data sets unrelated to thehockey stick
In 2012 McIntyre makes no comments about the hockey stick.
The hockey stick remains validated by multiple sources:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

Click to expand...

Steve McIntyre's blog post IMO vindicates the the original and current stance of climate science that it is stupid to use high northern latitude tree cores as temperature proxies after the 1960s (generally taken as 1960) because something is causing them to decline below the instrumental record.
See Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem.

Steve McIntyre's blog post has little relevance to Mann's hockey stick graph because that graph did not include post 1960 proxy data from Briffra, i.e. the "blade" in the hockey stick is instrumental data.
Steve McIntyre may be ignorant of the evidence that these tree cores are (relatively!) reliable for 1000 years before 1960, e.g. Cook 2004 (PDF).

Warmer1 · May 21, 2012

mhaze said:
I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against.

I believe you on this point.

You might consider that if some people replicate the mathematics

I think this may be why you may be mistaken about AGW. "Some people" probably think the Earth is still flat. Using "some people" as your source of expertise does not help your case.

then find access to the full group of original data sets through freedom of information act stymied by legal processes,

The data sets have been posted for all to see for a long time. 1.6 billion data points are available to be exact. No one is hiding anything. You may want to update your information.

that there is a question as to who is right.

"Some people" are right? or the most qualified scientists working in this specific field of science are right?

Recently, the last of those data sets became, finally, available.

I'm sorry that you just found out about the information that has been posted for a while and I understand your continued misunderstanding about the science much better now.

the final nail in the coffin of the "Hockey Stick" has been nailed shut.

The hockey stick graph is supported by all of the academies of science around the world. You could challenge yourself to find just one academy of science that doesn't, again, that is just one academy of science that supports your opinion. Just one! Then you might want to ask yourself why you spend time here trying to convince people that understand the science to believe something else?

1.6 billion data points, and the Berkeley Project confirm the hockey stick graph is correct, as you can see at the Berkley project link above and it is there for all to see so you may want to remember that.

The video ling below provides Dr Mann's presentation to congress under oath.

2:52 "The hockey stick graph is common to a number of similar studies"

Again, There is a long list of international scientific organizations that have reached similar conclusions.

6:00 ish The National Academies of Science ( rather than "some people" ) come to the same conclusions as Micheal Mann (pg 116 of the National Academies of Science study) and they conclude "The hockey stick graph is intrinsic to the data"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2GlooAPkM

is more recent data?

What year did you stop looking at the data? 2008?

More importantly, are you willing to look at the data at all? as well as the relevant conclusions? The Berkeley Project was funded by people that wanted to disprove that AGW was happening. I think that given the overwhelming data that is available if you continue to revert to what "some people" claim to attempt support your opinions you may not get much response. You are likely getting your information from unqualified sources.

The Climategate hacking is dead and gone along with the "data is being hidden" meme. The data is available for all to see. Next.

Hope this helps

bit_pattern · May 21, 2012

steenkh said:
So what about the other studies that confirm the hockey stick?

Or the fact that you can remove the disputed data-set from the original study and still return the same trend?

CapelDodger · May 22, 2012

Here are a few things which will remain true in the minds of some people until they breathe their last :

The data is not available.
The code is not available.
There has been no warming since 1995.
All of AGW rests on the Hockey-Stick.

This requires the ability to still be living before BEST (a more common skill than one might think, in my experience). Living in the past can be so much more comfortable than an unwelcome present, let alone facing up to what's coming in the next few brief years.

The work which McIntyre is demanding access to is due for publication in October this year, but we can rest assured that in some minds it will remain unpublished for ever.

lomiller · May 22, 2012

Reality Check said:
In 2005, McIntyre refutes Mann's study, finds no hockey stick in data

Multiple authors refute McIntyre paper.

From 2005 to today, McIntyre publishes nothing about the hockey stick in a climate sceince journal.

In 2012 McIntyre gets data sets unrelated to thehockey stick

In 2012 McIntyre makes no comments about the hockey stick.

The hockey stick remains validated by multiple sources:
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

You missed the one where a dozen other papers get the same hockey stick even thought they do not contain the "error" McIntyre wrote his paper on. In fact most of them don't even use the technique in question.

(Oh and none of these groups have any trouble going to the original sources to get the data for their analysis. Imagine that. Meanwhile McIntyre still can't manage to accumulate enough data to perform an analysis f his own even though it's publicly available on the internet.)

Trakar · May 22, 2012

Reality Check said:
[/LIST]Steve McIntyre's blog post IMO vindicates the the original and current stance of climate science that it is stupid to use high northern latitude tree cores as temperature proxies after the 1960s (generally taken as 1960) because something is causing them to decline below the instrumental record.
See Tree-ring proxies and the divergence problem.

Especially since we seem to be coming to the conclusion that it is probably the extra CO2, aerosols and warming temperatures in the atmosphere are a big part of the divergence issue with some tree-ring samples.

"On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes" (2007) - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

"Evidence of changing intrinsic water-use efficiency under rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Boreal Fennoscandia from subfossil leaves and tree ring δ13C ratios" (2010) - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

"Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes" (2009) - http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.long

(more available)

CapelDodger · May 22, 2012

It's May 2012 and the denier talking-point is Steve McIntyre and the broken-again Hockey-Stick. Even mhaze is here. Did I dream the last seven years, with all that crazy Heatland and Monckton stuff?

McIntyre has only ever had two good ideas, but they have staying-power. One was to stage his attack at an abstruse level which his target audience has no clue about, but which can be personalised - Mann, Briffa, Jones - something they do understand. The other was to use FoI requests to imply that things are being hidden - and if the requests (nay, demands) are legitimately rejected, so much the better.

Heatland and Monckton have long peaked but McIntyre soldiers on, flogging the same dead horse. It's a funny old world, and I wouldn't have missed it for anything

.

CapelDodger · May 22, 2012

Warmer1 said:
The Berkeley Project was funded by people that wanted to disprove that AGW was happening.

The BEST project was, I think, a defining moment in the AGW denial story.

At first glance the whole thing looked like a set-up, and I don't doubt the Kochs assumed that funding determines results. What they weren't ready for was an honest statistician and a media-whore, sorry, that should read maverick like Muller.

The Climategate hacking is dead and gone ...

Au contraire, there are still questions to be answered, the most obvious of which is why most of the stolen emails are still being kept secret by the thieves. What on Earth is that all about?

along with the "data is being hidden" meme. The data is available for all to see. Next.

There is no "next" for pre-BESTians, trapped as they are in 2009 or so for eternity, reliving the same triumphs and the blessed long-term cooling trend we'd entered back then, oh yes. It's just the same thing after another for those poor souls, but there's nothing to be done for them I'm afraid.

Trakar · May 23, 2012

CapelDodger said:
The BEST project was, I think, a defining moment in the AGW denial story.

At first glance the whole thing looked like a set-up, and I don't doubt the Kochs assumed that funding determines results. What they weren't ready for was an honest statistician and a media-whore, sorry, that should read maverick like Muller.

I still don't give Muller much personal credit for anything other than being smart enough to understand that his work was going to undergo peer-review and he had to carefully report his findings. His personal druthers always have been, and are still, in the denier camp. There are and were too many in the science community looking too carefully at all the work being done for there to be anything but a straght forward evaluation of the data.

CapelDodger · May 24, 2012

Heatland takes another step back towards obscurity :

Joe Bast Announces the Death of Denial-a-Palooza at Final Heartland ICCC Conference

http://www.desmogblog.com/joe-bast-announces-death-denial-palooza-final-heartland-iccc-conference

During his closing remarks at the Heartland Institute's Seventh "International Conference on Climate Change," Heartland President Joseph Bast revealed that the group has no plans to hold another conference and is struggling to pay its staff following the defections of corporate sponsors in the wake of the disastrous Unabomber billboard campaign and Deniergate document dump.

The Heatland train-wreck this year must be golden for McIntyre, who lost most of his spotlight following that first glitzy meeting in Manhattan, not least because it was Monckton's breakthrough gig. (Monckton will soon be back to playing small halls and bierkellars; he's now folded Birtherism prominently into his act and there's no way back from there.)

Nothing associated with Monckton can possibly prosper, of course, but Joe Bast has certainly done his bit for the drawn-out catastrophe :

"I'm not a good fundraiser," Bast admitted to the crowd today ...

Well, d'uh.

All is revealed at http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-and-the-mob/.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Critical Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Critical Thinker

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!